Guinea: A Human Rights Crisis Swept Under the Rug

I was scrolling through the Human Rights Watch webpage, and I happened to notice an article on Guinea, a small West African nation. I have never really seen Guinea on the news, so I was eager to learn about what is going on there. My subsequent research on Guinea was very surprising. Although it has not been widely broadcasted by the media, this nation has been under authoritarian rule since 1984. Today, I wanted to get into some of the human rights failures that have occurred recently, which requires a basic knowledge of the last 28 years in Guinea. Here's a brief timeline to give you an idea:

1984: Lansana Conte stages a military coup and establishes an authoritarian regime. During his rule, he responded to opposition with violence, resulting in murder of many innocents.

2008: Conte dies, and a small group of military officers stage a non-violent coup. They call their party the National Council for Democracy and Development. This bloodless coup caused hope of greater respect for human rights.

2009: On September 28, more than ten thousand opposition supporters gathered peacefully in a stadium to protest the President's military rule. The President's personal guard, as well as anti-riot police and militia opened fire, killing more than 150 civilians. Rape and sexual assault definitely also occurred in mass proportions.

2010: Elections in Guinea, swearing in of new President Alpha Conde.

After doing some research, I looked at the major public news sources' coverage of Guinea. Well, CNN and MSNBC had a few articles about the 2010 election, and Fox News just had a lot of articles about guinea pigs...but I was shocked that there was little coverage about the stadium massacre. After all, if 150 people had been killed in Egypt, Western Europe, or Israel, we would all know about it. The nation of Guinea (and many other African states) is being overlooked because it isn't a news hotspot, and the mass media wants the public to focus on Libya, Iraq, or the good ol' US of A. Human rights are definitely being violated in Guinea, and a lot of people are being oppressed. However, awareness is limited because, somehow, Guinea is not "significant" enough for us to know about it.

Moving on and looking towards the future, I truly hope that President Alpha Conde upholds his promises of equality and respect. After all, his was the first democratic election in Guinea since 1958, which is admirable. Also, he has been the leader of his party for a long time without any major abuses. However, it is worrisome that Conde often goes back on his word (for example, praising and scorning the 2008 coup within a matter of months). Because his inauguration is so recent, I believe that only time will tell, though I hope that any mishaps will be widely publicized and rapidly responded to, to avoid another tragedy like the 2009 stadium murders.

What's On My Dinner Plate?

I started this blog with the intention of discussing the inherent rights of humans. However, Michael Pollan's fantastic book called Omnivore's Dilemma has inspired me to post about the rights of our furry friends, the animals of the world. Pollan discusses and criticizes the industrial food system, a complex network that is essentially built upon a river of corn. Because corn is heavily subsidized, the huge surplus is used to feed to cows. Perfect solution, right? Not exactly. Cows are not designed to digest corn, and when it is fed to them in large quantities, their stomachs become acidic and their livers can develop large abscesses. Furthermore, industrial feedlots have serious effects upon the environment (waste and fertilizer runoff from such feedlots have created the giant dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico) and human health (industrial meat has become a cheap commodity and excessive beef-eating has inflamed obesity in the US).

In my opinion, meat-eating is not morally wrong, as long as it is done humanely and sustainably. However, the blatant mistreatment that the animals in feedlots is a sickening violation of animal rights. Furthermore, people have a right to know where their food came from, and the industry's attempt to hide that process is simply wrong. The workers in the meat industry are also horribly mistreated, considered no better than the meat that they slaughter at pitifully low wages.Industrial feedlots are by no means natural or "okay"-cows were not meant to be fed corn, chickens were not meant to have their beaks chopped off, and food was not meant to be pumped full of antibiotics and synthetics.

For all these reasons and more, I have become an advocate of sustainable agriculture. That means that I don't eat meat that was produced under these cruel, unsustainable, unhealthy conditions. Even if The Omnivore's Dilemma doesn't inspire a major lifestyle change for you, it will show you what goes into producing each and every meal that you eat, from a midnight McDonald's run to ten-course gourmet feast.

Osama bin Later? Mixed Emotions Towards the Death of Bin Laden

At the beginning of May, President Obama announced that Osama bin Laden, infamous leader of the terrorist group Al-Qaeada, had been killed in a covert operation in Pakistan. I heard the news during a study break in which I was perusing the Internet, and I experienced a broad array of emotions. Relief that such a despicable individual would no longer pose a threat to international security, guilt for being relieved about the loss of a human life, and concern that Al-Qaeada would unite under rage to become even more powerful. Upon reflection, however, I have come to realize that all of these emotions have their place in this situation.

There is no denying that bin Laden destroyed the lives of innumerable citizens, most of whom were completely innocent. He was clearly a human rights violator of the worst kind. The number of deaths that Osama bin Laden can be held responsible for is estimated to be as high as 100,000. Furthermore, it is speculated that "taking bin Laden alive" would have been almost impossible because of the high-security facility that he was being housed in. Therefore, killing him was not an immoral or unwise decision. If Osama bin Laden was to be taken, death was really the only option. However, I feel that the cries of "USA, USA" that could be heard around America mark an inappropriate response. Obviously, those who lost family and friends in the 9-11 attacks have the right to be relieved. But the waving of American flags and rejoicing over death is rather childish. After all, murder is hardly something that the US should be claiming "bragging rights" on.

There is also the issue of Al-Qaeada's reaction to the death of their leader. Whether or not it was the right thing to do, many Islamist radical groups have already expressed outrage over bin Laden's demise. Will this cause violence against the US? Will terrorist groups act on their cries to avenge Osama bin Laden's death? Only time will tell, but rejoicing over this death only exacerbates obvious tensions. My conclusion? We can all breathe a sigh of relief now that Osama bin Laden is no longer a threat. However, before the United States becomes immersed in joy, we must remember that there are still threats to our security. Killing Osama is only the beginning, and those who assume that this incident will result in the degradation of Al-Qaeada don't appreciate the power of these highly-organized terrorist groups.

Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/world/asia/osama-bin-laden-is-killed.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/july2009/020709top2.jpg

Giving African Farmers the Opportunity to Support Themselves!

I got my first issue of the New Internationalist in the mail today, and I am hooked. I really enjoyed a short article on the issues that impoverished African peanut farmers have been having. The requirement of food safety standards has been crippling to many impoverished African farmers (who make up 60% of the population) because they cannot afford to test their crops. This is a difficult situation, because food quality testing is extremely important. However, International Agricultural Research Center for Semi-Arid Tropics is producing a testing kit in Malawi. that is only $1 instead of the typical $25. Since the introduction of these discounted kits, over 4,000 farmers have sent safe peanuts to Europe. The success in Malawi has paved the way for the transfer of this project to other nations.

Many would look upon this occurrence and scoff, stating that peanut farmers can hardly make a difference in the overall improvement of Africa. I, however, have to disagree. I was talking to my friend about economic struggles in Africa, and I came to the realization that charity benefits and NGO's will do absolutely NO positive longterm effect upon poverty in Africa unless they succeed in empowering and educating Africans. Unless these people become independent, the "problem of Africa" will never be fixed. Obviously, there are steps that need to be accomplished before Africa becomes totally self-sufficient. The Western world must no longer accept the rule of cruel, murdering dictators. We can no longer ignore the pleas for help coming from victims of disease and genocide. The United States cannot shut its eyes to the poverty that seems omnipresent in Africa. Of course these changes will not happen in a month, year, or decade. However, with continual hard work, I believe that the world can make the necessary steps to make Africa self-reliant. And that's awesome.