By Julia Kallas
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 3 2013 (IPS)

For the estimated 140 million girls and women living with the consequences of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), it is already too late. But since a global ban on FGM was passed at the end of last year, activists hope many more will now escape this brutal practice.

Alvilda Jablonko. Credit: Julia Kallas/IPS

Alvilda Jablonko, coordinator of the No Peace Without Justice Programme on FGM, has been fighting for such a ban in the U.N. General Assembly since 2010. It was finally adopted Dec. 20, 2012.

‘‘So it is a new chapter, it is a new tool,” she told IPS. “(But) it is just a tool and it is only as effective as the use that is made of it.”

IPS correspondent Julia Kallas spoke with Jablonko about how this ban will have an impact on the ground. Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: What were the main barriers you came through while trying to advocate the resolution to ban FGM worldwide?

A: I think that the adoption of the resolution at the United Nations was definitely a struggle by the states that are most concerned by the issue. So Burkina Faso is one of the countries that have been the leaders at a national level in combating FGM and they really could take the lead on this issue.

They worked very closely with NGOs on the ground and even with the NGOs coalition. They naturally worked to encourage these states to take action at the national level.

Q: What is the main role of No Peace Without Justice in this struggle?

A: No Peace Without Justice has been working for the past 10 years on the issue. It is an organisation founded by Emma Bonino, who is a former European Union commissioner for humanitarian affairs and now the vice president of the Italian Senate. She has been at the forefront of the fight for women’s rights worldwide.

No Peace Without Justice joined a number of organisations, African organisations mainly, that had already been involved in this fight for decades. So what No Peace Without Justice has focused on in collaboration with many of the activists on the ground has been to push governments to take their responsibility and not let all the work be done by activists on the ground.

Q: What is the next step?

A: Now that the resolution has been adopted the next step is going to be to get it implemented on the ground. Many states are already doing a great deal, but there is a need to be harmonisation at regional and subregional level.

(In) bordering states, where there are laws in one and not laws in the other, people cross the border so they can have it committed on their girls in a state where it is not against the law.

So hopefully this is going to give a big push to states to start taking it more to heart, and also for the resources to be freed up so that this fight can really be undertaken in a serious way.

Q: How much of an impact on the ground will the resolution have?

A: I think a great deal. In the first place because of the activists who pushed their governments to take this action at the level of the U.N. These activists have achieved something amazing. They are not going to stop. They are going to be really energised and strengthened by this. They are going to be able to go back to their communities, governments, parliaments and ministries and get them to really start the ball rolling now.

There is a wonderful quotation by a member of the parliament from Kenya, Hon. Linah Jebii Kilimo, who pushed and succeeded in getting a law in Kenya to ban FGM there. And she was saying that now what this does in her case is that it really legitimates what she has done nationally at the international level.

All activists worldwide helped in our work. The resolution was really spearheaded by Kilimo. As I said, and because they have been so strong at combating FGM at home, they were the natural leaders for this. The (Kenyan) First Lady (Lucy Kibaki) is a very strong activist on many things, including FGM, and she was the international coordinator for this campaign. She really did a great deal of work, also lobbying with her fellow first ladies from other countries.

One of the organisations that we work with is the Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children. They are a group of committees in all 29 countries in Africa and all of them were active at the national level encouraging their countries to really work on this.

Excerpt:

By Julia Kallas
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 11 2012 (IPS)

Today, approximately 125 countries have laws that penalise domestic violence – a great advance from a decade ago. Yet 603 million women around the world still live in countries where domestic violence is not a crime, and up to seven in ten women are targeted for physical or sexual violence, or both.

One organisation that has worked for the past two years to protect and empower women is U.N. Women, the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. Lakshmi Puri, deputy executive director of the organisation, described what it has achieved so far.

Lakshmi Puri, assistant secretary-general of the United Nations and deputy executive director of U.N. Women. Credit: Ryan Brown/U.N. Women

”U.N. Women is today a coherent, unified organisation that has achieved concrete results that go from…enhancing women’s voices in decision-making in communities, to leveraging and influencing national and international planning processes,” Puri told IPS.

But as the statistics indicate, much more remains to be done before women’s rights are fully realised. Puri spoke to IPS correspondent Julia Kallas about the achievements, challenges, expectations and future of U.N. Women. Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: U.N. Women turns two in January. What have been some high points since the founding of U.N. Women?

A: U.N. Women has heavily emphasised increasing women’s political participation. Women must have a say in the decisions that affect their lives and their communities. Our efforts in 14 countries contributed directly to five countries’ increasing the number of women elected to office. And in one year the number of countries with women comprising at least 30 percent of parliament has risen from 27 to 33.

We are also actively supporting women’s representation at the local level. In India, for example, U.N. Women is training 65,000 elected women representatives in village councils to become more effective leaders.

To enhance women’s participation in peacebuilding and post-conflict recovery, U.N. Women has successfully advocated for an agreement to earmark at least 15 percent of all U.N.-managed peacekeeping funds for programmes on gender equality.

Women’s economic empowerment is another key area of our work. Financial security gives women the independence they need to take informed decisions for themselves and their families. So our interventions try to enhance governments’ abilities to improve women’s access to assets, markets, services and decent work.

Ending violence against women remains a top priority. It is a scourge of pandemic proportions, affecting up to 70 percent of women and girls. U.N. Women is working in 85 countries to prevent violence in the first place, to end impunity for these crimes, and to expand essential services to survivors.

Gender equality and women’s empowerment remains a universal challenge and requires actions by all. We know there is still a long road ahead, but we are on the right track. We are working with and in all countries to carry out our universal mandate and we are constantly making progress.

Q: What do you consider the greatest challenges for U.N. Women and women around the world next year and beyond?

A: Many obvious gaps remain in protecting women’s human rights and in advancing their rightful role in development, peace and security. In 2012, our priorities were to make a renewed push for women’s economic empowerment and political participation.

In the months ahead, we will focus on ending violence against women. Next March, the focus of the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women will be to tackle violence against women and girls. Expectations are high for governments to agree on strengthened international frameworks to end violence against women and girls.

In this context, U.N. Women launched COMMIT, an initiative that encourages governments to implement international agreements on ending violence against women and commit to new, concrete steps to end it.

Funding is another challenge we face. Women still constitute a majority of the world’s poor. They are directly and indirectly affected by the financial and economic crisis, as is funding for U.N. Women and women’s organisations around the world. We need all donors to prioritise funding for gender equality and women’s empowerment at this critical time.

In addition to being the right thing to do, it is also the smart thing to do, as evidence shows that investing in women’s empowerment will have an exponential impact on social and economic development.

Q: As emerging economies such as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) countries grow in political and economic influence, how well have women’s rights kept pace with this development?

A: Some countries have shown deep commitment to gender equality and women’s empowerment and have adopted special policies and measures to rectify deep rooted poverty, customs- and tradition-related biases and gender stereotyping.

Yet we have seen that economic growth does not necessarily translate to greater gender equality. In middle income countries – including the BRICS – remain large numbers of poor people. A disproportionate majority of them are women. As a result, governments, including the BRICS, continue to proactively address this issue.

Q: What are your expectations for getting a comprehensive gender perspective into a post-2015 development framework and the Sustainable Development Goals that are currently being negotiated?

A: What we need is a truly transformative development agenda that can drive change on systemic issues and structural causes of discrimination, including unequal power relations, social exclusion and multiple forms of discrimination.

The framework should therefore focus on women’s rights, eliminating gender-based violence, promoting sexual and reproductive health and rights, access to essential infrastructure and services and political and economic empowerment – all in the broader context of poverty eradication.

The framework should also recognise that gender inequality is the mother of all inequalities. It is not yet clear what the format of the post-2015 development framework will be, but in any case, U.N. Women advocates for a strong focus on gender equality and women’s empowerment.

If we are about to turn a new leaf in terms of a more sustainable, equitable and people-centred development model and framework, we need to empower and fully tap the talent and potential of half of humanity.

Excerpt:

By Julia Kallas
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 1 2012 (IPS)

When Shorai Chitongo founded Ray of Hope, a support group for female survivors of domestic violence in 2005, she discovered that three-quarters of the survivors in the group were HIV-positive.

Shorai Chitongo, founder of Ray of Hope, a support group for survivors of domestic violence, and a national leader of the Groots Zimbabwe Home-Based Care Alliance. Photo courtesy of Ms. Chitongo

“Women’s assertiveness and high self-esteem are important ingredients to fight HIV/AIDS,” Chitongo, a grassroots leader who fights to empower and protect communities in Zimbabwe and is a national leader of the Groots Zimbabwe Home-Based Care Alliance, told IPS. Domestic violence directly increases chances of sexually transmitted infections that expose women to HIV.

“If women are assertive enough, they are able to negotiate safe sex as equal partners and not as subordinates,” Chitongo explained.

IPS correspondent Julia Kallas spoke with Chitongo about the links between sexual violence and HIV/AIDS and how women’s grassroots efforts can promote HIV care and support.

Q: In 2005, your domestic violence case captured national media attention and sympathy. What spurred you to found Ray of Hope? What kind of program does Ray of Hope have to support HIV-positive women?

A: The formation of Ray of Hope dates back to 2005, when l saw a documentary on a local TV program and learned that the organisation Girl Child Network was offering loans to women under its Community Empowerment and Development Program.

Perceiving this as my only opportunity to disentangle myself from the jaws of domestic violence, which l thought was a result of economic dependency on my husband, l decided to approach GCN. The staff there referred me to a woman named Betty Makoni, as they felt that my case was too dangerous for them, since my husband was violent and lawless.

Betty was greatly touched by my story and that of my three children, who ended up on the streets while l was in hiding for one and a half years in neighbouring Botswana. Previously, I had unsuccessfully approached various women’s organisations and law enforcers but had lost hope. Not even my close relatives were afraid to shelter me in their homes. But Betty offered me sanctuary in rural Mutasa.

While I was living there, a local woman was brutally murdered by her husband in full view of their three children. This incident made me realise that l was not the only survivor of domestic violence; there were other cases out there that went unreported. With Betty’s support, l gained the courage to mobilise other women survivors of domestic violence to form a support group, which provided the space to talk about their concerns away from their male-dominated homes.

The result was an influx of women with shocking stories of abuse. Women travelled more than 30 kilometres bare-footed just to pour out what had burdened them for years. Most disturbing about these desperate women was that they did not bear domestic violence alone but with their children. Sadly, their children were the major reason for their silently enduring abusive and life-threatening relationships.

These meetings transformed the women. They went from being silent victims to a group that was determined to change their lives.

During one of our meetings, we discovered that three-quarters of the women in our group, which had over 100 members, were HIV-positive and that almost all members of the group were in primary and secondary community care work. We then agreed that every program that we were going to implement should mainstream HIV/AIDS.

Q: As a representative of caregivers as a leader of the Groots Zimbabwe Home-Based Care Alliance, what do you believe is needed to improve women and girls’ access to HIV prevention information, technologies, and services by 2015?

A: What is required is the formulation of deliberate policies at national level to provide women with access to information technology relevant for the dissemination of HIV/AIDS information. Creating information centres in rural and peri-urban rural areas would help to give women this access. People should also organise themselves into groups and seek access to computers and other IT facilities.

HIV/AIDS information should cross all women’s groups: political, social, religious, economic and cultural. Education in our country should focus on promoting knowledge of relevant information to deal with HIV/ AIDS, especially in rural areas where literacy rates are lower.

(Click here to watch a video of Chitongo and other members of the Home-based Care Alliance sharing personal stories about the work they do.)

Q: What message would you like to pass to the international community on World AIDS day?

A: While the world accepts and appreciates that HIV/AIDS is a universal problem, it also has to recognise that some social groups are predisposed to catching it due to social, economic and cultural conditions. The more disempowered one is culturally, socially and economically, the more one is exposed to infection.

The world’s attention should now focus on addressing social inequalities on the basis of gender, religion and economics so everybody has equal access to the means through which HIV/AIDS can be combated.

Q: Is there a close link between HIV/AIDS and domestic violence in Zimbabwe?

A: Yes. HIV-positive women are at great risk of all forms of domestic violence. The situation becomes even more complex when they fall chronically ill because their husbands neglect them or send them back to relatives to be cared for or to die, but in most cases their relatives will not accept them.

In addition, women are blamed for bringing HIV home, so they are constantly shunned, stigmatised, violently divorced and in some cases sent away. HIV-positive women also encounter violence when negotiating with their partners for safe and protected sex.

Dietary requirements for HIV positive women also normally result in conflict and misunderstanding, which then lead to violence, and their decision to cease childbearing leads to domestic violence as well.

Q: What needs to be done to help women make safe sex choices and breaki the norm of constantly submitting to men’s sexual whims?

A: Knowledge creates power, assertiveness and high self-esteem. It is necessary to deliberately focus on female empowerment through education so that women approach problems with confidence. If women become more aware of their rights, they will approach the problem of submitting to men’s whims with more vigour to resolve it.

In addition, enacting policies giving equal opportunity in social and economic life regardless of gender will build women’s assertiveness. Men have the advantage of power behind them, but give women equal access to that power and they will not submit to men’s whims.

Excerpt:

By Julia Kallas
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 1 2012 (IPS)

On World AIDS Day, the fact that the number of children newly infected with HIV continues to decline is welcome news to UNITAID, the International Drug Purchase Facility hosted by the World Health Organisation.  But UNITAID is also well aware of how much more remains to be done for  children already living with the disease.

Philippe Douste-Blazy, of France, is a special advisor who promotes UNITAID and other sources of innovative financing for the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

“There was some progress made but there is still a lot to be done by the international community,” Douste-Blazy told IPS regarding the fight against HIV/AIDS. “Unfortunately we do not have enough money to achieve the MDGs by 2015,” he added.

Douste-Blazy spoke to IPS U.N. correspondent Julia Kallas about the progress that has been made in preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV but also how the international community must continue providing childhood HIV treatments to developing countries. Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: What is the current funding scenario for treating childhood HIV in developing countries?

A: About 3.3 million children are living with HIV today. Unfortunately we do not have enough money to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in general but in particular to reach the health-related MDGs – HIV, tuberculosis and malaria.

We must find funding now because with the current economic crisis, we will see a dramatic decrease in Official Development Aid (ODA). It will be difficult for all countries to help. We cannot ask the Greek government, for example, to donate 3 billion dollars for development countries because they are seeing an increase in poverty themselves. So we are going to see an increase in childhood mortality.

We have to create innovative financing for development. For example, UNITAID has placed a small tax on plane tickets. This funding helps combat childhood HIV.

Children are rarely born with HIV in wealthy countries because mothers living with HIV are treated during pregnancy to ensure that their babies are born HIV-free. Still, more than 1,000 children are born HIV-positive every day – 99 percent of them in Africa. Only 28 percent are treated.

We analysed what companies were interested in producing antiretroviral drugs. Our long-term funding gave suppliers the incentive to manufacture child-friendly formulations so we were able to buy pills for five years. Several generic suppliers that entered the market brought the price of the pills down by 70 percent.

Before, no child was treated by periotic antiretroviral, but with an adult’s syrup, 18 times a day. Now with only two pills a day, children can be treated.

Q: World AIDS Day is on Dec. 1. Should we be celebrating major progress?

A: Yes. We can see that there was some progress made, but there is still a lot to be done by the international community. For the first time more than 50 percent of the 15 million patients who need antiretroviral therapy have access to it.

It is also huge progress that we have 7 million fewer new HIV infections around the world, in particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. Unfortunately in Eastern Europe, Russia and Indonesia, however, the infection has increased.

Q: Can you talk about the development of the three-in-one fixed-dose combination AIDS medicines for children?

A: Since its creation UNITAID has been working on combating paediatric HIV by creating a market for quality child-friendly antiretroviral treatments. Before, there was no incentive for pharmaceutical companies to invest in child-friendly antiretroviral drugs. HIV treatments for children in low-income countries were syrups designed for adults – up to 18 foul-tasting doses a day.

So the three-in-one fixed-dose combination AIDS medicines for children are a major innovation, from 18 doses a day to a pill twice a day. It is huge progress. Every year UNITAID finances the treatments of more than 100,000. Now is the time to follow up on our work with paediatric HIV.

Q: How should the new post-2015 sustainable development agenda address HIV/AIDS, and what can be done more effectively?

A: We cannot continue if we do not have money. Every head of state, head of government or member of parliament says we are going to reach the MDGs. It is not true.

To combat HIV we need three things. First is prevention. We need to help prevent high-risk people such as prostitutes and homosexuals from becoming infected. Secondly, we must ensure universal access of treatment. Only 54 percent of adults and 28 percent of children are being treated today.

Finally, we need to raise funds to achieve the MDGs – we need more innovative financing. With UNITAID, we proved that this is possible.

Q: Can you talk more about the one-dollar plane tax idea created by you, former Brazilian president Lula and former French president Chirac? What needs to be done to get more countries involved in this project?

A: UNITAID’s funding model is based on an air ticket solidarity levy. Every American who goes to France is going to pay one extra U.S. dollar to support our program. It is the same thing in 15 other countries. In five years we raised 2.5 billion dollars, and it is predictable, sustainable funding.

For the traveller, it is painless – people who can pay for a plane ticket can easily pay an extra dollar. It is not even the price of a coffee. With this funding we help combat childhood HIV. Eight out of 10 children are treated thanks to this system. Now we are working to convince more countries to become involved in this program.

Excerpt:

Afghan women are determined that their gains from the past 20 years will not be lost. Credit: Najibullah Musafer/Killid

By Julia Kallas
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 24 2012 (IPS)

Violence against women is internationally recognised as a threat to democracy, a burden on national economies, and a serious human rights violation.

Yet in Afghanistan today, 87 percent of women face physical, sexual or psychological violence or are forced into marriage, according to recent data from Human Rights Watch.

“Afghan women have a very rich track record which is never acknowledged, never published, never spoken about,” Sharmista Dasbarwa of UNDP told IPS. It is time to talk about “the resilience, the silent courage of the village women of Afghanistan who have gone through hell for so many years and (still) dream and hope for a better and peaceful Afghanistan.”

Dasbarwa spoke to IPS correspondent Julia Kallas about the struggle to secure gender equality in the war-torn country, and why it is indispensable to lasting peace. Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: Advancing women’s empowerment is an essential priority for the transition in Afghanistan, as it contributes directly to stability. How can women play a bigger role?

A: Although Afghanistan has got about 27 percent of women in the parliament, there are still some very deep biases against women. They want to achieve what every woman in the world wants, which is to have access to opportunities, education, training, political participation, economic activities. It is very difficult for an Afghan woman to achieve this.

Having said that, at the same time, the resilience and the character of Afghan women is very big. I feel that the establishment of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs in 2002, and the activities that they are doing in influencing different legal instruments to insure a better integration of women in the field, is very important.

At the moment, women are very eager to play an active role in the transition. Things are improving with the High Peace Council and different structures that the government of Afghanistan has established. There is a considerable scope to involve women in a very active way.

Q: How can you ensure that compromises made in the ongoing peace-building process do not lead to a rollback of women’s rights?

A: There is no official peace agreement in Afghanistan like there was in Sudan or Timor Leste. I wish I could answer your question in a very positive way, but the situation at the moment is very unstable.

Although there is a lot of political representation of Afghan women, nobody knows what will be their role during the transition and the peace-building process. So it is very difficult to say if there will be compromises. I hope not, but there is a possibility.

But Afghan women have developed a kind of determination, resilience and hope to ensure that if there are any compromises, their gains from the past 20 years are not lost and no compromises will be made in order to step them down to second-class citizens again.

At work I deal with women from the villages, from the rural communities, from the academic institutions, from the members of parliament, from the ministries. And they all have displayed a lot of determination which is a very rare thing. I worked in a number of countries and I have not seen this kind of resilience anywhere in the world.

Q: How does the new gender equality project focus on preventing violence against women in Afghanistan?

A: We are providing support for the elimination of violence in three different ways.

Firstly, to provide policy support to the legal department of the Ministry of Women’s affairs by ensuring that any legislation drafted which has a direct impact on the life of Afghan women is reviewed by the Legal Department of Women’s Affairs, passed through the government and translated into action.

Secondly, we aim to install more legal help centres. In the first phase we established 24 legal help centers in four provinces. The purpose of the legal help centres is to reach women living in rural areas who do not have access to the formal justice system and police authorities, and to ensure that they have free legal advice and protection.

Thirdly is the advocacy campaign, which we have been doing involving different stakeholders and media. It will involve round table television discussions and debates. The focus will be to raise awareness on women’s rights and their access to legal protection.

The 2009 law on elimination of violence against women has got a commission established in national and subnational level. We propose in the next phase of the project to provide technical support to the commission so that this law becomes more active. A report from 2011 showed that the number of cases registered was 2,999 and the number of cases prosecuted was only 27 percent, so we want to improve the enforcement of the law.

Q: On Sunday, we celebrate the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. What are the lessons that other countries can learn from the women’s programme in Afghanistan?

A: The level and depth of violence that Afghanistan women face is something very rare in other countries. Yes, there is violence in other parts of the world but I have not come across this kind of sustained nature of violence and weakness in the voices of women to come out and seek help.

I have worked in a number of countries in Africa, and I come from India, but I have not seen this kind of helplessness, powerlessness, and lack of voice. But this is one side of the picture.

Despite having this weak position, Afghan women are very determined. The lesson that women from all over the world should learn from our programmes is that the very small support and incentive that we are doing have changed the quality of life of these women.

Our programme needs to be replicated in other countries, especially countries emerging from conflict. Afghan women are also fighting to ensure that when peace happens and peace-building negotiations are over, there is sustainable peace right down at the grassroots level.

Excerpt:

Khadija Ismayilova. Credit: Courtesy of IWMF

By Julia Kallas
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 12 2012 (IPS)

Khadija Ismayilova has been threatened with blackmail by her own government. She has been branded an “enemy of the state”, mainly for her exposés of official corruption.

Not only did these persecution campaigns fail to silence her, but Ismayilova recently received international recognition with the 2012 Courage in Journalism Award given by the International Women’s Media Foundation (IWMF).

‘‘I didn’t want to step back and I didn’t want to give myself a chance to step back,’’ Ismayilova told IPS.

The award is handed out annually to three women journalists who have “demonstrated extraordinary strength of character in pursuing their profession under difficult or dangerous circumstances”. This year’s recipients also include Asmaa al-Ghoul, a freelance journalist from Gaza, and Reeyot Alemu, an imprisoned Ethiopian columnist.

Ismayilova spoke to IPS correspondent Julia Kallas about the state of investigative journalism in Azerbaijan and the support her reporting has received from the country’s largely conservative society. Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: So the government tried to blackmail you and you turned the tables on them. Can you describe what happened?

A: What happened is that I have been doing an investigation on the high-level corruption of the president’s family and family members involved in state-funded contracts. And how the president’s family members benefited from the public opportunities by passing regulations and laws. So through this investigation I reviewed their offshore company in Panama (in) which they are hiding their names and their interest in public funds.

So basically after this investigation a camera was planted in my apartment. There was surveillance for a long time in the apartment that I was renting and they filmed me having sexual relations with my boyfriend and then they sent me pictures of the footage. They demanded me to behave. I decided not to ‘’behave’’ as they asked. I decided to go public with that and I said I have nothing to be ashamed of.

Those who are stealing from the public, from the people, should be ashamed of what they are doing. So that is why I decided to continue my investigation.

Q: The Atlantic called you one of the only investigative journalists in Azerbaijan. Is this true?

A: There are other investigative journalists. But there are only a few of them highlighting the top corruption issues. There are very few. I can name two or three, but that is it. They are very brave people.

When I received the award from IWMF, I said I was receiving this award on their behalf as well because they have also been doing a very difficult job, and very brave journalism. It is very important that I am not alone in this because when you are alone, you become the main target for the government.

Like Elmar Huseynov, who was killed in 2005. He was the only one doing that. He was killed because the government knew that once he was not there, there would be silence, and there was silence for many years before my investigations started coming.

The difference between our work and the work of others is that we are making up to the highest international standards. All the investigations are very well documented. Every statement, every allegation is proved, confirmed and documented.

Q: What is like being a female muckraker in such a conservative society?

A: I have never thought about being a female and not being able to do things that I want to do. I do not think that gender matters. But when they want to punish you for being a muckraker, they use the conservative feelings of the society against women. They try to talk about the rules for women, like how women in Azerbaijan are not entitled to have sexual relationship.

But when I was blackmailed the society proved to be much more liberal than the government. Society supported me and showed that they appreciated what I am doing.There were statements even by the most conservative parties of the society, like the Islamic parties. They said that interference into privacy is unacceptable and it is also unacceptable that the government was using very unethical attitudes to silence a journalist.

Q: When they tried to blackmail you, instead of keeping it secret you posted a message to Facebook. How important is social media in the new era of journalism, and how free and open is Internet access in Azerbaijan?

A: Social media has a great role. I have more than 4,400 friends, more than 5,100 subscribers on Facebook and more than 2,000 followers on Twitter.

I communicate most of my problems through social media, as traditional media in Azerbaijan is largely under control. That is why I posted my message about blackmail on Facebook first.

The case of blackmail was reported only by one TV channel, which reported news about a journalist being blackmailed with a sex tape, but didn’t dare to tell its viewers what kind of stories this journalist was writing. My stories in fact got a larger audience thanks to the new media. A significant part of our website comes from Facebook.

Q: Do you ever worry that the harassment could escalate? And do awards like this provide any protection, in terms of international recognition of your work?

A: Absolutely. As I continue doing my job, I think the government will look for other ways to silence me. But I prefer to concentrate on my job, as it doesn’t make sense to worry about threats. I can’t control their desire or means to do something to me. So worrying doesn’t do any good anyway.

Awards like this bring more protection, as it brings international attention to my case. So hopefully the government might hesitate to do something. But it also has a great impact on future generations. With these awards they understand that investigative journalism is not only about troubles. It is also about recognition.

Excerpt:

By Julia Kallas
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 26 2012 (IPS)

A new study confirms what many Iraqi doctors have been saying for years – that there is a virtual epidemic of rare congenital birth defects in cities that suffered bombing and artillery and small arms fire in the U.S.-led attacks and occupations of the country.

Courtesy of Mozhgan Savabieasfahani.

The hardest hit appear to be Fallujah (2004), a city in central Iraq, and Basra in the south (December 1998, March and April 2003).

Records show that the total number of birth defects observed by medical staff at Al Basrah Maternity Hospital more than doubled between 2003 and 2009. In Fallujah, between 2007 and 2010, more than half the children born there had some form of birth defect, compared to less than two percent in 2000.

Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, a lead author of the latest study published in the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, entitled “Metal Contamination and the Epidemic of Congenital Birth Defects in Iraqi Cities,” reports that in the case study of 56 Fallujah families, metal analysis of hair samples indicated contamination with two well-known neurotoxic metals: lead and mercury.

IPS correspondent Julia Kallas spoke with Savabieasfahani about Iraq’s  health crisis  and the long-term consequences of exposure to metals released by bombs and munitions.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: You focused on Fallujah and Al Basra. Is there any indication that this problem could be affecting other Iraqi cities as well?

A: There is one other paper that has come out from another city and I think that there are similar things. I think that it is possible that anywhere could be affected. Some other places are seeing similar situations but there are no publications to indicate it. There is a great possibility that other places that have been bombed are also showing similar things.

Q: Your study found serious deformities in infants as late as 2010. How many years will the health effects of the war continue to be felt?

A: Speaking as an environmental toxicologist, I think that a long as the environment is not cleaned, as long as the source of this public contamination is not found and as long as people are exposed to it periodically on a daily basis, I think this problem will persist.

And what we can see is that they are actually increasing. I think that the best step right now is to do large-scale environmental testing – test water, air, food, soil, everything that comes in touch with people. Test them for the presence of toxic metals and other things that are in the environment. And once we find the source, then we can clean it up. Unless we do that, this is going to continue to happen because people are getting exposed.

Q: What kind of munitions would be responsible for this type of large-scale contamination?

A: We have referenced a couple of U.S. military documents and it is the kind of things that could lead to this version of metal as indicated in the references. Various metals are contained in small arms ammunition.

But it could be anything from bombardments, from the bombs that come down on the place, or bombs that exploded from the tanks, or even bullets. They all have similar metals in them, including mercury and lead poisoning, which is what we have found in the bodies of the people who live in these cities, Fallujah and Basra.

Q: Have you collaborated at all with the World Health Organisation researchers who are conducting similar research, with their findings due out next month?

A: No, I have not been in touch with the World Health Organisation or any other organisation. We have just worked with a collection of scientists.

Q: Are you aware of any formal reaction to your research by the Iraqi, U.S. or UK governments?

A: There has been some. The U.S. Defense Department responded to the report by saying that they do not know of any official reports that indicate any problems in Al Basrah or Fallujah. But I think that is the only thing that comes to my mind.

Q: How is the local health care system coping with an emergency like this? And how can contamination management and medical care procedures be provided in these areas?

A: I know that the hospitals in the two cities that we studied are overstretched and as far as that is a concern there are ways to help these hospitals. We need to organise doctors, scientists and people who are professionals in this area to help clean up. Organise them, bring them to these two cities and get them to start working. However, all of that requires financial and other kinds of support. Financial and political support together will help to make that happen.

Excerpt:

By Julia Kallas
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 20 2012 (IPS)

In 1994, genetically modified produce, in the form of tomatoes, first appeared in grocery stores in the United States. Numerous other types of produce have been genetically modified since, and consuming them has become common practise. But because the phenomenon is so recent, the long-term effects of eating such foods remain unknown.

A range of issues surround genetically modified food in the United States, including overconsumption, a lack of long-term health studies and government intervention, and lax labelling laws, said Renee Sharp, California director and senior scientist for Environmental Working Group, in a new study entitled ”Americans Eat Their Weight in Genetically Engineered Food”.

In the study, the Environmental Working Group analyzed data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). It found that every American eats an estimated 193 pounds of genetically engineered food annually. By comparison, the typical adult in the United States weighs 179 pounds.

Renee Sharp is the California director and senior scientist for Environmental Working Group. Credit: Julia Kallas/IPS

IPS correspondent Julia Kallas spoke with Sharp spoke about the study’s findings, the rapid growth of genetically modified foods in the United States, and the role of the government in labelling these products.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: Can you briefly talk about the report ”Americans Eat Their Weight in Genetically Engineered Food”? Now that the report is out, what you expect the government to do?

A: Americans are eating their weight in genetically engineered (GE) food each year. Environmental Working Group’s calculations show that, on average, people eat an estimated 193 pounds of genetically engineered food annually. Yet the typical adult weighs 179 pounds.

These figures beg the question, if you were planning on eating your body weight of anything every year, wouldn’t you want to make sure it was safe to eat?

Shockingly, there are virtually no long-term health studies that have been conducted on the consumption of genetically engineered food. We want to see the government conduct these tests, and allow independent scientists the power to do the same – power they don’t have now because the companies making the genetically engineered seeds control what studies are conducted.

So what can consumers do in the meantime? Not much – unless they demand GE food to be labelled. At least then consumers will know whether or not their food contains genetically engineered ingredients and can decide for themselves if this is what they want to buy for themselves and their families.

This basic right-to-know issue is only going to become more important in the future, as consumption of GE food is expected to grow substantially over time.

We are urging Californians to vote YES on Proposition 37 – the Mandatory Labelling of Genetically Engineered Food Initiative – so they can decide for themselves whether they want to buy GE food.

Q: Why does the United States lag so far behind the rest of the world on the labelling question? And what actions must the government and policymakers take to change this?

A: Monsanto, Dow and other companies that make and sell GE seeds have an incredible amount of power and influence in the U.S. government.

Government and policy makers need to listen to the millions of citizens who have petitioned to label genetically engineered foods and give people the right to know what they are eating.

Q: Why has the genetically engineered food industry emerged so quickly in the past decade?

A: The makers of GE seeds have made a lot of false promises – that they are going to feed the world, decrease pesticide use, save farmers money – but they have failed to do any of these things. There is not any more food, pesticide use has actually increased, and they are ruining small farmers while fostering the growth of super weeds, which make traditional farming practices impossible.

Since there isn’t any mandatory testing (no federal testing, no long term studies, the companies who are making the profits off of the seeds only have to test) it has been relatively fast to get these seeds to market.

Q: Can you briefly talk about Proposition 37 in California, which will be voted on in November? What would it mean for the rest of the country if it passes?

A: It would mean that people in California would have the right to know what is in their foods and make a choice if they want to feed their families food that have genetically engineered ingredients.

If Proposition 37 were passed, it would also help the rest of the country because California represents about 12 percent of the country’s food market and it is unlikely that companies will create one label for California and a different label for the rest of the country.

Q: Do you think there is growing momentum for a genuine national movement to more seriously consider where our food comes from, as illustrated by the recent “pink slime” scandal, in which Beef Products, Inc.  filed a lawsuit against those who labelled an additive in its ground beef as “pink slime”?

A: Yes! Absolutely. The fact that this proposition is on the ballot is proof of that.

Excerpt:

From left to right, Haydee Rodríguez, Violet Shivutse and Josephine Castillo. Credit: Julia Kallas/IPS

By Julia Kallas
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 13 2012 (IPS)

Women and girls can be powerful agents of change, but they are disproportionately affected by disasters because of social roles, discrimination and poverty.

The International Day for Disaster Reduction on Saturday this year celebrates the theme of ‘’Women and Girls – the [in]Visible Force of Resilience’’.

IPS correspondent Julia Kallas sat down with three women – Josephine Castillo, grassroots community leader and organiser with DAMPA in Manila, Philippines; Haydee Rodríguez, president of the Union of Women’s Cooperatives, Las Brumas, in Jinotega, Nicaragua; and Violet Shivutse, leader and founder of Shibuye Community Health Workers in Kenya – to talk about the importance of girls and women as actors and leaders for resilience.

Q: You all come from very different backgrounds and contexts. Can you briefly talk about the main challenges you face in regard to building resilience in the community you live in?

JOSEPHINE CASTILLO: I am one of the board directors of my community’s association. It is a homeowner’s association, we have 421 community members and everybody owns their land since 1995. This is due to a successful programme that our association made with the national government, which provided women with mortgages to buy their houses.

We have programmes that bring our community together in case a disaster hits us. We train quick response teams with the collaboration of our local government and our resilience programmes have also a partnership with the Huairou Commission and GROOTS International.

In August, people affected by the floods in Manila were bought to our resettlement sites, which rescue families affected by flooding and earthquake. Natural disasters are happening more often because of climate change so we need to have climate adaptation, disaster mitigation and resilience programmes.

HAYDEE RODRIGUEZ: I am the president of the Union of Women’s Cooperatives, “Las Brumas” in Jinotega, Nicaragua, and we have created 20 grassroots women’s cooperatives with a total of 1,200 associated women and other 960 that are indirectly associated.

In our community we are facing a lot of difficulties with climate change and land ownership allocation. So through our resilience work we created a programme to cultivate food and medicine plants in the houses of our community as well as a programme to help build a better dialogue between community and government.

We have also succeeded in inserting grassroots women to participate in governmental parties. The next elections, which will take place on the 4th of November, have the involvement of 14 grassroots women inside of the parties.

VIOLET SHIVUTSE: When I used to work in an office that registered farmers, I came across lots of working pregnant women who were having problems giving birth. Most of them died during delivery, others had complicated births when the child died or the women had been sick for a long time after.

The main problem was to help and ensure that these women reached the local hospital, because the distance and the high cost of the services did not encourage them. Then I started thinking how we could help these women who are very important for the community. So that is how I started getting involved with community work and women’s health issues.

HIV/AIDS funds, food security, periods of drought and flooding are the biggest problems in my community. Water, sanitation and hygiene are also big problems for children in schools. When I realised these problems were rising, I brought grassroots women together to work on the development of our community. We started a community-based organisation called the Shibuye Community Health Workers, which today brings together 2,036 grassroots women in Kenya who work on these issues.

Q: Why is it important to focus on women and girls in the context of disaster reduction?

JC: Because women and girls are the most affected when it comes to disaster. They need to be prepared and trained. We don’t like to say that we are vulnerable, but we are. When we talk about resilience work we are not only talking about natural disaster. Lack of education also means disaster. Woman and girls cannot get jobs if they are not educated. That is also why women need to be involved in international conferences, to show our needs and fight for our rights.

HR: Women resilience work is important because we need to work for our lives and the lives of our community. Women need to work in resilience because if we do not take care of water, for example, there will be no cultivation and if there is no production, there is hunger.

VS: We believe that resilience starts with women. They are the ones taking care of the rural communities because men migrate to the urban areas to find jobs. So the impact of disaster for women and girls is very high. We encourage women to work in groups so they can understand how to build resilience. Resilience means having food in their houses, resilience means establishing food storages, resilience means identifying natural resources and protecting them. We also believe that it is important to teach our girls the importance of resilience work so when they become adults and mothers they can help their communities.

Q: What is the road to building efficient women-led resilience projects?

JC: It is important to have collaboration and partnerships with local government, institutions and organisations around the world. Also, local to local dialogue is very important. Organisations have to focus on more than one issue, because focusing in only one issue can burn them out, and if that issue is solved you have nothing else to work on. Our programmes came from our people, not from our funders.

HR: I believe we need to work on encouraging women to able to participate of decision making and leadership positions. Organisations should support and encourage women innovations by providing them with resources .Also, grassroots women should share their work and projects with other communities in order to help others developing resilient work too.

VS: First, we need to educate women and girls… because if they are not educated they cannot get involved in community work. Second point is to make women stronger politically and economically. Give them more value and equality within the work environment.

Excerpt: