TEN QUESTIONS ON ANGE-FELIX PATASSE global issues
Mr. President, Who should I ask about issues concerning environmental protection in the world? The agronomist, and thus the scientist you are, or the politician that you are too. Especially as concerns the politician is also relevant and necessary, and there is good logic, accelerating all the economic levers, engine development of his country .
For me the issue arose only in terms of responsibilities. When it comes to the survival of the earth, science and politics must work together towards a harmonization of views. It is also a common responsibility to humans since the question relates to humanity. The world is a system with elements connected and involved with each other, overlap each other. The intangibility border principle is that legal and political elements whose laugh sounds natural when their fury. Unfortunately recent events, natural disasters plaguing interchangeably throughout the world, teach us on this tragic reality remains proven. But man, in his mad rush for wealth generation, stubbornly refuses to learn a lesson.
All countries have the right to possess nuclear weapons as claimed by Iran, or this gun is she a threat to humanity hands of "irresponsible" ? What do you think of the notion of rogue states dear to George W. Bush ?
India and Pakistan, before becoming nuclear powers, relentlessly warred over Kashmir. Since these two countries that once were one, opted for diplomacy in resolving their eternal conflict. I ask an observation and not an authorization to the detention of nuclear weapons. If its dimension is real deterrent, the fact remains that for one reason or another country might decide, in spite of everything, from the start against another. Even today, more than half a century later, history still wondering about Hiroshima and Nagasaki: the use of such weapons of mass destruction on Japanese civilians really answered a summons to peace? Also: although all have endorsed the principle of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, how much respect? Also, it should be understood, and a scale that does not diminish the dangers of its use that anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions are never victims within the populations of countries that manufacture and market .
What is your assessment on the rights of women in the world ?
It is in the South that a woman (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh ... and now Brazil) became the supreme power. Even if the fundamental rights of women are not legally more advanced in some African countries, she nevertheless enjoys a special status ... well, that distinguishes it from other women around the world. That said, let there be no mistake, the woman must cease to be treated as an immature child, since it is able to run a country. So there is no objective reason for the right to education is a favor for girls, so that they perform as well or better, than boys at school. In conclusion, if the rights of women have experienced a real breakthrough in the world and even in countries most obscurantist, nowhere on Earth can match the woman, in reality, man. It is from a cultural revolution that we must change attitudes, to strip the male of the shackles of conservatism in order to achieve a rebalancing, because the status quo is simply not possible. Repair and not reverse the trend, as is the case in many Western countries where an undue guilt led to the victimization of men. To the detriment of the woman finally. And not in his favor. In conclusion, the fate of women in the world should call on all our consciences. If one wants the barbarians no longer find commit rape with impunity on the weaker, justifying a masculinity that would establish, but "divine right", a report from master to slave.
And the fight against AIDS (HIV)?
My country, Central Africa, is particularly affected by this scourge. Needless to say this is a concern for me almost daily. The equation is simple: where awareness campaigns abound, evil backwards. In Africa, some exception, nothing seems to stop the progression of AIDS (HIV). Membership in the prevention process called sensitization any azimuth. Few have the means whatsoever, or willingness, to do so. Did you know that the leading cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa is not AIDS but malaria ... But it does not prevalent in the West. Since the populations of rich countries are fortuitously spared, these countries show little interest in working towards its prevention and eradication.
Eradicating world hunger: an empty slogan?
Again, decade after decade, there is wishful thinking. Deadlines are always rejected when it comes time to reach them. They only statistics that often do not reflect reality on the ground. It's the same for "Education for All by 2000". This kind of goal does not seem to be fixed only to never be reached. Voices of authority, experts in the field say that the manufacturing cost of a single American bomber aircraft would be sufficient to eradicate world hunger. True or false, are still there that the war effort in Afghanistan surpasses sum incurred everything famine and education need to provide solutions to one and another. And this in a sustainable manner.
To get to the sore subject in Africa: good governance
Have you noticed that this concept applies only to the South, as if the question was also exceeded. Even though every day politicians of these countries are splashed by scandals related to corruption and conflict of interest. It is true that Africa impunity encourages practices against which law prevails in the West. I agree at the level of performance that makes a huge difference between "a country that works and one where nothing works." Because corruption, to mention it is a hindrance to development and a major cause of impoverishment. The solution, as everyone knows, moreover, is in establishing a true rule of law. The judiciary must always be independent of political bodies to the law, when called, be allowed to proceed unhindered. It remains to be done in Africa. But the situation is not unique to Africa. In many Western countries the most considered in terms of democracy there is often interference of politics in the judiciary. But this does not justify that Africa imports the bad practices of the West. Another sore subject, as you say, is respect for human rights. When one is actually elected by the people, it does not feel the need to beware of those you have freely chosen and accepted. There are those who usurp power, and those that alter the Constitution to become president for life. Each other and know they are not for the people. They get radicalized by suspending basic rights their fellow citizens. For the good of all, the elections must be free and transparent to avoid a presidential term is devoted to manage the suspicion. One last point: some believe they have the right to confiscate power in gunpoint. This category is not found in Western countries. But strangely, these are the same Westerners who require a democratically elected government to sit at the negotiating table, and on the same footing with law-breakers who disregard the popular will.
Dr. Bernard Kouchner, founder of Doctors Without Borders "has previously invoked the right to" humanitarian intervention ". This principle should allow the international community to use, if need be, to use military force to liberate a people from oppression. Is not that a positive innovation in international law ?
Be careful. First we must consider the feasibility of such a project. Its purely technical aspect is already problematic. Who really has sufficient human and material resources to organize such an expedition? Because in many consider is almost half the human population living under an easement or any yoke. So in the other half of the population that this good Earth Dr. Kouchner, whom I also welcome the proactive approach, would be his expeditionary force. Other questions arise: who should decide what action to take and on what objective basis? Will not they not attend a reckoning disguised as humanitarian intervention? The international community would she risk going to war against nations heavily armed, or otherwise she will act as it violates Africa easily sovereignty. Believe my experience: such an initiative would be to open Pandora's box. No one, alas, knows where this might lead. Between two evils, they say, he must choose the lesser. With respect to the destinies of peoples uncertainty could never be the lesser evil. In no case !
Presidential elections in Africa today are similar to a real uphill
fighter.
Like every time he comes to generating the right. , Anywhere in the world all time. However, it should consider several things. First, the Constitution, as no framework law may make no law. We are talking about a "real" constitution, expressing the real will of the people. A constitution that would necessarily come from either a free or a parliament is not subject to an individual. When such charter is filed, that is to say, in democratic conditions I just mentioned, no one can challenge it. Unless reformed, always with the popular approval, one or more of its texts. All other state institutions must act strictly within the framework of these basic texts that also the "create" in their giving automatic legitimacy essential to the exercise. In countries where there is such a context of respect for the spirit and letter of the Act, there is democracy. Second point: the political actors. Too often the ambitions of each other beyond their adherence to the law of their country. Even if they had wanted, called all their prayers, even if they had beaten campaign for its introduction. That unscrupulous they vomit the Act once their own interests will not be confirmed by his lyrics. Never mind the people they want to run at any price ...
There is much talk in recent years of the UN reform. Especially his body
policy what the Security Council. Are you one of those requiring this change?
A historical countdown tells us that the UN was created in a specific context which is that after the Second World. Today more than half a century later this context is largely exceeded. Similarly, the Security Council at that time consisted of only the victors of Nazi Germany. Already, China's presence in this body of evidence that other objective considerations were taken into account. Because Beijing was not a signatory of the Treaty of Versailles. Economically, countries like India, Brazil and South Africa are more important than Britain, which registered yet in the Security Council as permanent member, and having a de facto veto. This fact does not correspond to reality. Even militarily data have long since changed. Nuclear weapons are now held by Pakistan and soon Korea North and Iran. So it's clearly not the criterion for membership of this gathering. But then what? This also applies to the G8. Although it has been expanded to a G20 only economic, the G8, it remains there and discuss the fate of the world. The message that we send the major powers is this: agree to the enlargement of the Security Council of the UN. We still have our G8 to impose our own wishes you.
And African Unity. Is it a viable entity or just wishful thinking?
is a project any very viable and even desirable. We must salute the vision of Muammar Gaddafi for Africa. It's an aberration to see that Africans, even those sharing the same geographical area, can not move freely from one country to another. While each side of the border we find the same ethnic groups, sharing language, culture and sometimes family relationships. Trade barriers are all obstacles to development. It is not normal for the African trade more easily with Europe between them. While these same Europeans felt the need to unite to become stronger economically than others, politically and diplomatically. Africa can not do without the same union. Integrated development is the only way to achieve constitute a credible force in the eyes of the world. Enhancing the well-being of African people can be at this price. It is both a means of achieving an end in itself. Africans are already prepared, is the political will of their leaders is lacking. At least the reluctance of the latter to engage their people in this necessary process of renewal. African leaders to resist transfer a parcel of sovereignty to the union, yet this is the primary requirement, the sine qua non of integration. With regard to my country, it's called the Central because it actually located in central Africa. It Barthelemy Baganda, the first president of the Central that came the idea of an African union around the country as its capital. So a Central which is the "father of the AU" that we know today. A work he'll have to finish one day, as major economic and political assemblies constitute an effective response to hegemonies. This is the solution for Africa. A necessary step towards real development of all our resources for the betterment of our people. It is this united Africa that we must leave to posterity!
Interview by EMERY UHINDU-GINGALA GINGANJ
0 comments:
Post a Comment