Barack Obama’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech – full text

The Chariman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee Thorbjoern Jagland, left, stands with Barack Obama who holds his medal and diploma. (EPA/Corbis/Sigurdson Bjorn Pool)

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women some known, some obscure to all but those they help to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 43 other countries including Norway in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide and restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts, the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies and failed states have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations acting individually or in concert will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago: “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions not just treaties and declarations that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people’s children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. “Let us focus,” he said, “on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.”

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations strong and weak alike must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I like any head of state reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don’t.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention no matter how justified.

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries and other friends and allies demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo or repression in Burma there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.

I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests nor the world’s are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach and condemnation without discussion can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that is why helping farmers feed their own people or nations educate their children and care for the sick is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination, an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are, to understand that we all basically want the same things, that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities their race, their tribe and, perhaps most powerfully, their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one’s own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The nonviolence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached their faith in human progress must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith if we dismiss it as silly or naive, if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago: “I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness’ of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him.”

So let us reach for the world that ought to be that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he’s outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

Save the Planet by Preventing African Births

By: Brendan O’Neill

At my old Catholic school, religious do-gooders used to ask us for a penny to “sponsor a black baby.” Now eco-do-gooders want our pennies to prevent black babies from being born.

Rushing to the front of the race for the prize of Most Vomit-Inducing Environmental Initiative Ever Devised, the UK’s Optimum Population Trusth — which counts such grandees as David Attenborough and Jonathon Porritt among its supporters — has just launched PopOffsets. This quirkily named campaign is actually deeply sinister: It invites well-off Westerners to offset their carbon
emissions by paying for poor people in the Third World to stop procreating.

In short, if you feel bad about your CO2-emitting jaunt to Barbados, or the new Ferrari you just splurged on, then simply give some money to a charity which helps to “convince” Third World women not to have children, and — presto! — the carbon saved by having one less black child in the world will put your guilt-ridden mind at rest.

The Optimum Population Trust is a creepy Malthusian outfit made up of Lords, Ladies, and Sirs who all believe that the world’s problems are caused by “too many people.” It recently carried out a cost-benefit analysis of the best way to tackle global warming and “discovered” (I prefer the word
“decided”) that every £4 spent on contraception saves one ton of CO2 from being added to the environment, whereas you would need to spend £8 on tree-planting, £15 on wind power, £31 on solar energy, and £56 on hybrid vehicle technology to realize the same carbon savings.

How can a mere £4 on condoms save one ton of carbon? Well, it prevents more people from being born, and in the eyes of the OPT, people are nothing more than carbon emitters and polluters — filthy, destructive, toxic beings. As its new PopOffsets website says, next to a picture of lots and lots of stick men and a counter telling you how many people were born while you were visiting the website (3,153 while I was there), “More people = more emissions. Rapid population growth is a major contributor to global warming.”

So you click on the PopOffsets (http://www.popoffsets.com/calculator_individuals.php) Calculator, tell it how much carbon you have emitted and give your carbon emissions a title (something like “Summer Holiday 2009,” it suggests), and then it tells you how much money you must donate to baby-blocking initiatives overseas. For example, if you fly round-trip from London to Sydney — which emits ten tons of carbon — you must pay around £40 ($70) and help prevent the birth of one
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/03/carbon-offset-projects-climate-change) child in Kenya. Visa and Mastercard accepted!

This is how the value of human life is calculated by climate-change alarmists. A baby in Kenya is equal to ten tons of carbon, or one Londoner’s holiday in Australia. It has no more value than that, no intrinsic worth, no moral or cultural or human meaning; it is simply reduced to a bargaining chip in some wealthy Westerner’s desire to absolve himself of eco-guilt.

This odious campaign — and the relentless rise of neo-Malthusianism more broadly — has two devastating impacts. First it presents fixable social problems, such as poverty and global inequality, as demographic problems, problems of overpopulation. So in keeping with every population scaremonger
from Thomas Malthus to Paul Ehrlich, it shifts the blame from society, with its failure to eliminate hunger or to eradicate pollution, and heaps it instead on to people — and, in this instance, on to the poorest people.

The Guardian’s deeply sympathetic report on PopOffsets (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/03/carbon-offset-projects-cl imate-change) was illustrated with a picture of black babies, twelve of them, lying on a huge bed like the useless little beings that they allegedly are, symbolic of those who are apparently doing most to destroy this green and pleasant world of ours: the poor, the feckless, the fecund. The representation of social problems as problems of reproductive
“irresponsibility” makes it harder to have an open, meaningful debate about how to take society forward; the focus becomes how to stop people from breeding rather than how to pursue progress.

And second, neo-Malthusianism has a seriously detrimental impact on Third World women’s freedom and autonomy. The most glaringly disingenuous thing about PopOffsets is the OPT’s claim that it is merely helping women to deal with unwanted pregnancies; it is simply providing much-needed reproductive services to the poor of the world. It even uses feminist-sounding lingo to justify its campaign, arguing that it wants to use “education and equal rights” to “empower women.”

In truth, when you promote condom use in the Third World in the most scaremongering terms imaginable, as the only sane and scientific way to prevent an apocalypse, as the only thing that can guarantee the safety of the planet and of future generations, then you are not promoting freedom and choice; you are using blackmail — emotional, political, and financial blackmail — to coerce women into doing the “right thing” as defined by the OPT and numerous other NGOs that problematize population growth. Those of us who do believe women should have unfettered autonomy in reproductive matters (and I am one of those people) should reject the OPT’s warped idea of
“choice,” where women are strongarmed into making one “choice” only: the responsibly green, planet-saving one.

As Planet Gore’s resident Marxist, you will forgive me if I end by quoting Marx. In 1865 he described Thomas Malthus’s “Essay on the Principle of Population” as “a libel against the human race.” Nearly 150 years later,Malthusians are still libelling the human race, depicting it as toxic, poisonous, and something that should be preventing from “spreading.” http://www.optimumpopulation.org

— Brendan O’Neill is the editor of Spiked http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/
and the author of Can I Recycle My Granny? And 39 Other Eco-Dilemmas http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=0340955651

World AIDS Day event on 1st December 2009 at 11:00 – 13:00

Freshly Ground group outside Tutu tester at Masiphumelele

The Desmond Tutu HIV Foundation is a public benefit organisation doing research and service provision, in the field of TB and HIV/AIDS. It has a site based at Masiphumelele (Cape Town, South Africa) that is serving predominantly the Masiphumelele community.

Our work currently focuses on HIV prevention research and strategies in the Community. This includes community education and awareness around prevention strategies which include Vaccines, microbicides and PreExposure prophylaxis.

The 1st December is World AIDS Day which we will be observing through an event aimed at making women aware of HIV prevention options that they have as well as ongoing research for an alternative HIV prevention method for women.

I will also be recognising women who have been attending ongoing Women’s Health discussions groups on issues affecting women such as Domestic Violence, Sexually Transmitted Infections and HIV, Family Planning and general Women’s Health topics i.e. pap smears (doctors and other experts are invited to answer questions from the participating women). The discussion groups are open to all women from Masiphumelele community in Cape Town every Tuesdays and Thursdays.

The event will commence with March starting at 11:00am from the entrance of Masiphumelele around the community into Masiphumelele Community Hall (12:00) where various activities will take place. Due to the people we are targeting the programme will be conducted in IsiXhosa as the dominant language within Masiphumelele.

Tutu tester

Ps. our mobile Tutu tester will be outside the hall for voluntary counseling and testing.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu reacts in front of the 'Tutu Tester' mobile unit before being tested for HIV in Cape Town, South Africa, Thursday Oct. 22, 2009.

Yours in community work,
Sipho January
+2774 495 2022

Ode to an unimportant man

I write this in honour of Alpheus Molefe, a man who was born in Meadowlands, Soweto, 43 years ago. He was shot and killed by criminals outside the township of Vosloorus on Friday November 6.

Alpheus was our senior logistics officer — a fancy title for a simple but critical position: he drove our company vehicle.

A working-class African man who had just bought a house and a modest car — and was studying for a university degree — Alpheus is survived by his wife of 16 years, Louisa, and his 13-year-old daughter, Princess.

Poor people who die at the hands of criminals are too many and too unimportant to warrant commentary or news reporting.

But it matters to me and to those of us who knew, loved and respected Alpheus, with his bright smile and quirky strut. In a dark and litter-strewn street in Zonkesizwe, he lay dying on Friday night, shot by a man who had calmly pulled the trigger and got back into his car and drove away as if he had just stopped to ask directions.

In these times when only those who make deals, drive flashy cars and stay at expensive hotels seem to count, we think of some jobs as being better than others.

But Alpheus carried himself like a man who knew how much he mattered. He drove our office vehicle, but that was a small part of what he did for us.

He was our ambassador — a smiling face welcoming weary staff from long trips, or greeting wary visitors worried about the crime in South Africa, telling them not to worry, they were safe in his hands.

In the past few days we have received an outpouring of messages from people across the world who were devastated by the news of his violent death.

Many recalled how on numerous occasions he waited at the airport until well past midnight when he should have been at home with Louisa and their little Princess.

Always there was a warm smile: “How was your journey?” he would ask. And always, despite having never flown in his life, he would ask: “Did you have turbulence?” I promised him that we would fly him somewhere one day. It is a promise that swings lifelessly in the wind.

Like many black South Africans I am painfully aware of the racial nature of discussions about crime in this country.

Indeed, I have rolled my eyes on many occasions, overhearing the conversations of middle-class whites about how crime is spiralling out of control.

There is a dance that is played with words here, a coded discussion about race: blacks are criminals and whites are their victims, and the incompetent blacks at the top either don’t care what’s happening because whites are the victims, or they do care because they can see it is affecting the townships, but are helpless because of their fundamental ineptitude.

I have found myself downplaying crime on a number of occasions to resist playing into this unspoken code.

The day that Alpheus died I realised that we need to speak more truthfully. The day that Alpheus died, my already tenuous belief in the future of this country crumbled. Granted, it had been a tough week.

Alpheus died on Friday night and I heard the shocking news at 6.30am on Saturday. Two days earlier, on Thursday morning, I had run crying out of the office, racing home after getting a call from my husband: our 18-month-old baby and the woman who looks after her had been taking a walk when they were held up at gunpoint.

The assailant had looked the nanny in the eye, casually flicking his gaze over the baby, and he had said: “Give me your cellphone or I will kill you.”

A few months ago a man with a knife had tried the same trick on her — also in the presence of the baby. So, this time, she had nothing to give — she leaves the phone at home even when she is walking in our leafy suburban neighbourhood.

In a panic she pushed the pram into the middle of the road and tried to flag down a passing motorist. An oncoming car slowed down to take in the scene but the driver decided that he was not going to help a woman in distress with a baby.

What has happened to us?

Black and white, we are a nation that has lost the sense of humanity that I always believed would be our saving grace.

So why do I tell these stories?

These days anyone who is critical of the leadership of the ANC is subject to violently abusive language.

Our words have become as barbed as bullets, the rage of our publicity hungry leadership is as violent as the deeds of the criminals they decry. Our leaders are no longer measured and nuanced, no longer exemplary.

So, rather than take on real issues of substance and engage in meaningful debates, our new breed of politicians (many of them carryovers from the Mandela and Mbeki eras, but with a new style of confrontation, and with a worrying acceptance of aggression) chooses to attack rather than to discuss.

So, for the record, I want to be clear that these are not the disgruntled mutterings of a frustrated Cope member. I am a dyed-in-the-wool ANC member who has lived my life in pursuance of the objectives of the African National Congress.

I was born into the ANC and I grew up believing in this country as much as anyone. In my own small ways I have sought to contribute to the struggle for dignity in South Africa.

I have been a card-carrying member of the ANC, working on establishing a new branch structure in Pretoria in the mid-1990s.

I have worked in a community clinic in Diepsloot, disappearing into the shadows of Dainfern every day when many of my middle-class peers were wondering what I was doing going in and out of a township so rife with violence and despair when I didn’t have to.

I say this not to illustrate that I am special — I believe this story is common among many politically conscious South Africans in their 30s and 40s; I say it to illustrate the severity of my crisis of confidence in this nation.

When I declare that I have lost faith in the current leadership, I say so with deep equivocation — I am almost afraid to say this aloud.

Yet I would be a fool to believe that the national leadership that President Jacob Zuma has put in place to sort out the police and to protect communities from the type of crime that claimed Alpheus’s life is up to the challenge.

The analysts who have followed Bheki Cele’s progress in KwaZulu-Natal may have good things to say about him, but I find it hard to fathom how a man who embodies the qualities of gangsterism — the fancy clothes and flashy lifestyle — could serve as a credible head of police.

In the wake of the Selebi case I find it stunning that the president could appoint a man who dresses like a pimp — and who shamelessly tells interviewers that he wears Jimmy Choo shoes — as our police chief.

In a nation in which young black boys see thugs in BMWs and blinged-out attire as the decision-makers in their communities, it is shocking that we would hire a police chief who reflects in his demeanour the very traits we wish to discourage in our communities.

In Nathi Mthethwa we have a police minister who has been twice embroiled in spectacularly arrogant episodes of mismanaging public funds.

In the middle of a national crime crisis and social protests in poor communities, that are at root about poverty in the face of plenty, it seems implausible we would elect to put in place as a leader a man who flaunts his privilege in the faces of the many South Africans who have nothing.

A postscript. Minutes after escaping their assailant, my daughter and our nanny returned safely home.

Thankfully someone else stopped on the street to help them and their assailant hopped into a waiting car and fled the scene. When they got home, the baby, who had been silent while the drama played itself out, threw up in distress.

For the nanny — for whom it was the least violent of many incidents she has survived (these include a stabbing that punctured her lung 10 years ago, a gun placed against her head a few years later, and hospitalisation following a blow to the head from her mother as a teenager) — it has been a more difficult week.

At Alpheus’s small house in Vosloorus, we gathered on a grey Saturday afternoon to offer our condolences to his wife. She recounted how angry she had been at him the day before he died.

He had refused to take her to work — he was on study leave and had an exam to write later that day. When she got into Johannesburg that morning, she was mugged — they took her bag, her phone, the usual.

A day later, her anger had dissipated. A bigger crime had transpired. Her husband lay dead in a government mortuary.

She sat calmly, clearly still in shock. His daughter, with a composure that belied her 13 years, spoke for all of us. “How are you,” we asked, “Outside I am okay, but inside I am broken.”

Sisonke Msimang is the executive director of the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa. She writes in her personal capacity.

Copied as fair use from www.mg.co.za

Sub-Saharan Africa: Latest epidemiological trends

Sub-Saharan Africa remains the region most heavily affected by HIV worldwide, accounting for over two thirds (67%) of all people living with
HIV and for nearly three quarters (72%) of AIDS-related deaths in 2008.

An estimated 1.9 million [1.6 million–2.2 million] people were newly infected with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa in 2008, bringing to 22.4 million
[20.8 million–24.1 million] the number of people living with HIV.

In 2008, more than 14 million children in sub-Saharan Africa had lost one or both parents to AIDS.

Sub-Saharan Africa’s epidemics vary significantly from country to country—with most appearing to have stabilized, although often at very high
levels, particularly in southern Africa.

The nine countries in southern Africa continue to bear a disproportionate share of the global AIDS burden—each of them has an adult HIV prevalence
greater than 10%.

With an adult HIV prevalence of 26% in 2007, Swaziland has the most severe level of infection in the world. Lesotho’s epidemic seems to have
stabilized, with a prevalence of 23.2% in 2008.

South Africa continues to be home to the world’s largest population of people living with HIV—5.7 million in 2007.

While the rate of new HIV infections in the region has slowly declined, the number of people living with HIV slightly increased in 2008, partly due to
increased longevity stemming from improved access to treatment. Adult (15–49) HIV prevalence declined from 5.8% in 2001 to 5.2% in 2008.

By the end 2008, 44% of adults and children in the region in need of antiretroviral therapy had access to treatment. Five years earlier, the
regional treatment coverage was only 2%.

As a result of treatment scale-up, people are living longer in many countries. In Kenya, AIDS-related deaths have fallen by 29% since 2002.

Women and girls continue to be disproportionally affected by HIV in sub-Saharan Africa. Throughout the region, women account for 60% of all HIV
infections.

Young women between the ages of 15 and 19 are particularly vulnerable to HIV. In Kenya, young women are three times more likely to become infected than their male counterparts.

Drops in HIV incidence were reported among women in Zambia between 2002 and 2007. In the United Republic of Tanzania, national HIV incidence fell between 2004 and 2008. Zimbabwe has experienced a steady fall in HIV prevalence since the late 1990s, due to changes in sexual behaviour.

In East Africa, HIV prevalence seems to have stabilized and in some settings may be declining. In Burundi, HIV prevalence fell among young people aged 15 to 24 in urban areas between 2002 and 2008 (4% to 3.8%) and in semi-urban
areas (6.6% to 4%) during the same period, while HIV prevalence increased in rural areas from 2.2% to 2.9%.

Although HIV prevalence in West and Central Africa is much lower than in southern Africa, the subregion nevertheless is home to several serious
national epidemics in countries such as Côte d’Ivoire (3.9% HIV prevalence) and Ghana (1.9% prevalence).

Key regional dynamics

Heterosexual intercourse remains the epidemic’s driving force in sub-Saharan Africa, with extensive ongoing transmission to newborns and breastfed
babies. However, recent epidemiological evidence has revealed the region’s epidemic to be more diverse than previously thought:

Sex work continues to play a notable role in many national epidemics. In Kenya, sex workers and their clients accounted for an estimated 14.1% of new HIV infections. In Uganda, sex workers, their clients and their clients’ partners accounted for 10% of new infections in 2008.

Seven African countries (Benin, Burundi, Cameroon, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Mali and Nigeria) report that more than 30% of all sex workers are living with HIV.

Several recent studies suggest that unprotected sex between men is probably a more important factor in sub-Saharan Africa’s HIV epidemics than is
commonly thought. In a recent survey of men who have sex with men in Malawi, Namibia and Botswana, the HIV prevalences among the participants were 21.4%, 12.4% and 19.7%, respectively.

Although common in sub-Saharan Africa, homosexual behaviour is highly stigmatized in the region. More than 42% of men who have sex with men surveyed in Botswana, Malawi and Namibia experienced at least one human rights abuse.

Injecting drug users in sub-Saharan Africa appear to be at high risk of HIV infection. In the region, an estimated 221 000 drug users are HIV-positive,
representing 12.4% of all injecting drug users in the region. In Nairobi, Kenya, 36% of injecting drug users surveyed tested HIV-positive.

HIV prevention

Evidence suggests that HIV prevention programmes may be having an impact on sexual behaviours in some African countries. In southern Africa, a trend towards safer sexual behaviour was observed among young men and women between 2000 and 2007.

In South Africa, the proportion of adults reporting condom use during their first sexual encounter rose from 31.3% in 2002 to 64.8% in 2008.

As in the case of increased access to antiretroviral therapy, sub-Saharan Africa has made remarkable strides in expanding access to services to
prevent mother to child HIV transmission. In 2008, 45% of HIV-positive pregnant women received antiretroviral drugs, compared with 9% in 2004.

http://data.unaids.org/pub/FactSheet/2009/20091124_FS_SSA_en.pdf

Today Is My “HIV Birthday”

Please if you’re at health department or invloved in HIV related activitives especial support groups here’s a concept you could use as theme for your event (HIV Birthday).

“Seven years ago today, I found out I was HIV positive. I’m thinking a lot today about how my life has changed since that day. You know, I have to say, there has been good and bad, ups and downs, but I continue to be thankful for the life I have. Ironically, I think I am healthier living with HIV than I was when I was negative. The one thing I still struggle with today is fear of stigma/disclosure. But I’m working on it! I’m being more open about my status because I do feel that silence = shame, and I have nothing to be ashamed of!” mikeosito

“Before I tested positive, I could never understand why anyone would want to have an HIV birthday. However, my HIV birthday is October 16th – also 7 years. In the beginning, I didn’t think that I would be able to get through this but I have since learned to appreciate life. I now say that HIV will eventually take my breath but I refuse to let it take my life! Good luck in your continuous journey”. Dakotalagrange

“2 years ago on the 20th of this month I know was when I got infected. I’m so glad that I am here today in 09. God bless everyone”. car2d2

“unfortunately i don’t recall the exact day, but it’s twenty years ago this month i was diagnosed with hiv…who knew i’d still be around to talk about it!” Vanyel5

“My “HIV Birthday” is today…November 17th.

It’s been 9 years for me.

And, you are right…how things have changed in one’s life”. Polymath
www.thebody.com

For more infromation on HIV related stories including treatment and ongoing research for prevention and treatment go to http://www.thebody.com

websites like twitter, facebook, etc. are blocked at my workplace this blog/note was brought to through http://ping.fm

testing skype for ping

sex worker arrests unlawful (SWEAT)

City’s vice squad violating SWEAT’s interdict Lawyers acting on behalf of SWEAT (Sex Workers Education and Advocacy Taskforce) have submitted a letter to the City of Cape Town detailing in legal terms why the ongoing arrests of sex workers are unlawful and requesting that the City respond by 5 November.

On 16 October 2009 the City issued a media release stating that they had arrested 84 sex workers for soliciting and that the purpose of the arrests was to ‘profile sex offenders at the police station and register them on the City database if they are habitual offenders’ – such evidence ‘can subsequently be used should habitual offenders be arraigned in court’. All eighty-four of the sex workers who were arrested were released ‘after being profiled and fined’.

According to letter written by Angela Andrews from the Legal Resource Centre: ‘The arrests violate the terms of the interdict granted in favour of SWEAT by the High Court on 20 April 2009, and the circumstances in which arrests can be made without a warrant. Such arrests must be made with the intention on bringing the arrestee before a court and cannot be made with the intention of “profiling” an alleged offender or imposing a series of admission of guilt fines on them.’

Vivienne Lalu, advocacy coordinator at SWEAT felt that the City should be held accountable to the law like everyone else. She further stated that sex workers fought long and hard to obtain the interdict. She said: ‘Sex workers do have rights even though the work they do is considered a crime.’ SWEAT would value any opportunity to engage the City regarding this matter. The random arrests of sex workers not only fails to address real crimes and those criminals who capitalize upon sex workers, but cause the industry to be driven further underground and result in sex workers not being able to access their human rights.

Please contact Vivienne Lalu from SWEAT on +2721 4487875 / +2782 4940788 or Angela Andrews from Legal Resource Centre on +2721 4238285.

Can we trust media to look after itself?

The media has been canvassing for relaxation of regulations with regards to what it can publish and what it cannot publish. Thus far a number of these laws have been relaxed compared to apartheid era. However a lot still needs to be done by media or South African Broadcasting Complaints Commission as well as Advertising Authorities with regards to flexing their muscles on the kinds of advertisements that the media can publish or broadcast (access to information will not be discussed here).

I’m sure a lot of you have come across a number of advertisements particularly on newspapers that make you wonder, is this business being advertised here legal? i.e. abortions adverts as well as the over 18 business services. I mean who in their right mind approves those adverts, can’t the courts charge these institutions alongside the culprits or owners of the businesses advertised.

There has been a number of reports by the media on the effects of illegal abortions and how our government systems are failing to curb this yet on the same newspaper there are at least 4 adverts of illegal abortions. Has anyone amongst you heard or saw action taken against these media institutions for their role in the killing of innocent children who die daily at the hand of these heartless barbarians. How many people out there who have had the worst ordeal have publicly mentioned that they saw the contacts of the abortion this on the newspaper and yet nothing has been done to change this.

The worst thing some of the editors and those in charge of the adverts sections are parents themselves, how do they sleep at night knowing fully well that somewhere in some dingy corner a girl is going through excruciating pains that she shouldn’t be or could be dying.

So as we celebrate this day while demanding more media freedom let us be careful how we use it.

There’s a no parent out there who will be willing to increase his/her daughter’s allowance knowing fully well that she’ll spend it at a tavern or club drinking her kidneys out or in the modern street lingo eliminating her neurons.

Does male circumcision protect against HIV? not completely…

We might all know that Male Circumcision (MC) reduces HIV acquisition by 60%, this does not mean that all MC is protective for HIV.

Before I start I want to acknowledge that MC is a sensitive subject and I sincerely hope not to offend anyone reading this note.

One of the main ways in which HIV infects males is through sexual intercourse, studies has revealed that HIV infects males much easier through the foreskin. Recent research has shown that through removal or cutting of foreskin males have a 60% CHANCE of not being infected.

Firstly whether MC protects men from HIV depends on many factors.

It appears that in some cultures/communities the initiation may involve only a nick to the foreskin, or cutting the frenulum, or removing a small wedge of the foreskin but leaving a little or most of it behind. This obviously raises huge communication challenges because the men might believe they are completely circumcised and thus at lower risk of acquiring HIV when in fact they still have most or all of their foreskin.

Messages we should be sending is:
Male circumcision is good for men’s sexual health and protects
against sexually transmitted infections, but it does not protect against HIV
COMPLETELY.

* Men who are circumcised still need to use condoms, reduce sexual
partners, and delay having sex.

* Transactional sex, intergenerational sex and sex when drunk are all
high risk behaviours for HIV, whether a person is circumcised or not.

* If you are HIV positive, male circumcision does not protect you or
your partner

* Male Circumcision does not protect MEN who have SEX with MEN

* If a man is circumcised it DOES NOT mean he is HIV negative.

* Circumcision DOES NOT protect women against HIV

The education and social support provided in initiation schools is valuable, indeed priceless, to many
communities and it is possible to preserve this while also ensuring that the initiates get accurate information about sexual health and HIV as well as safe and complete circumcisions.