Showing posts with label Lifestyle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lifestyle. Show all posts

Model: Getting what I don't deserve






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Model Cameron Russell's TED Talk has been viewed more than a million times

  • She says, as winner of "genetic lottery," she has been able to have a modeling career

  • Her looks fit a narrow definition of beauty, she says

  • Russell: I work hard but my modeling career gives my views undeserved attention




Editor's note: Cameron Russell has been a model for brands such as Victoria's Secret, Calvin Klein, Ralph Lauren and Benetton and has appeared in the pages of Vogue, Harpers Bazaar and W. She spoke at TEDx MidAtlantic in October. TED is a nonprofit dedicated to "ideas worth spreading" which it makes available through talks posted on its website.


(CNN) -- Last month the TEDx talk I gave was posted online. Now it has been viewed over a million times. The talk itself is nothing groundbreaking. It's a couple of stories and observations about working as a model for the last decade.


I gave the talk because I wanted to tell an honest personal narrative of what privilege means.


I wanted to answer questions like how did I become a model. I always just say, " I was scouted," but that means nothing.


The real way that I became a model is that I won a genetic lottery, and I am the recipient of a legacy. What do I mean by legacy? Well, for the past few centuries we have defined beauty not just as health and youth and symmetry that we're biologically programmed to admire, but also as tall, slender figures, and femininity and white skin. And this is a legacy that was built for me, and it's a legacy that I've been cashing in on.


Some fashionistas may think, "Wait. Naomi. Tyra. Joan Smalls. Liu Wen." But the truth is that in 2007 when an inspired NYU Ph.D. student counted all the models on the runway, of the 677 models hired, only 27, or less than four percent, were non-white.


Usually TED only invites the most accomplished and famous people in the world to give talks. I hoped telling a simple story -- where my only qualification was life experience (not a degree, award, successful business or book) -- could encourage those of us who make media to elevate other personal narratives: the stories of someone like Trayvon Martin, the undocumented worker, the candidate without money for press.



Instead my talk reinforced the observations I highlighted in it: that beauty and femininity and race have made me the candy of mass media, the "once you pop you just can't stop" of news.


In particular it is the barrage of media requests I've had that confirm that how I look and what I do for a living attracts enormous undeserved attention.


Do I want a TV show? Do I want to write a book? Do I want to appear in a movie? Do I want to speak to CNN, NBC, NPR, the Times of India, Cosmo, this blogger and that journal? Do I want to speak at this high school, at that college, at Harvard Law School or at other conferences?


TED.com: A teen just trying to figure it out



I am not a uniquely accomplished 25-year-old. I've modeled for 10 years and I took six years to finish my undergraduate degree part-time, graduating this past June with honors from Columbia University. If I ever had needed to put together a CV it would be quite short. Like many young people I'd highlight my desire to work hard.


But hard work is not why I have been successful as a model. I'm not saying I'm lazy. But the most important part of my job is to show up with a 23-inch waist, looking young, feminine and white. This shouldn't really shock anyone. Models are chosen solely based on looks. But what was shocking to me is that when I spoke, the way I look catapulted what I had to say on to the front page.


Even if I did give a good talk, is what I have to say more important and interesting than what Colin Powell said? (He spoke at the same event and his talk has about a quarter of the view count.)




TED.com: Isaac Mizrahi on fashion and creativity


Like many young people I believe I have potential to make a positive impact in the world. But if I speak from a platform that relies on how I look, I worry that I will not have made room for anyone else to come after me. I will have reinforced that beauty and race and privilege get you a news story. The schoolteacher without adequate support, the domestic worker without rights, they won't be up there with me.


So what do I do? I am being handed press when good press for important issues is hard to come by. These outlets are the same outlets that spent two years not reporting a new drone base in Saudi Arabia while press in the UK covered it.


They are the same organizations that have forgotten New Orleans and forgotten to follow up on contractors who aren't fulfilling their responsibilities there -- important not only for the people of NOLA, but also for setting a precedent for the victims of Sandy, and of the many storms to come whose frequency and severity will rise as our climate changes.


TED. com: Amy Tan on where creativity hides


Should I tell stories like these instead of my own? I don't feel like I have the authority or experience to do so.


How can we change this cycle? The rise of the Internet and the camera phone have started to change what stories are accessible. And we now have the ability to build more participatory media structures. The Internet often comes up with good answers to difficult questions. So I ask: How can we build media platforms accessible to a diversity of content creators?


On a personal note, what should I talk about? Do I refuse these offers outright because of my lack of experience, because I'm not the right person to tell the stories that are missing from the media? Can I figure out a way to leverage my access to bring new voices into the conversation? Right now I'm cautiously accepting a few requests and figuring out what it all means.


I'm listening, tweet me @cameroncrussell


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Cameron Russell.






Read More..

Afghanistan's future: Five questions






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • President Obama has revealed new details about the troop withdrawal in Afghanistan

  • But there are several key issues that still must be resolved in the coming months

  • The Afghan military has its critics, but the U.S. has praised its progress

  • There are fears that Afghanistan's advancements might be at risk after 2014




(CNN) -- In his State of the Union address, President Obama reaffirmed that the country's war in Afghanistan would be over by the end of 2014.


He also laid out more specifics.


Of the approximately 66,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan now, more than half -- 34,000 -- will come home in the next year, Obama said.


At the same time, Afghan troops will assume most of the responsibility for combat missions.


"This spring, our forces will move into a support role, while Afghan security forces take the lead," Obama said.


It was previously expected that Afghan forces would take the lead in combat missions by the middle of this year. But a U.S. official told CNN that the military transition has accelerated and that Afghans will lead all security operations by March.


What does this news mean for Afghanistan and America's longest war? Here are some key questions that will be asked in the coming months:


1. Are the Afghan troops up to the task?


There are certainly doubts.


A Pentagon review in December claimed that only one of 23 Afghan army brigades was capable of functioning on its own.










Meanwhile, literacy rates are low, desertion rates are high, and many deserters have joined the insurgency. There also have been a troubling number of "green-on-blue" attacks: Afghan troops attacking their American comrades.


But Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has spoken positively about the progress Afghans have made in growing their army, reducing violence and becoming more self-sufficient. Afghan forces now lead nearly 90% of operations across the country.


"We're on the right path to give (Afghanistan) the opportunity to govern itself," Panetta said earlier this month.


Afghan President Hamid Karzai said he welcomes the U.S. troop withdrawal and insists his army can defend the country against the Taliban.


"It is exactly our job to deal with it, and we are capable of dealing with it," Karzai said during an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour.


What the army needs now, Karzai says, is more equipment and firepower. He came to the Pentagon last month with a wish list asking for more helicopters, drones and other hardware, according to a senior defense official.


"We need an air force. We need air mobility," Karzai told Amanpour. "We need proper mechanized forces. We need, you know, armored vehicles and tanks and all that."


2. What presence will the U.S. have after 2014?


The plan is to withdraw all combat troops but keep a residual force in the country to help train Afghans and carry out counterterrorism operations when needed.


The size of that force is still being discussed.


Gen. John Allen, the former commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, recommended between 6,000 and 15,000 troops. But that figure was lowered to a range between 2,500 and 9,000, according to a defense official.


There might not be any U.S. troops at all if the United States cannot come to an agreement over immunity with Afghanistan. There was no American presence in Iraq at the end of that war because the Iraqi government refused to extend legal protections to U.S. troops.


Karzai, who's in favor of a residual force, said he would put the immunity decision in the hands of Afghan elders, and he expressed confidence that he could persuade the elders to see things his way.


Leaving no U.S. troops at all would be a major misstep, said Peter Bergen, CNN's national security analyst. He said the U.S. has abandoned Afghanistan already, in 1989, and the decision left America with little understanding of the power vacuum that led to the Taliban's rise in the first place.


"The current public discussion of zero U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan ... will encourage those hardliner elements of the Taliban who have no interest in a negotiated settlement and believe they can simply wait the Americans out," Bergen wrote in an op-ed for CNN.com. "It also discourages the many millions of Afghans who see a longtime U.S. presence as the best guarantor that the Taliban won't come back in any meaningful way."


3. What's at stake?


The main fear among the Afghan people is that the country could revert to another civil war once the United States withdraws its combat troops. The Taliban are still "resilient and determined," according to a recent Pentagon report, and insurgents continue to carry out attacks and pose a major security threat.


"Some people we've spoken to sort of take it for granted that there's going to be a civil war when the United States leaves," said CNN's Erin Burnett on a recent trip to Afghanistan. "It happened before when the Soviet Union left (in 1989)."










For all the violence Afghanistan has seen in the past decade, it has also seen major advancements in human rights and quality of life.


"During the Taliban, basically there were thousands of girls going to school in Afghanistan. Now you have millions of girls going to school," Burnett said. "So there's been real progress on women's rights. Obviously there remain a lot of problems -- honor killings, forced marriages, domestic violence -- but there has been real progress."


Retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, once America's top commander in Afghanistan, said the Afghan people are "terrified."


"They're terrified because they think they have something to lose," McChrystal said. "There has been progress made. There is a better life. There are girls in school. There are things that are better than they were and opportunities potentially ahead.


"But they're afraid that if we completely abandon them in 2014, as they perceive we did in 1989, (things) would all go back."


And in Washington, there are worries that the wrong move could put the United States right back where it started, with nothing to show for a bloody conflict that started in 2001.


Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Buck McKeon, R-California, expressed concern last week that a hasty withdrawal could be "needlessly fraught with risk."


"Since the president took the commendable step of deploying a surge to Afghanistan in 2009, we have known that our hard-fought gains are fragile and reversible," McKeon said. "That isn't my assessment, but the consistent opinion of experts both military and civilian."


4. Who will lead after Karzai?


Afghanistan's only president of this century won't be in charge for much longer.


Elections are scheduled for April 2014, and Karzai has reached the term limit set by his country's constitution. He told Amanpour it's "absolutely time to go."


"A new president will come to this country. A new government will come to this country. And I'll be a happily retired civil servant," he said.


So while Afghanistan oversees a major military transition, it also will have to make a political transition.


Who will lead the country during this critical moment in its history? Will the vote go smoothly, without violence and without controversy? There were reports of ballot tampering and other violations in the last one.


The answers might be just as important to Afghanistan's security as the readiness of its troops.


"The single biggest challenge for us is the political transition, the elections of 2014," said Saad Mohseni, the media mogul behind Afghanistan's Tolo Television. "(If) we have credible elections, I think we'll be OK for the next five, six years. (If) we don't, there is a real danger that we'll see instability, especially in 2014 as the U.S. troops withdraw."


5. What part will the Taliban play?


Despite the ongoing insurgency, Karzai seems eager to resume stalled peace talks with the Taliban and include them in the political process.


The Taliban pulled out of talks last year, but Karzai said last month they "are very much conveying to us that they want to have peace talks. They're also people. They're also families. They also suffer, like the rest of Afghans are suffering."


Javid Ahmad, a Kabul native now with the Asia Program of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, believes revitalized peace talks are essential to Afghanistan's future and to the legacy of America's war.


"If withdrawing responsibly in 2014 is indeed high on President Obama's agenda, then he has little choice but to prioritize and accelerate the peace talks, negotiate a cease-fire between all sides, and reach a settlement that ensures that the Taliban lay down their weapons," Ahmad wrote in a recent column.


But will the Taliban be willing to cooperate? And if they enter negotiations, how much of an influence would they have on an Afghan society that has seen so many changes in the past decade?


"There have to be some red lines," said Jawed Ludin, Afghanistan's deputy foreign minister for political affairs. "Some of the achievements that we've had in the last 10 years can't be negotiated."


Karzai sounded confident that most of the Taliban would acknowledge this.


"I think there is now a critical mass in Afghanistan of the educated, of the Afghan people who want a future of progress and stability," he said. "And I think also that the Taliban recognize that this corner has been turned, the majority of them. Some may be there among them who would not -- who would remain, you know, in the darkest of the mindset possible. But those are a few."


CNN's Chris Lawrence, Mike Mount and Jake Tapper contributed to this report.






Read More..

Meteor shows need to keep eye on sky








By Colin Stuart, special for CNN


February 15, 2013 -- Updated 1512 GMT (2312 HKT)


















Meteor explodes over Russia


Meteor explodes over Russia


Meteor explodes over Russia


Meteor explodes over Russia


Meteor explodes over Russia


Meteor explodes over Russia


Meteor explodes over Russia


Meteor explodes over Russia








STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Meteor explosion above Russia left hundreds of people injured

  • Meteor came on day asteroid expected to pass 27,000 kilometers from Earth

  • Earth is sprinkled with around 170 craters also caused by debris falling from space

  • Stuart says unexpected meteor shows importance of monitoring space for potential threats




Editor's note: Colin Stuart is an astronomy and science writer, who also works as a Freelance Astronomer for the Royal Observatory Greenwich in London. His first book is due to be published by Carlton Books in September 2013. Follow @skyponderer on Twitter.


London (CNN) -- Reports coming from Russia suggest that hundreds of people have been injured by a meteor falling from space. The force of the fireball, which seems to have crashed into a lake near the town of Chebarkul in the Ural Mountains, roared through the sky early on Friday morning local time, blowing out windows and damaging buildings. This comes on the same day that astronomers and news reporters alike were turning their attention to a 40 meter asteroid -- known as 2012 DA14 -- which is due for a close approach with Earth on Friday evening. The asteroid will skirt around our planet, however, missing by some 27,000 kilometers (16,777 miles). Based on early reports, there is no reason to believe the two events are connected.


Read more: Russian meteor injures hundreds



Colin Stuart

Colin Stuart



And yet it just goes to show how much space debris exists up there above our heads. It is easy to think of a serene solar system, with the eight planets quietly orbiting around the Sun and only a few moons for company. The reality is that we also share our cosmic neighborhood with millions of other, much smaller bodies: asteroids. Made of rock and metal, they range in size from a few meters across, up to the largest -- Ceres -- which is 1000 kilometers wide. They are left over rubble from the chaotic birth of our solar system around 5000 million years ago and, for the most part, are found in a "belt" between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. But some are known to move away from this region, either due to collisions with other asteroids or the gravitational pull of a planet. And that can bring them into close proximity to the Earth.


Read more: Saving Earth from asteroids










Once a piece of space-rock enters our atmosphere, it becomes known as a meteor. Traveling through the sky at a few kilometers per second, friction with the air can cause the meteor to break up into several pieces. Eyewitnesses have described seeing a burst of light and hearing loud, thunderous noises. This, too, is due to the object tearing through the gases above our heads. If any of the fragments make it to the ground, only then are they called meteorites.


Such events are rare, but not unprecedented. An object entered Earth's atmosphere in 1908 before breaking up over Siberia. The force of the explosion laid waste to a dense area of forest covering more than 2000 square kilometers. It is not hard to imagine the devastation of such an event over a more highly populated region. The Earth is sprinkled with around 170 craters also caused by debris falling from space. The largest is found near the town of Vredefort in South Africa. The impact of a much larger asteroid -- perhaps as big as 15 kilometers across -- is famously thought to have finished off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.


Opinion: Don't count 'doomsday asteroid' out yet


It is easy to see why, then, that astronomers are keen to discover the position and trajectory of as many asteroids as possible. That way they can work out where they are heading and when, if at all, they might pose a threat to us on Earth. It is precisely this sort of work that led to the discovery of asteroid 2012 DA14 last February by a team of Spanish astronomers. However, today's meteor strike shows that it is not currently possible to pick up everything.


A non-profit foundation, led by former NASA astronaut Ed Lu, wants to send a dedicated asteroid-hunting telescope into space that can scan the solar system for any potential threats. For now, astronomers will use Friday's fly-by to bounce radar beams off 2012 DA14's surface, hoping to learn more about its motion and structure. One day this information could be used to help move an asteroid out of an Earth-impacting orbit. This latest meteor over Russia just goes to show how important such work is and how crucial it is that we keep our eye on the sky.


Read more: NASA estimates 4,700 'potentially hazardous' asteroids


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Colin Stuart.











Part of complete coverage on







February 15, 2013 -- Updated 1421 GMT (2221 HKT)



He smashed barriers to compete in Olympics. Now police are investigating the fatal shooting of a woman at his home.







February 15, 2013 -- Updated 1756 GMT (0156 HKT)



A meteor explodes above Russia's Urals region on Friday, February 15, shattering glass in buildings and leaving hundreds of people hurt.







February 15, 2013 -- Updated 0200 GMT (1000 HKT)



CNN's Jim Clancy and Sara Sidner discuss the mysterious case of an Israeli inmate and the gag order surrounding his death.







February 15, 2013 -- Updated 0046 GMT (0846 HKT)



The number of Tibetans in China who have set themselves on fire to protest Beijing's rule has reached 100, according to Tibetan groups.







February 14, 2013 -- Updated 1517 GMT (2317 HKT)



Choosing to step down from a top job can be an extraordinary decision, whether the person is a pontiff or a politician. And it's not easy.








CNN Freedom Project: Bras command the highest price per kilogram in the used clothing market -- and provide a lifeline to rescued slaves.







February 14, 2013 -- Updated 1513 GMT (2313 HKT)



For the Rome-based press corps that follow the pope, covering the closed world of the Holy See is like attending to a nuclear missile silo.







February 13, 2013 -- Updated 2259 GMT (0659 HKT)



Becky Anderson talks to Eve Ensler about how her global campaign One Billion Rising can help end violence against women -- through dance.







February 9, 2013 -- Updated 1846 GMT (0246 HKT)



Dalal al-Ziben never thought about having another baby -- her husband has been in a prison for years. But then he had his sperm smuggled out.


















Read More..

What does Kim intend with nuclear test?






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • North Korea enjoys international community chatter about its nuclear program

  • Dates of nuclear test and rocket launch have significance, writes Joo Sung Ha

  • Joo works as a newspaper journalist and came from North Korea




Editor's note: Joo Sung Ha is a Seoul-based journalist for Donga Ilbo, a newspaper in South Korea. He graduated from North Korea's Kim Il Sung University and trained as a reservist artillery officer. He has been imprisoned in China and North Korea. This piece was submitted in Korean and has been translated.


(CNN) -- On Tuesday, the international community reacted to North Korea's third nuclear test by calling its action "provocative," while South Korea's foreign minister warned that it was a "clear threat to international peace and security."


It was what Kim Jong Un, the nation's young leader, wanted.


From the North Korean government's view, the more pressure the international community places on its nuclear testing, the better. They enjoy the chatter among the world's leaders and at the U.N. about how North Korea's nuclear program must be stopped at all cost.



Joo Sung Ha defected from North Korea and is a journalist based in Seoul.

Joo Sung Ha defected from North Korea and is a journalist based in Seoul.



On January 23, the North Korean foreign ministry notified that they intended to carry out a test. They also sent photos of Kim Jong Un holding a meeting with senior officials.


If Kim had not acted by going through with the underground blast, it would have appeared that he had succumbed to pressure from the international community. In North Korea the authority of the "king" in the dynasty system cannot be compromised.


The date of the nuclear test -- conducted on February 12 -- is also significant, as it fell just days short of the 71st birthday of Kim's late father, Kim Jong Il, on February 16. Many North Korean events are associated with symbolic dates for the Kim family. On December 12, just days before the first anniversary of Kim Jong II's death, Pyongyang launched its first rocket into orbit -- despite international uproar.










North Korea has staked its pride on these events. Saving face is more important than international sanctions, even if hundreds of thousands of ordinary North Koreans have died of hunger.


Even so, I cannot say the motivation behind North Korea's nuclear test is for Kim's pride alone. It also sends a message to its people that "Kim Jong Un leads the world."


Even with the nuclear test, the government knows that war will not arise. But to its people, it can give the impression that war is impending.


Inheriting his father's position at such a young age -- he's believed to be in his 20s -- many in North Korea may question whether Kim has the clout to lead. But through this test, Kim wanted to send a strong message domestically that he is in charge.


What happens if they do develop an effective nuclear weapon? Does North Korea intend to attack the United States? That is impossible. If North Korea attacks, it will be sent back to the Stone Ages -- the leadership in Pyongyang is well aware of that.


Does this point to an eventual attack on South Korea then? South Korea is protected by a nuclear umbrella -- meaning that the United States will protect it. In return for Seoul limiting its own nuclear weapons capability, Washington offers its protection. If North Korea attacks South Korea, it's effectively an attack on the United States.


Another major reason why North Korea is developing a nuclear capability is that its conventional military is dated and there are doubts about whether it can defend itself. While North Korea has an estimated 1.2 million soldiers, making it the third largest military behind China and United States, this is only a number.


It may be hard to believe but for almost 20 years, there have been continued food shortages in the military, to the extent that as many as 20% to 30% of the armed forces have actually disappeared -- with many deserting their post by way of a bribe to their superiors. Those that do remain in service are often involved in petty crime to get by, such as stealing from the civilian population.


North Korea requires military service for 10 years. During those years, most are discharged without even having fired 30 bullets. Without sufficient fuel for planes, airborne troops have not had much training. In 1990, I stood guard at a post in Pyongyang. The anti-aircraft weapon I used was a 1940s era model from the Soviet Union.


If war is to occur, North Korea could not stand, even for days, and it is well aware of that. But could it count on traditional ally, China, for support?


Starting from Kim Il Sung, the founder of North Korea, the North Korean regime has never fully trusted China. The message that China is a nation that could strike North Korea at the "back of the head" has been passed down over the years to Kim Jong Un, his grandson. Since North Korea cannot count on Beijing fully, it has turned to the nuclear option as a deterrent.


North Korea would not risk a pre-emptive attack on the South, but the Kim dynasty now believes it has a card to protect itself, which is its main objective. For this reason, even if millions of people starve to death in the effects of the harsh sanctions, North Korea will keep trying to develop its own nuclear capabilities.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Joo Sung Ha.






Read More..

Where's Obama's foreign policy?








By Isobel Coleman, Special to CNN


February 13, 2013 -- Updated 1653 GMT (0053 HKT)









STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Isobel Coleman: Obama mainly addressed domestic issues: economy, immigration, energy

  • He spoke very little about and offered nothing much new on foreign policy, she says

  • Coleman: He talked about ending Afghanistan War, spoke briefly about Iran, Syria, China

  • Coleman: His reinvigorated free trade agenda seems to be the boldest move




Editor's note: Isobel Coleman is the author of "Paradise Beneath Her Feet" and a senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.


(CNN) -- President Obama's State of the Union address predictably focused on his domestic priorities.


Immigration reform, a laundry list of economic initiatives including infrastructure improvements (Fix it First), clean energy, some manufacturing innovation, a bit of educational reform and the rhetorical high point of his speech -- gun control.



Isobel Coleman

Isobel Coleman



As in years past, foreign policy made up only about 15% of the speech, but even within that usual limited attention, Tuesday night's address pointed to few new directions.



On Afghanistan -- America's longest war -- Obama expressed just a continued commitment to bringing the troops home, ending "our war" while theirs continues. On Iran, there was a single sentence reiterating the need for a diplomatic solution, which makes me think that a big diplomatic push is not likely. On North Korea, boilerplate promises to isolate the country further after its provocative nuclear test, and on Syria, a call to "keep the pressure" on the regime, which means more watching from the sidelines as the horror unfolds.


Notably, China was mentioned only twice -- once in the context of jobs, and another time with respect to clean energy. Nothing about managing what could very well be this administration's most vexing but critically important bilateral relationship.


Obama's call for a reinvigorated free trade agenda was his boldest foreign policy statement of the evening. He is right to note that free trade "supports millions of good-paying American jobs," but his pledge to pursue a "comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership" -- a free trade agreement with Europe -- will run into significant opposition from organized labor, especially given ongoing weaknesses in the economy.






Without fast track negotiating authority, the prospects for such a deal are minimal. Fast track authority, which allows the president to negotiate trade deals that Congress can then only approve or disapprove but not amend, expired in 2007, and it would require quite a breakthrough for Congress to approve it again. Still, despite these challenges, an agreement is worth pursuing.


Aside from a free trade agreement with Europe, there was little else in this State of the Union that hinted at foreign policy ambition. But unpredictable events have a way of derailing America's best laid plans to stay above the fray of the world's messiest problems. Who could have predicted just a few months ago that Mali would get a mention in the State of the Union? Iraq -- not uttered once tonight -- could re-emerge as a formidable crisis; Iran, Pakistan and North Korea also have tremendous potential to erupt.


While this administration seems determined to focus inward on getting America's economic and fiscal house in order, I doubt events in the rest of the world will be so accommodating.


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Isobel Coleman











Part of complete coverage on







February 13, 2013 -- Updated 1629 GMT (0029 HKT)



After Barack Obama's speech and Marco Rubio's rebuttal, we should have heard from Kim Peters, who has been unemployed for more than a year, says John Sutter.







February 13, 2013 -- Updated 1420 GMT (2220 HKT)



Anne-Marie Slaughter says the hallmark of the 2013 State of the Union address was progressive pragmatism.







February 13, 2013 -- Updated 1755 GMT (0155 HKT)



David Rothkopf says a newly confident and empowered Obama offered an agenda for change and determination to get to the work of governing.







February 13, 2013 -- Updated 1848 GMT (0248 HKT)



CNN invited contributors to weigh in on President Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday night.







February 13, 2013 -- Updated 1859 GMT (0259 HKT)



Jessica Massa says today's romantic landscape is full of ambiguity and gray areas about where any given connection might lead.







February 13, 2013 -- Updated 1752 GMT (0152 HKT)



LZ Granderson: Marco Rubio was set to showcase the new, women-friendly face of the GOP. Too bad he had just cast a women-unfriendly vote.







February 13, 2013 -- Updated 1753 GMT (0153 HKT)



Ruben Navarrette says Sen. Marco Rubio's effective response to the State of the Union showed he is someone to be reckoned with.







February 13, 2013 -- Updated 1415 GMT (2215 HKT)



Matt Welch: The State of the Union laid out an agenda too costly for a country that wants to see what it's getting in return for debt.







February 13, 2013 -- Updated 1653 GMT (0053 HKT)



Isobel Coleman says Obama's speech ignored huge challenges the U.S. faces in the world, ones which could quickly dominate domestic agenda.







February 13, 2013 -- Updated 1417 GMT (2217 HKT)



Presidents once delivered State of the Union only in writing; now they reckon with a stream of social media comments, says Bob Greene.







February 12, 2013 -- Updated 2118 GMT (0518 HKT)



Peter Bergen says the interview with the bin Laden "shooter" adds important detail to the story of bin Laden's final minutes.







February 12, 2013 -- Updated 1700 GMT (0100 HKT)



David Frum says many people want to believe in living alone, without traditional attachments, but is that kind of life best?







February 12, 2013 -- Updated 1612 GMT (0012 HKT)



Timothy Stanley says Pope Benedict XVI, who struggled to reconcile the Catholic Church's relationship with the modern world, embraced the living traditions of the church while attempting to extend its reach.







February 10, 2013 -- Updated 1839 GMT (0239 HKT)



Dean Obeidallah says the CBS dress advisory note to Grammy attendees was hilarious -- and sexist.


















Read More..

Africa 'must think big for its children'




Children at school in the Mukuru kwa Njenga slum in Nairobi, Kenya.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • New report shows that policies across Africa are helping children's development

  • But laws must improve to help children reach potential, says Catherine Mbengue

  • Scrapping fees in Malawi saw entry to primary school jump from under 50% to 99%

  • At secondary level, education in much of the region is deeply limited, Mbengue says




Editor's note: Catherine Mbengue is a Trustee of the African Child Policy Forum (ACPF) and former senior UNICEF Official. Here, she writes about a new report -- "Children's Chances: How Countries Can Move from Surviving to Thriving," released by Harvard University Press on 13 February 2013.


(CNN) -- Africa has always been a continent of contrasts. And the latest findings from an amazing team of international researchers show that when it comes to providing our children with the best chances in life, Africa once more presents a very mixed picture.


In a new report, never-before-available comparative data on laws and public policies in 191 countries, covering poverty, discrimination, education, health, child labor, child marriage and parental care, reveals how millions of children across the world face conditions that limit their opportunities to thrive and reach their full potential because of governments failure to act.


This new research aims to broaden global attention from solely survival to children's full and healthy development. It comes at a critical time as the global community is looking to set new goals and agree on what all the world's nations will strive for in the so-called "post-2015" agenda following more than a decade of efforts focused around the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).



Catherine Mbengue

Catherine Mbengue



Children's opportunities are not just shaped by parents and families, but also by national action in the form of laws and public policies.


This may involve removing tuition fees, ensuring inclusive education for children with disabilities, enforcing minimum age requirements for labor, age restrictions for marriage so girls might have a better chance to stay in education, or assisting parents to be able to earn enough to support their children and have the time off from work they need to care for their children's health and education.


Read more: Africa grows, but youth get left behind


And as the new analysis confirms, marked strides have been made across sub-Saharan Africa in areas central to our children's healthy development.




Primary education is tuition free across the majority of the region (in 36 of the 41 countries with available figures) and 13 countries have removed charges for secondary education.


In addition, virtually all sub-Saharan African countries (45 of the 46 countries with data) guarantee paid maternity leave (although of these 23 provide less than the 14-week minimum established by the ILO), and 41 of 45 countries have recognized the need to provide income support during periods of unemployment (although this largely does not cover the informal economy).


And progress in improving children's chances does not necessarily rely on the ability to open large purses. Some low and middle-income countries have made impressive advances for children.


Kenya, for example, makes education compulsory for 12 years, longer than all other countries in the region, including those with a higher GDP, and it has a higher minimum age for full-time work than its neighbors.


Elimination of schools fees in Malawi in the 1990s has led to a jump in primary school enrollment from under 50% in 1991 to 99% in 1999.


Read more: Elite boarding school aims to create Africa's future leaders


Madagascar provides not only paid maternal leave, but also paid leave for children's health and family needs. Progress is clearly possible when there is political will.



There remains substantial room for policy advances to transform the lives of older children, youth and the poorest.
Catherine Mbengue, Trustee of the African Child Policy Forum



But there remains substantial room for policy advances to transform the lives of older children, youth and the poorest. At secondary level, educational opportunities in much of the region are deeply limited -- and limiting. A greater proportion of countries in sub-Saharan Africa than in other regions -- some 61% -- begin charging tuition fees before the end of secondary school.


When we look beyond the issue of accessibility to the quality of education our children receive -- after all it should be fit for purpose -- the region has among the lowest education requirements for teachers, with 50% of countries requiring lower secondary school teachers to have completed no higher than a secondary education (so teachers have barely more education that their students).


Plus, while policies in the formal economy are relatively strong in terms of supporting families, those in the informal economy remain unprotected.


Despite the fact that many countries have set a minimum wage, in 6 countries this wage is just $2 per day or less -- and in 20 others is between $2 an $4, leaving even a family of one adult and one dependent under the $2 poverty line. How can we expect children to thrive given this reality?


What this kind of comparative data and analysis allows us to do is see more clearly where progress is and isn't occurring.


It is only when we begin to call out country's names -- the leaders and the laggards -- that we'll see all children count on having a childhood where they can go to school and not labor full-time, a childhood free of marriages that require them to parent before they have grown up themselves, getting the education they need to find work that will lift them out of poverty, and not facing discrimination based on their gender or ethnicity.


Africa should be a region that has high ambitions for its children and demand that the post-2015 development agenda is one that thinks big for our children and their chances.


Read the report and stay up to date on Twitter #kidschances.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are soley those of Catherine Mbengue






Read More..

Why pope will long be remembered




Tim Stanley says Pope Benedict will be seen as an important figure in church history.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Timothy Stanley: Benedict XVI's resignation is historic since popes usually serve for life

  • He says pope not so much conservative as asserting church's "living tradition"

  • He backed traditionalists, but a conflicted flock, scandal, culture wars a trial to papacy, he says

  • Stanley: Pope kept to principle, and if it's not what modern world wanted, that's world's problem




Editor's note: Timothy Stanley is a historian at Oxford University and blogs for Britain's The Daily Telegraph. He is the author of "The Crusader: The Life and Times of Pat Buchanan."


(CNN) -- Journalists have a habit of calling too many things "historic" -- but on this occasion, the word is appropriate. The Roman Catholic Church is run like an elected monarchy, and popes are supposed to rule until death; no pope has stepped down since 1415.


Therefore, it almost feels like a concession to the modern world to read that Benedict XVI is retiring on grounds of ill health, as if he were a CEO rather than God's man on Earth. That's highly ironic considering that Benedict will be remembered as perhaps the most "conservative" pope since the 1950s -- a leader who tried to assert theological principle over fashionable compromise.



Timothy Stanley

Timothy Stanley



The word "conservative" is actually misleading, and the monk who received me into the Catholic Church in 2006 -- roughly a year after Benedict began his pontificate -- would be appalled to read me using it. In Catholicism, there is no right or left but only orthodoxy and error. As such, Benedict would understand the more controversial stances that he took as pope not as "turning back the clock" but as asserting a living tradition that had become undervalued within the church. His success in this regard will be felt for generations to come.


He not only permitted but quietly encouraged traditionalists to say the old rite, reviving the use of Latin or receiving the communion wafer on the tongue. He issued a new translation of the Roman Missal that tried to make its language more precise. And, in the words of one priest, he encouraged the idea that "we ought to take care and time in preparing for the liturgy, and ensure we celebrate it with as much dignity as possible." His emphasis was upon reverence and reflection, which has been a healthy antidote to the 1960s style of Catholicism that encouraged feverish participation bordering on theatrics.


Nothing the pope proposed was new, but it could be called radical, trying to recapture some of the certainty and beauty that pervaded Catholicism before the reforming Vatican II. Inevitably, this upset some. Progressives felt that he was promoting a form of religion that belonged to a different century, that his firm belief in traditional moral theology threatened to distance the church from the people it was supposed to serve.



If that's true, it wasn't the pope's intent. Contrary to the general impression that he's favored a smaller, purer church, Benedict has actually done his best to expand its reach. The most visible sign was his engagement on Twitter. But he also reached out to the Eastern Orthodox Churches and spoke up for Christians persecuted in the Middle East.


In the United Kingdom, he encouraged married Anglican priests to defect. He has even opened up dialogue with Islam. During his tenure, we've also seen a new embrace of Catholicism in the realm of politics, from Paul Ryan's nomination to Tony Blair's high-profile conversion. And far from only talking about sex, Benedict expanded the number of sins to include things such as pollution. It's too often forgotten that in the 1960s he was considered a liberal who eschewed the clerical collar.


The divisions and controversies that occurred under Benedict's leadership had little to do with him personally and a lot more to do with the Catholic Church's difficult relationship with the modern world. As a Catholic convert, I've signed up to its positions on sexual ethics, but I appreciate that many millions have not. A balance has to be struck between the rights of believers and nonbelievers, between respect for tradition and the freedom to reject it.


As the world has struggled to strike that balance (consider the role that same-sex marriage and abortion played in the 2012 election) so the church has found itself forced to be a combatant in the great, ugly culture war. Benedict would rather it played the role of reconciler and healer of wounds, but at this moment in history that's not possible. Unfortunately, its alternative role as moral arbiter has been undermined by the pedophile scandal. Nothing has dogged this pontificate so much as the tragedy of child abuse, and it will continue to blot its reputation for decades to come.


For all these problems, my sense is that Benedict will be remembered as a thinker rather than a fighter. I have been so fortunate to become a Catholic at a moment of liturgical revival under a pope who can write a book as majestic and wise as his biography of Jesus. I've been lucky to know a pope with a sense of humor and a willingness to talk and engage.


If he wasn't what the modern world wanted -- if he wasn't prepared to bend every principle or rule to appease all the people all the time -- then that's the world's problem rather than his. Although he has attained one very modern distinction indeed. On Monday, he trended ahead of Justin Bieber on Twitter for at least an hour.


Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion


Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Timothy Stanley.






Read More..

What beats Grammy? Immortality













Legends beyond their own time


Legends beyond their own time


Legends beyond their own time


Legends beyond their own time


Legends beyond their own time


Legends beyond their own time








STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Bob Greene: Grammy nominated acts should remember the real prize comes later in life

  • He says at a hotel he ran into a group of singing stars from an earlier era, in town for a show

  • He says the world of post-fame touring less glamorous for acts, but meaningful

  • Greene: Acts grow old, but their hits never will and to fans, the songs are time-machine




Editor's note: CNN Contributor Bob Greene is a best-selling author whose 25 books include "When We Get to Surf City: A Journey Through America in Pursuit of Rock and Roll, Friendship, and Dreams"; "Late Edition: A Love Story"; and "Once Upon a Town: The Miracle of the North Platte Canteen."


(CNN) -- Memo to Carly Rae Jepsen, Frank Ocean, Hunter Hayes, Mumford & Sons, Miguel, the Alabama Shakes and all the other young singers and bands who are nominated for Sunday night's Grammy Awards:


Your real prize -- the most valuable and sustaining award of all -- may not become evident to you until 30 or so years have passed.


You will be much older.


But -- if you are lucky -- you will still get to be out on the road making music.



Bob Greene

Bob Greene



Many of Sunday's Grammy nominees are enjoying the first wave of big success. It is understandable if they take for granted the packed concert venues and eye-popping paychecks.


Those may go away -- the newness of fame, the sold-out houses, the big money.


But the joy of being allowed to do what they do will go on.


I've been doing some work while staying at a small hotel off a highway in southwestern Florida. One winter day I was reading out on the pool deck, and there were some other people sitting around talking.


They weren't young, by anyone's definition. They did not seem like conventional businessmen or businesswomen on the road, or like retirees. There was a sense of nascent energy and contented anticipation in their bearing, of something good waiting for them straight ahead. A look completely devoid of grimness or fretfulness, an afternoon look that said the best part of the day was still to come.


I would almost have bet what line of work they were in. I'd seen that look before, many times.


I could hear them talking.


Yep.


The Tokens ("The Lion Sleeps Tonight," a No. 1 hit in 1961).




Little Peggy March ("I Will Follow Him," a No. 1 hit in 1963).


Little Anthony and the Imperials ("Tears on My Pillow," a top 10 hit in 1958).


Major singing stars from an earlier era of popular music, in town for a multi-act show that evening.


It is the one sales job worth yearning for -- carrying that battered sample case of memorable music around the country, to unpack in front of a different appreciative audience every night.


It's quite a world. I was fortunate enough to learn its ins and outs during the 15 deliriously unlikely years I spent touring the United States singing backup with Jan and Dean ("Surf City," a No. 1 hit in 1963) and all the other great performers with whom we shared stages and dressing rooms and backstage buffets:


Chuck Berry, Martha and the Vandellas, Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, the Everly Brothers, James Brown, Lesley Gore, Freddy "Boom Boom" Cannon, the Kingsmen, the Drifters, Fabian, the Coasters, Little Eva, the Ventures, Sam the Sham. ...


Jukebox names whose fame was once as fresh and electric as that now being savored by Sunday's young Grammy nominees.


Decades after that fame is new, the road may not be quite as glamorous, the crowds may not be quite as large. The hours of killing time before riding over to the hall, the putrid vending-machine meals on the run, the way-too-early-in-the-morning vans to the airport -- the dreary parts all become more than worth it when, for an hour or so, the singers can once again personally deliver a bit of happiness to the audiences who still adore their music.


Greene: Super Bowl ad revives iconic voice


As the years go by, the whole thing may grow complicated -- band members come and go, they fight and feud, some quit, some die. There are times when it seems you can't tell the players without a scorecard -- the Tokens at the highway hotel were, technically and contractually, Jay Siegel's Tokens (you don't want to know the details). One of their singers (not Jay Siegel -- Jay Traynor) was once Jay of Jay and the Americans, a group that itself is still out on the road in a different configuration with a different Jay (you don't want to know).


But overriding all of this is a splendid truism:


Sometimes, if you have one big hit, it can take care of you for the rest of your life. It can be your life.


Sunday's young Grammy nominees may not imagine, 30 years down the line, still being on tour. But they -- the fortunate ones -- will come to learn something:


They will grow old, but their hits never will -- once people first fall in love with those songs, the songs will mean something powerful and evocative to them for the rest of their lives.


And as long as there are fairground grandstands on summer nights, as long as there are small-town ballparks with stages where the pitcher's mound should be, the singers will get to keep delivering the goods.


That is the hopeful news waiting, off in the distance, for those who will win Grammys Sunday, and for those who won't be chosen.


On the morning after that pool-deck encounter in Florida I headed out for a walk, and in the parking lot of the hotel I saw one of the Tokens loading his stage clothes into his car.


His license plate read:


SHE CRYD


I said to him:


"You sing lead on 'She Cried,' right?"


"Every night," he said, and drove off toward the next show.


The next show.


That's the prize.


That's the trophy, right there.


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Bob Greene.






Read More..

China needs smog-free air in a can

































Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing


Hazardous smog over Beijing





<<


<





1




2




3




4




5




6




7




8




9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25




26



>


>>







STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • This year has been one of the worst for air quality in China

  • Residents have termed the smog event the "air-pocalypse"

  • John Sutter says the country should pass a Clean Air Act

  • It's a matter of human rights and public health, not image




Editor's note: John D. Sutter is a columnist for CNN Opinion. He heads the section's Change the List project, which focuses on human rights and social justice. E-mail him at CTL@CNN.com.


(CNN) -- Air pollution in China has gotten so bad lately that one environmentalist's wacky idea for a solution doesn't seem all that far-fetched: putting clean air in a can.


Last week, when a thick gray haze blanketed Beijing and several other Chinese cities, sending kids to the hospital, grounding planes and causing the government to order cars off the road, Chen Guangbiao took to the streets in Beijing to hand out yellow and green cans of smog-free, non-carcinogenic air.


"Free fresh air. Open it and drink it and breathe it!" the Guardian quoted the multimillionaire and national celeb as saying. "It keeps you fresh the whole day!"


Ego aside (the bright cans feature an image of Chen's face and the words "Chen Guangbio is a good man" on them), the clever, political stunt is just the sort of thing that China needs these days. Such creative and public protests should help push forward much-needed national reforms to combat air pollution in the country.


A "Clean Air Act" for China is long overdue.



John D. Sutter

John D. Sutter



And the recent "air-pocalypse," as the suffocating air pollution that hung over several Chinese cities in January has been termed, should be more than enough proof of that.


The pollution during the 2013 Great Smog of China was so thick last month that it was visible from space (from space!). Breathing in Beijing was "akin to living in a smoking lounge," according to an analysis from Bloomberg. Air quality readings literally were off the charts. An index reading below about 50 is considered healthy. Readings for Beijing in January hit 500, the top of the index, and went higher than 700, according to the U.S. Embassy.


"The air has this kind of greenish-gray pallor to it. And it smells like you're standing next to a chemical plant, really chlorine-y," said David Pettit, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. "It's an awesomely bad smell."
















He was telling me about Beijing air on a normal day.


"I'm standing outside my office building but am unable to see its top," one Beijing resident said, according to China's state news agency, Xinhua.


"The new normal in Beijing is sending your kids to school wearing gas masks ..." Christina Larson wrote in Bloomberg Businessweek.


Fixing China's air pollution is not just about the country's image or economy, although those certainly suffer because of smog, too. It's about the right of all humans to walk outside and breathe in air that won't choke them or make them sick.


The AFP reports hospital visits for respiratory problems were up 20% during the air-pocalypse. Last year, small particle air pollution, called PM2.5, in four major Chinese cities resulted in 8,572 premature deaths, according to a December study by Greenpeace East Asia and Peking University's School of Public Health.


Similar deaths can and should be prevented.


And I'm optimistic they will be. For several reasons.


The first is history. It wasn't all that long ago, in 1952, that the "Great Smog" covered London in gray, sooty pollution, resulting in an estimated 4,000 premature deaths.



The government reacted by passing sweeping reforms.


Now London is known for its real fog, not smog.


Air pollution in Los Angeles was handled in a similar fashion.


After the city's car culture created a smog problem, scientists started researching protective helmets to protect people. Others wore gas masks. But, eventually the government took action to reduce the pollution. California led the way for the nation, and in 1963, the United States passed the Clean Air Act.


That law is credited with preventing 205,000 premature deaths, 843,000 asthma attacks and 18 million child respiratory illnesses in 1990, based on the first 20 years of the law.


These changes took time. And it's unfortunate that things had to get bad before they could get better. But China, like others, is finally realizing that its air really is that bad.


Its own people are calling for the change and more vigorously than before.


More than 200 students at a Beijing high school school signed a petition asking the city to "amend air quality regulations and take specific emergency measures," according to Calum MacLeod from USA Today. And on Weibo, China's version of Twitter, Pan Shiyi, a real estate magnate, called for the country to adopt its own Clean Air Act. When he posed the idea to his 14 million Weibo followers in an online poll, nearly all of the 50,000-some people who responded said they supported that type of national legislation.


Maybe that's just one man's social media feed. But there's a history of this kind of thing working in China. In 2011, Pan successfully used his online network to press Beijing authorities to report more smog data, according to the Wall Street Journal's China blog.


It's clear the government has taken notice this time as well. Beijing implemented several emergency measures to curb smog. State media is talking about the pollution.


After speaking with a few experts, it seems clear what needs to be done: China has to reduce its reliance on coal, increase renewable energy, regulate the amount of smog-causing sulfur that can go into its diesel fuel and increase vehicle efficiency.


"It's not rocket science," said Pettit, from NRDC.


There will, of course, be costs and significant challenges. China burns "nearly as much coal as the rest of the world combined," according to a recent report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Beijing catches so much of the pollution from coal-burning power plants because it sits at the center of a ring of mountains, which help trap the smog. Throw a bunch more cars into the mix, 13 million of them were sold in China last year, according to IHS Automotive and the problems start compounding.


Fixes may be expensive, but the United States has made the compelling case that the costs of enforcing clean air regulations are offset by gains in health and worker productivity. China, which does have some air quality regulations, already seems to be realizing this. The country on Wednesday announced stricter fuel standards that go into effect by the end of 2014 for diesel and 2017 for gas, according to the Financial Times. An environmental official, Wu Xiaoqing, also told state media this week that "China will formulate regulations, standards and policies to reduce air pollutants and control coal burning."


The energy industry estimates it will costs billions for China to meet tougher fuel standards. It may be up to people like the artist Ai Weiwei, who posed in a photo wearing a gas mask, and Chen, the man who's peddling cans of clean air, to ensure that the public and the government see that clean air is worth the cost.


"I want to tell mayors, county chiefs and heads of big companies: Don't just chase GDP growth, don't chase the biggest profits at the expense of our children and grandchildren, and at the cost of sacrificing our ecological environment," Chen told Reuters.


If Chinese leaders don't want to drink air from a can, they should listen.


Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.


Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this column are solely those of John D. Sutter.






Read More..

How Obama can end Congo conflict












Conflict in Congo


Conflict in Congo


Conflict in Congo


Conflict in Congo


Conflict in Congo








STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • President Obama can help end the Congo conflict for good, says Vava Tampa

  • Obama has asked Rwanda to end all support to armed groups in the Congo

  • FDLR militia gang is a threat to stability and must leave Congo

  • Obama must push for change in Congolese government, argues Tampa




Editor's note: Vava Tampa is the founder of Save the Congo, a London-based campaign to tackle "the impunity, insecurity, institutional failure and the international trade of minerals funding the wars in Democratic Republic of the Congo." Follow Vava Tampa on twitter: @VavaTampa


(CNN) -- Now that President Obama has taken a public stand on the warlords and militia gangs tyrannizing DR Congo, there is a sense that the next chapter in the human tragedy that has been raging there over the past decade and half is about to be written -- or so we can hope.


In the DRC -- Africa's largest sub-Saharan country -- invasions, proxy wars and humanitarian crises have senselessly shut down millions of lives, displaced millions more from their homes and left countless women and young girls brutally raped with the world barely raising an eyebrow.


The latest murderous attempt by the M23 militia gang to besiege Goma, the strategic regional capital of Congo's eastern province of North Kivu, seems to have backfired.



Vava Tampa

Vava Tampa



The United Nations says Rwanda has helped to create and militarily supported M23. Although Rwandan President Paul Kagame denies backing M23, the accusation has taken off some of the international gloss he had long enjoyed in the West, and precipitated cuts and suspension of aid money that goes directly to the Kagame regime by the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, Britain and the European Union.


The United States, which gives no money directly to the Rwandan government, suspended its military aid. In a baffling expression of a refinement of the U.S. position, President Obama made a rare telephone call to Kagame to emphasize "the importance of permanently ending all support to armed groups in the DRC." That set a firm red line on the situation in that region, the first one by President Obama since becoming president in 2008.
















Watch video: Kagame on Congo


This was certainly right and good. Kagame is no fool; the diplomatic but emphatic content of that telephone call, monitored by White House's National Security staff and published thereafter for public consumption, speaks volumes. He clearly understood the implicit threat. But it was not good enough.


Left unsaid is that withholding aid money that goes directly to the Kagame regime has not changed many realities on the ground -- a painful reminder of the limits of what previous half-hearted, ambivalent international attempts to halt the crisis in that country had achieved.


However, the situation is not hopeless. President Obama can help to halt the wars engulfing the Congo. It is both economically and politically affordable.


Here is my suggestion -- a three-point road map, if you like, for President Obama, should he choose to put the weight of the United States squarely on the side of the Congolese and engage much more robustly to help end the world's bloodiest war and human tragedy.


Read more: Why the world is ignoring Congo war


1. Changes in Kinshasa


If we are to be blunt with ourselves, Congo's major problem today -- the chief reason that country remains on its knees -- is its president Joseph Kabila. Paul Kagame is just a symptom, at least in theory.


The crisis of leadership in the capital Kinshasa, the disastrous blend of lack of political legitimacy and moral authority, mixed with poor governance and vision deficiency, then compounded with dilapidated state institutions, has become the common denominator to the ills and wrongs that continues to overwhelm the Congo.


In other words, peace will never be secured in Congo, if the moribund status quo is still strutting around Kinshasa.


Obama's minimum objective in regard to ending the wars and human tragedy engulfing the Congo should be to push for changes in Kinshasa. He must make this one of the "10 Commandments" of the Obama Doctrine.


Circumstances demand it to re-energize Congo's chance of success and to enable the renaissance of a "New Africa." And given the effects of Congo's mounting death toll and the speed at which HIV/AIDS is spreading because of the use of rape as a weapon of war, the sooner the better.


2. Keep Kagame in the naughty corner


The wars and human tragedy engulfing the Congo have many fathers and many layers. Rwanda, and to some extent Uganda -- run by Africa's two dearest autocratic but staunchly pro-American regimes -- are, as they have been many times in the past, despite their denials, continuing to provide support to warlords and militia gangs terrorizing the Congolese people.


This is not an apocryphal claim, it's an open secret in Kinshasa, Kampala and Kigali as much as it is in Washington or White Hall, and as real as Charles Taylor's role in Sierra Leone or Iran's support to Hezbollah.



If President Obama is remotely serious about saving lives in Congo, then fracturing Rwanda's ability to directly or indirectly harbor warlords ... is critical.
Vava Tampa, Save the Congo



Indeed, reporters across Congo and across the region would testify to this. Kigali has been, one can safely argue, the sole shareholder in the M23 militia gang -- and its elder sisters CNDP and RCD-Goma.


It cannot wash its hands in Pontius Pilate fashion of either the ICC-wanted M23 warlord Bosco Ntaganda, also known as The Terminator, or Laurent Nkunda, who is wanted by the Congolese government for war crimes and is under house arrest in Kigali.


Read more: Prosecutor seeks new Congo war crimes warrants


If President Obama is remotely serious about saving lives in Congo, then fracturing Rwanda's ability to directly or indirectly harbor warlords, support militia gangs, militarize or ethnicize the wars in Congo for control of Congo's easily appropriable but highly valuable natural resources is critical, however politically disgruntling it may be to some in the State Department.


It would reduce the scale, scope and intensity of the killing, raping and uprooting of the Congolese, it would crush Kinshasa's ability to use external support to warlords and militia gangs as an alibi for a lack of progress and, above all, decrease the growing unease of the Congolese towards Rwanda over the crimes of FDLR and the role played by their government in Congo.


3. FDLR


The continued existence in Congo of FDLR, a Rwandan militia gang made up largely of Hutus -- whose leadership took part in the 1994 genocide of Tutsi -- remains one of the most persistent and serious threats to stability in Congo and the region.


Addressing this crisis is of significant importance from both a political and humanitarian viewpoint.


Though there are no definitive statistics on the exact numbers of FDLR fighters, the good news is that experts tell us that the vast majority of its rank and file are in their 20s and early 30s, which means they were too young to have taken part in the genocide in 1994.


The United States, together with the U.N., the EU and African Union, should appoint a special envoy for the African Great Lakes region to midwife a conducive political arrangement in Kigali that could see them returning home -- and see their leaders and fundraisers in Europe arrested.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Vava Tampa.






Read More..