All members of the international community (States) have cultural symbols or properties1 that they identify with. Apart from merely being tourist sites (perhaps even appearing on the UNESCO2 list), cultural properties silently remind members of a particular society about: their origin; political and socio-economic organisation; civilization; traditions, mores, customs and norms. Cultural properties give members of a particular society a sense of belonging, sense of unity and togetherness. They are also a source of education and enlightenment to the rest of the international community. Cultural properties are inseparable from the world’s history.

There is no doubt that these very important symbols of society have been victims of conflict- armed and unarmed; international or non-international. The most recent international example was the burning down of the Kasubi Royal Tombs3 in 2010 as a result of internal conflicts within Buganda Kingdom, but also due to the unending bickering between Uganda’s Central Government and the Kingdom.

The 1966 Kabaka Crisis4 in Uganda was a non-international armed conflict that saw the occupation destruction of many cultural sites and properties in many Kingdoms5 especially Buganda, by the Government soldiers. These included Royal Palaces6, Royal Administrative Installations7, and Royal Tombs8 inter alia. Thus the Martens Clause, under International Humanitarian Law, is both a remedy and insulation to all cultural properties around the globe, including but not limited to the Egyptian pyramids. For purposes of a proper discussion we shall consider attaching meaning to a few key terms. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

KEY DEFINITIONS

International Humanitarian Law (IHL)9; IHL, or jus10 in bello,11 is the law that governs the way in which warfare is conducted. The purpose of IHL is to limit the suffering caused by war by protecting and assisting its victims as far as possible. The law therefore, addresses the reality of a conflict without considering the reasons or legality of resorting to force. It regulates only those aspects of the conflict which are of humanitarian concern.

Armed Conflict12; International humanitarian law refers to two different types of armed conflict: international armed conflicts and conflicts of a non-international character.13 The description of armed conflict represents a very significant development in IHL. As noted by Prof. Christopher Greenwood:

“The definition(s) of… armed conflict (is) of considerable importance. (It is not) defined in the Geneva Conventions14 or other applicable agreements. Whereas there is an extensive literature on the definition of ‘war’ in International Law, armed conflict has always been considered a purely factual notion and there have been few attempts to define or even describe it.” 15

As if in agreement with Greenwood, Sonja Boelaert-Suominen16 thinks that this step was innovative thus:

“The seemingly innocuous description by the Appeals Chamber of what constitutes an armed conflict was innovative… The definition of armed conflict suggested by the Appeals Chamber covers not only the classic examples of (a) an armed conflict between two or more states and (b) a civil war between a state on the one hand, and a non-state entity on the other. It clearly encompasses a third situation, (c) an armed conflict in which no government party is involved, because two or more non-state entities are fighting each other.”

International Armed Conflict17;

An international armed conflict usually refers to an inter-state conflict. Common Article 2 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions states that:

“In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.”

Thus, it is generally agreed that a single incident involving the armed forces of two states may be sufficient to be considered an international armed conflict. In cases of insignificant border incidents involving members of the armed forces of two states it may be unclear whether the threshold has been reached for the incident to be considered an international armed conflict.18

Non-International Armed Conflict19;

In the Tadić case, referred to briefly above, the ICTY20 affirmed that a non-international armed conflict exists when there is: “protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within a State.” (6) Thus, in the view of the ICTY, for there to be a non-international armed conflict:

• non-state armed groups must carry out protracted hostilities; and
• these groups must be organised.

Two key treaty provisions set thresholds for identifying the law applicable to armed conflicts of a non-international character:

• Common Article 3 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions; and
• Article 1 of 1977 Additional Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

THE MARTENS CLAUSE

Origins of the Clause21

Proposed by the Russian delegate to the Hague Peace Conference, the eminent jurist, Fyodor Fyodorovich de Martens22, the clause has ancient antecedents rooted in natural law and chivalry.23 It is articulated in strong language, both rhetorically and ethically, which goes a long way towards explaining its reasonance and influence on the formation and interpretation of the law of war and IHL.24 These features have compensated for. the somewhat vague and indeterminate legal content of the clause.25 As formulated in 1899, the Martens Clause read:

“Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, by High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity, and the requirements of the public conscience.”

The 1907 version was somewhat different. “Inhabitants” replaced “populations,” the older term “law of nations” was substituted for “international law,” and “requirements” gave way to “dictates.” Although both the 1899 and 1907 versions speak of “laws of humanity,” it has become common practice to refer to the as “principles of humanity”.26 Summarily, the Clause states that:

“…anything not proscribed by the regulations of the treaty will be subject to the international law and will therefore not necessarily be permissible; it also allows the regulations of the treaty to keep pace with the consequences of modern developments in warfare.”27

The object of the Clause in its original context is revealed in the Preamble of the Hague Convention: cases not provided for in the Convention “should [not] for want of a written provision be left to the arbitrary judgement of the military commanders.

RELEVANCE OF THE MARTENS CLAUSE IN THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTIES DURING NON-INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICTS

As mentioned, the Clause was originally designed to provide residual humanitarian rules for the protection of the population occupied territories, especially armed resistors in those territories. Since then, a broad understanding has emerged to the effect that the Martens Clause reaches or applies to all parts of IHL,28 including the protection of cultural properties in non-international armed conflicts.29

Article 53 of the Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions provides for the protection of cultural objects and places of worship. It states that:

“Without prejudice to the provisions of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954, and of other relevant international instruments it is prohibited:

1.  
   1. to commit any acts of hostility directed against historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples;
   2. (b) to use such objects in support of the military effort;
   3. to make such objects the object of reprisals.”

In addition, Article 16 of the Additional Protocol II30 re-emphasizes the need to protect cultural objects and places of worship. Thus:

“Without prejudice to the provisions of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954, it is prohibited to commit any acts of hostility directed against historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, and to use them in support of the military effort.”

Therefore, it follows, from the above provisions that, the Martens Clause serves its relevance when it seeks to conserve cultural properties and consequently, the cultural heritage of peoples during non-international armed conflicts. 
 

Historic Cultural Properties

The Clause prohibits acts of hostilities directed against the historic monuments and works of art inter alia. The test under the law is that, they must constitute the cultural heritage of peoples. Culture may be defined as anything which represents the accumulated knowledge, beliefs, artistic achievements, laws and customs that represent human civilization at its best. The history of human civilization took unique forms in every continent during the periods of early man, stone age, bronze age, iron age, middle age, aristocratic age, renaissance, industrial revolution, and globalisation. During these periods, there was progress in agriculture, trade, occupational specialization, urbanism, transportation, writing, standardized measurement, currency, contractual and (tort-based) legal characteristic, architectural, mathematical, scientific, metallurgy, religious, political and astronomical systems.

 
The most widely-accepted definition of cultural property under international law is derived from two sources: Article I of the 1954 Hague Convention31 and Article I of the 1970 UNESCO Convention.32 
 
The tangible evidence or expression of cultural heritage is cultural property — an inherently valuable, non-renewable resource that includes, but is not limited to: works of art, historic and ancient buildings or their ruins; archaeological sites and artifacts (found on the land) and shipwrecks (underwater archaeological sites); museums, library collections and archives; and sacred places, such as churches, mosques, temples, shrines, sanctuaries and cemeteries.33

“The value of cultural property, whether archaeological or ethnological in nature, is immeasurable. Such items often constitute the very essence of a society and convey important information concerning a people’s origin, history, and traditional setting. The importance and popularity of such items regrettably makes them targets of theft, encourages clandestine looting of archaeological sites, and results in their illegal export and import.”34 

The Martens Clause considers cultural property special and worthy of protection during a non-international conflict because of majorly three reasons:

• Cultural property is inherently rare. Genuine examples are few and diminishing in number all the time for various reasons (accidents, environmental effects). Genuine cultural property cannot be reproduced in its original form. Therefore, once it is gone, it is gone forever.35 
 
•Cultural property is inherently vulnerable to a range of factors. Human misunderstanding, changing tastes, environmental degradation, neglect and occasional fits of destruction (iconoclasm or icon-smashing, for example, the Taliban destroying the Bamiyan Buddhas in 2001). Constant effort is required to protect what careless people can destroy but no one can replace or make again.36 
 
• Cultural property encompasses both the “known” (buildings, artworks, collections and sacred places that we can visit or experience) and the “unknown” (things that lay buried at archaeological sites, the physical evidence of our undiscovered past). Should we allow something that is irreplaceable (and potentially crucial to our understanding of history) to be destroyed even before it has been discovered? The answer is no.37

Cultural Heritage of Peoples

If culture survives from one generation to the next, it is inherited; hence the term cultural heritage.38 All Africans, Asians, Americans, Australians, Arabs and Europeans have their own cultural heritage. An article by the Housing Reconstruction Organisation39 observes that: at one point the definition of cultural heritage was restricted to monuments, archeological sites, and movable heritage collections. However, today the definition now includes historic urban areas, vernacular heritage, cultural landscapes (tangible heritage, which include natural and cultural sites), and even living dimensions of heritage and all aspects of the physical and spiritual relationship between human societies and their environment (intangible heritage).40

Cultural heritage conservation helps a community not only protect economically valuable physical assets, but also preserve its practices, history, and environment, and a sense of continuity and identity. The cultural heritage of peoples may be more at risk from the secondary effects of a disaster like a non-international armed conflict than from the disaster itself.41 Therefore, the Martens Clause seeks quick action to protect this kind of heritage during the disaster by both parties to the conflict by prohibiting acts of hostilities directed against the historic monuments and works of art inter alia that constitute the cultural heritage of peoples. However, this provision did not stop the Obote I Government Forces from attacking the Kabaka’s Palace at Mengo in Kampala, Uganda on the 24th of May 1966.

Means of Warfare

The Martens Clause regulates the means and methods of warfare in a non-international armed conflict hence protecting cultural properties and objects. It restricts the means of warfare (in particular weapons) and the methods of warfare (such as military tactics- like the earth scotch policy), although new technologies, such as the use of depleted uranium are not yet addressed- except by the general principles of the law of war.42 However, provisions relating to the protection of cultural properties have rarely been effectively implemented or enforced.

CONCLUSION

The instant discussion has been an attempt to justify the relevance of the Martens Clause in the protection of cultural properties during non-international armed conflicts. There is no doubt that the Clause has maintained a tough character similar to that of an oak in England as illustrated by Lord Alfred Denning in Nyali Ltd v. Attorney General.43

Uganda’s Constitution44 has also adopted the Clause under its Cultural Objectives stated under Article XXIV especially Clauses (a) and (b), Article 37- Right to Culture and Similar Rights and Article 246- Institution of Traditional or Cultural Leaders.

As Theodor Meron would say: Given the reality of power, reciprocity, and the interests of the parties involved in (non-international) armed conflicts, it is a wonder that the Martens Clause has attained such centrality in international discourse and that progress in humanizing International Humanitarian Law, in which this Clause has played an important role, has been so significant. Although this development could not have occurred without the dramatically growing influence of the ICRC, NGOs, the media, and public opinion, the rhetorical and ethical code words of the Martens Clause itself have clearly exerted a strong pull toward normativity.45 
 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CONSTITUTION

• The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 (as amended).

CONVENTIONS

• The Geneva Conventions of August 12 I949.
• The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property In the Event of Armed Conflict.
• The 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.

PROTOCOLS

• Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12 1949.

COMMON LAW

• English Common Law.
• Ugandan Common Law.

BOOKS

• Mayiga, C.P., KING on the THRONE: The Story of the Restoration of the Kingdom of Buganda, Prime Time Communication, Kampala (UG), 2009.
• Vladimir, P., Fyodor Fyodorovich Martens (1845-1909): A Humanist of Modern Times, International Review of the Red Cross (IRRC) No. 312, (1996).
• Kalshoven, F., Constraints on the Waging of War, 2nd ed., 1991.
• Greenwood, C., Historical Development and Legal Basis, in HANDBOOK OF HUMANITARIAN LAW IN ARMED CONFLICTS, (Dieter Fleck ed., 1995).

DICTIONARIES

• Garner, B.A., Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK), 2004.
• Oxford Dictionary of Law, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, (2003) p. 307.   

ARTICLES

• Theodor Meron, The Martens Clause, Principles of Humanity, and Dictates of Public Conscience in The American Journal of International Law (AJIL), Vol. 94 No. 1 (Jan., 2000).
• Frederick W. Halls, The Peace Conference at the Hague, (1900).
• Christopher Greenwood, Development of International Law.
• Protecting The Environment During Armed Conflict: An Inventory and Analysis of International Law, November 2011.
• Rule of Law in Armed Conflicts Project (RULAC).
• Housing Reconstruction Organisation, Cultural Heritage Conservation.

INTERNET SOURCES

• http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/chp04-02iraqenl.html
• http://www.housingreconstruction.org/housing/sites/housingreconstruction.org/files/Chapter%2011%20Cultural%20Heritage%20Conservation.pdf
• http://www.icrc.org

Letter to the Ugandan government

Dear Yoweri Kaguta Museveni,

I have a bit of criticism and a bit of praise for you or rather your government regime (or rather the US private organizations that have provided aid).  I think the programs that have been installed to decrease rates of AIDS in children through abstinence of parents were well implemented by the Human Rights Watch organization.  But it seem like at this point the outlook on AIDS is more laid back and rates are again rising, so high even people dying with AIDS are as numerous as people being infected.  This slow in the prevention of AIDS could be caused by new aids treatment and it becoming less of a fatal disease in the west.  But again some of the programs undertaken attempt to falsely manipulate the youth with ulterior motives aside from public health.  I would discourage the use of advertising that sets a negative stigma on condoms and contraceptives by discouraging sex all together.  Because of certain catholic advocacy groups running an only abstinence campaign now that risky behavior is on the rise there is even less contraceptive use.

 On the subject of the new HIV/AIDS bill I think the proposition and initiative being taken is a step in the right direction.  But if we look at the details there is a blatant violation of human rights and strong discrimination.  Because you cannot demand certain people to be forcibly tested for HIV because of their line of work or a current pregnancy.   Also I unhappy with the recalling of free condoms from health clinics because it also destroyed the countries confidence in condoms altogether.  It was obviously not a good move to recall these contraceptives when later test showed there was nothing wrong with them.  And with this new stigma the price of condoms has now spiked to around ten times their original amount.  

            Perhaps a good place to start examining this is right here in America. Our country has been in the midst of a “culture war” for decades. Christian conservatives and the gay community have been battling it out for years, with the conservatives speaking out against the “abomination” of homosexuality and the gay community pleading for equal rights parallel to those of their heterosexual counterparts. This war has been waged not only in social mediums, but in legislative ones as well. And, while hate crimes still occur in the United States, for the most part Americans have been spared the brutality and murders that can result from a political and religious disagreement of this magnitude. Regrettably, many of those in other countries have not been so fortunate. This culture war has crossed the American borders into countless other countries; particularly third world countries such as Uganda, where members of the gay community are finding themselves the victims of a witch hunt.

            In the African culture, homosexuality is largely viewed as a western export. In postcolonial Africa, the political climate is one that shuns any apparent western ideals (Kaoma 15). Rev. Kaoma, the Project Director at Political Research Associates and an Anglican priest from Zambia, argues that Africa’s collective disapproval of homosexuality may be more deeply rooted in their aversion to western customs and principles than it is a “statement about human sexuality” (15). This profound loathing of western customs makes it that much easier for public opinion regarding homosexuality to be swayed, particularly when coupled with the sentiment that same-sex relationships destabilize society and family values.

            The people of Uganda now find themselves at the heart of a world-wide media storm regarding a bill attempting to be passed within their Parliament. This bill, commonly referred to as the “Kill the Gays” bill, would make homosexuality an offense punishable by death. This summer the bill was shelved for the time being, but the threat of it eventually being passed into law looms over Uganda’s citizens. The religious implications in this bill are made painfully evident by the ever growing presence of far right-wing conservative Christian organizations in Uganda, and much of Africa. While homosexuality has been a crime in Uganda since the colonial era, the influence of such strong words against same-sex relationships by well-known members of the Christian Right have resulted in a violent and deadly backlash for Uganda’s gay citizens (May-Chang). What began decades ago for these conservative Christian organizations as a good-faith effort to minister the word of God to the people of Africa, seems to have morphed from an attempt to bring Christian ideals to the masses into the propagation of hatred and bigotry against gay citizens.

            In a public statement regarding their ties with Martin Ssempa, a Ugandan pastor who is has been particularly outspoken in his support of the “Kill the Gays” bill, the Canyon Ridge Christian Church retracted their support of Ssempa stating that, “we condemn acts of violence against any person regardless of sexual orientation. Our desire is to see God’s purposes lived out in Uganda, and for the redemption and abundant life he gives to be experienced by everyone” (CRCC) . While ending their public and financial support of Ssempa is commendable, it is difficult not to question how true this statement is. There is virtually no doubt that they no longer support this man, but is it really plausible that they failed to foresee the potential for unspeakable acts of violence against gay citizens when they made the decision to support an individual whom had been one of the most publicly outspoken in favor of a death penalty as punishment for any act of homosexuality? That seems highly unlikely. While the gay community has been living in fear of legal persecution for some time now, they are now faced with fear for their lives. Homosexual citizens risk slaughter at the hands of their fellow countrymen, and the heavy influences of conservative Christian extremists are largely responsible for it.

            Evidence of the influence that these religious extremists have over legislation in Uganda is made clear in the verbiage of the “Kill the Gays” bill. Much of the sentiment, and wording, are directly reflective of a letter to Russia written by Dr. Scott Lively. Lively is the president of Defend the Family International, and has been one of the key players in the Christian Right’s crusade to criminalize and effectively eliminate homosexuality in society. In his letter, Lively suggests the criminalization of homosexual acts, and describes homosexuality as a “personality disorder that involves various, often dangerous sexual addictions and aggressive, anti-social impulses” (Lively). He goes on to insinuate that the ultimate goal of the gay community at large is to destabilize society so that they can assume control and implement their “gay agenda”  of sexual promiscuity and corruption (Lively).  Lively’s words and his sentiment echo throughout the anti-homosexuality bill, despite his assertion that he had no idea these anti-gay efforts would lead to a proposed death penalty. In striking contrast to this assertion however, Lively describes his campaign as a “nuclear bomb against the gay agenda in Uganda;” an odd choice of words for someone who claims ignorance of any potentially violent backlash.

            Many lives have been lost in this crusade to rid Africa of the destabilizing “gay agenda.” One of the most notable deaths in this tragic culture war is the murder of David Kato. Kato was at the forefront of gay rights advocacy in Uganda until his untimely death in January of this year. In 2010, a Ugandan newspaper posted the photos and whereabouts of several well-known gay rights activists with the headline, “Hang Them” (Gettleman). Kato was among those depicted. As a result of his efforts, Kato was, for all intents and purposes, already living on borrowed time. Just a few short months after his photo was published he was found murdered in his home, having been beaten to death with a hammer (Gettleman). Kato’s death was essentially chalked up to the unfortunate result of an apparent robbery in a tough neighborhood, yet the idea of such a coincidence is a hard pill to swallow. It seems far more likely that this man’s tragic death was a direct result of the social upheaval resulting from such a staunch crusade against homosexuality. That he was murdered for his lifestyle and his efforts to promote equality for all citizens, despite their sexual orientation, leaves blood on the hands of the Christian organizations whose heavy handed influence has come to dictate social and political thinking in Ugandan society.

            The felt effects of this culture war are not limited to only those citizens of homosexual persuasion. In fact, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill makes the failure to report any known acts of homosexuality within twenty-four hours a criminal offense as well, with a punishment of up to three years in prison (Anti Homosexuality Bill 2009). Supporting and advocating the rights of gay individuals, with this bill, would be a criminal offense, not to mention a potential death sentence. This bill, if passed, would effectively alienate the entire gay community and shut them off from any source of help or comfort. Families would be forced to report their own flesh and blood, or face prosecution. The potential for this bill to eventually become law is still very real, despite its blatant disregard for Uganda’s own constitution. In the Republic of Uganda’s constitution, drafted in 1995, it explicitly states that, “All persons are equal before and under the law in all spheres of political, economic, social and cultural life and in every other respect and shall enjoy equal protection of the law” (Constitution of the Republic of Uganda). Despite these very clear words, gay citizens and any who associate with them face prosecution and violence.

            While it is easy to see how religious ideals can have a huge effect on legislature, it is also important to look at the financial aspects of this situation. Uganda receives hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid. This money has a substantial effect on the economy, and Uganda’s ability to sustain itself as a nation. United States faith-based organizations are responsible for a huge amount of the financial contributions pouring into Uganda. Much of these contributions are made with the intention of providing HIV education and prevention; an honorable and much needed cause. The issue with this funding is that in many cases, the organizations behind these HIV interventions are fundamentally anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender.) Organizations such as Lively’s Abiding Truth Ministries, contribute huge amounts of financial aid to Ugandan churches, and show an enormous amount of influence over the decisions made by church leaders and government officials. The threat of losing such vast amounts of funding and lobbying could easily be a key factor in the recent attempts to pass further anti-gay legislation. With money comes power, and the substantial amount of cash flowing in from many of the far right-wing Christian organizations and churches is very surely having an impact on the religious ideals present in Uganda’s current legislation. The funding received from these conservative organizations is unrestricted in regards to the priests receiving them being held accountable for providing accurate information on what specifically those funds are used for (Kaoma 18). While it would be absolutely wrong to insinuate that all of these church officials are misappropriating these funds, the possibility that this occurs in some cases is very real. Donations made are personal, and go straight into the hands of the individual church leaders (Kaoma 17). Having hundreds of thousands of dollars being handed directly to you is strong motivation to propagate the ideals of the organizations behind such donations.

            Another important aspect to examine on the profound effect that these Christian conservative extremist organizations have on Uganda’s current anti-gay social climate is their implementation of fear tactics concerning the “threat” that homosexuality poses to African family values.  They seem to ignore the cultural differences in fundamental family values, such as the notion that extra-marital affairs are not a Christian ideal, in favor of a collective condemnation of homosexuality. However, these organizations put particular emphasis on deeply rooted African principles pertaining to the importance of family and procreation. By proliferating the idea that homosexuality poses a threat to family values because two people of the same sex cannot reproduce, they target a very sensitive issue in African society. It is not surprising that a perceived threat of that magnitude has been met by a violent reaction.

            The presence in Uganda, and all over Africa, of these far right-wing conservative Christian organizations originated decades ago with the intention of bringing Christianity and the word of God to the masses. This honorable goal has been corrupted by the hatred of a few passionate and persuasive individuals. Preaching hatred towards fellow human beings because they are different is morally wrong and it is a discredit to the decades of amazing work that these organizations have done. The African concept of Ubuntu is a belief that “affirms the interconnectedness and sacred worth of all beings” (Kaoma 15). The notion of a world-wide interconnectedness is an ideal that many members of society claim to believe in. No person on Earth should be murdered for their sexual preference by anyone; particularly their own government. The huge effect that these Christian conservatives have had on anti-gay legislation is a crucial piece of evidence that their ultimate goals of bringing Christianity to the world have been derailed by the short-sighted hatred of a few zealous extremists.           

Works Cited

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Memorandum. 2009. Web. 16 September 2011.        http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/anti-homosexuality-bill-2009.pdf

Canyon Ridge Christian Church. “Statement on Martin Ssempa.” 25 October 2010. Web. 15        September 2011. http://www.canyonridge.org/default.aspx?page=9602

“Constitution of the Republic of Uganda.” UgandaEmbassy.com, 1995. Web. 16  September 2011. http://www.ugandaembassy.com/Constitution_of_Uganda.pdf

Gettleman, Jeffrey. “Ugandan Who Spoke Up for Gays Is Beaten to Death.” All Things Global History, Edublogs.org. 27 January 2011. Web. 16 September 2011. http://mrbpielglobal.edublogs.org/2011/01/29/uganda-homophobia-evangelical-christianity-from-the-u-s-and-the-lingering-effects-of-imperialism/

Kaoma, Kapya. Globalizing the Culture Wars: U.S. Conservatives, African Churches, & Homophobia. Political Research Associates. October 2009. Web. 15 September 2011. http://www.publiceye.org/publications/globalizing-the-culture-wars/pdf/africa-full-report.pdf

Kaoma, Kapya. “The U.S. Christian Right and the Attack on Gays in Africa.” Political Research Associates. Web. 15 September 2011. http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v24n4/us-christian-right-attack-on-gays-in-africa.html

Lively, Scott. “Letter to the Russian People.” Defend the Family: The Pro-Family Resource Center. 15 October 2007. Web. 18 September 2011. http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/archives.php?id=5225300

May-Chang, Jody. “Exporting Homophobia: American Far-Right Conservative Churches Establish Influence on Anti-Gay Policy in Africa.” Boise Weekly. 08 September 2010. Web. 17 September 2011. http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/exporting-homophobia-american-far-right-conservative-churches-establish-influence-on-anti-gay-policy-in-africa/Content?oid=1767227

So started a journey that led her to Compassion International and its unique child sponsorship program. Now, after just five years working with the ministry, 25 children count on Samson for prayers, letters and support.

“They crawl up into my lap; they call me ‘Auntie Dorothy,’” Samson said. “They are my children.”

Although Samson never had children of her own, that didn’t stop her from sharing her love and compassion with little ones.

“I always wanted to have 12 children with an abundance of boys,” Samson said.

From her home in Grand Junction, Samson began her Compassion sponsorship experience in 1999 with four children from India and one from Haiti. That number soon grew to 13 children, and she got that abundance of boys.

Later, when she learned that there was a need for sponsors for African children, she didn’t hesitate to take on even more.

“Compassion told me that there was a lack of sponsors for African children because of the HIV/AIDS problem,” Samson said. “I can understand people wanting to invest their money in children who are certain to grow up to be healthy, productive adults. But all children are precious, even those who might be HIV-positive. They aren’t responsible for having the disease – they are innocent victims, and they, too, deserve the opportunity to have a happy childhood and to be loved and cared for.”

Responding to the need, Samson sponsored 12 African children – eight of them in Uganda. And in September 2002, she spent five special days with “my youngsters,” as she refers to them. She treated her children to a game park, a safari and a boat ride to see hippos.

“Of course, the kids were so excited. They’d never seen animals in the wild or even taken a boat ride. It was wonderful to see their excitement,” Samson said.

Since she’s returned from Africa, Samson has had several opportunities to share her experience and tell others about her precious Ugandan children, several of whom have already had to deal with the devastating effects of HIV/AIDS, having lost parents, siblings and other close relatives to the disease.

“I don’t know if any of my children have the disease,” Samson said. ” I pray that they do not. But it would never change how I feel about them. I love them as my own children. My hope for them is that they can have a happy childhood and become all they can be in Jesus – free from AIDS.”

When Compassion International opened its first projects in Uganda in 1980, the scourge of HIV/AIDS had not yet affected the world. Little did anyone know that only a few years later, many of the children Compassion serves in Uganda would battle the effects of this deadly, incurable disease. Compassion International currently ministers to more than 164,000 children in five countries in East Africa.

1. Algeria – land area: 919,595 sq mi/2,381,741 sq km; population: 35,415,000; capital: Algiers

2. Angola – land area: 481,354 sq mi/1,246,700 sq km; population: 18,484,000; capital: Luanda

3. Benin– land area: 43,484 sq mi/112,622 sq km; population: 9,056,000; capital: Porto-Novo

4. Botswana – land area: 224,607 sq mi/581,730 sq km; population: 1,893,000; capital: Gaborone

5. Burkina Faso – land area: 105,869 sq mi/274,200 sq km; population: 15,454,000; capital: Ouagadougou

6. Burundi – land area: 10,747 sq mi/27,834 sq km; population: 9,417,000; capital: Bujumbura

7. Cameroon – land area: 183,569 sq mi/475,442 sq km; population: 19,331,000; capital: Yaounde

8. Cape Verde – land area: 1,557 sq mi/4,033 sq km; population: 566,000; capital: Praia

9. Central African Republic – land area: 240,535 sq mi/622,984 sq km; population: 4,574,000; capital: Bangui

10. Chad – land area: 495,755 sq mi/1,284,000 sq km; population: 11,678,000; capital: N’Djamena

11. Comoros – land area: 719 sq mi/1,862 sq km; population: 773,000; capital: Moroni

12. Republic of Congo – land area: 132,047 sq mi/342,000 sq km; population: 4,012,000; capital: Brazzaville

13. Democratic Republic of Congo – land area: 905,355 sq mi/2,344,858 sq km; population: 69,963,000; capital: Kinshasa

14. Cote d’Irvoire (Ivory Coast) – land area: 124,504 sq mi/322,463 sq km; population: 21,059,000; population: Yamoussoukro

15. Djibouti – land area: 8,958 sq mi/23,200 sq km; population: 877,000; capital: Djibouti

16. Egypt – land area: 363,220 sq mi/940,736 sq km; population: 81,071,000; capital: Cairo

17. Equatorial Guinea – land area: 10,831 sq mi/28,051 sq km; population: 598,000; capital: Malabo

18. Eritrea – land area: 45,406 sq mi/117,600 sq km; population: 5,338,000; capital: Asmara

19. Ethiopia– land area: 435,186 sq mi/1,12,127 sq km: population: 88,013,000; capital: Addis Ababa

20. Gabon – land area: 103,347 sq mi/267,667 sq km; population: 1,394,000; capital: Libreville

21. Gambia – land area: 4,361 sq mi/11,295 sq km; population: 1,847,000; capital: Banjul

22. Ghana – land area: 92,098 sq mi/238,533 sq km; population: 2,842,000; capital: Accra

23. Guinea – land area: 94,926 sq mi/245,857 sq km; population: 10,088,000; capital: Conakry

24. Guinea-Bissau – land area: 13,948 sq mi/36,125 sq km; population: 1,803,000; capital: Bissau

25. Kenya – land area: 224,081 sq mi/580,367 sq km; population: 40,602,000; capital: Nairobi

26. Lesotho – land area: 11,720 sq mi/30,355 sq km; population: 2,046,000; capital: Maseru

27. Liberia – land area: 43,000 sq mi/111,369 sq km; population: 4,177,000; capital: Monrovia

28. Libya – land area: 679,362 sq mi/1,759,540 sq km; population: 6,518,000; capital: Tripoli

29. Madagascar – land area: 226,658 sq mi/587,041 sq km; population: 21,200,000; capital: Antananarivo

30. Malawi – land area: 45,747 sq mi/118,484 sq km; population: 14,735,000; capital: Lilongwe

31. Mali – land area: 478,841 sq mi/1,240,192 sq km; population: 13,489,000; capital: Bamako

32. Mauritania – land area: 397,955 sq mi/1,030,700 sq km; population: 3,384,000; capital: Nouakchott

33. Mauritius – land area: 788 sq mi/2,040 sq km; population: 1,292,000; capital: Port Louis

34. Morocco – land area: 172,414 sq mi/446,550 sq km; population: 32,554,000; capital: Rabat

35. Mozambique – land area: 308,642 sq mi/799,380 sq km; population: 22,351,000; capital: Maputo

36. Namibia – land area: 318,261 sq mi/824, 292 sq km; population: 2,137,000; capital: Windhoek

37. Niger – land area: 489,191 sq mi/1,267,000 sq km; population: 15,768,000; capital: Niamey

38. Nigeria – land area: 356,669 sq mi/923,768 sq km; population: 155,142,000; capital: Abuja

39. Rwanda – land area: 10,169 sq mi/26,338 sq km; population: 10,534,000; capital: Kigali

40. Sao Tome and Principe – land area: 372 sq mi/964 sq km; population: 166,000; capital: Sao Tome

41. Senegal – land area: 75,955 sq mi/196,722 sq km; population: 13,315,000; capital: Dakar

42. Seychelles – land area: 176 sq mi/455 sq km; population: 88,000; capital: Victoria

43. Sierra Leone – land area: 27,699 sq mi/71,740 sq km; population: 6,276,000; capital: Freetown

44. Somalia – land area: 246,201 sq mi/637,657 sq km; population: 9,484,000; capital: Mogadishu

45. South Africa – land area: 470,693 sq mi/1,219,090 sq km; population: 49,237,000; capital: Cape Town; Pretoria; Bloemfontein

46. Sudan – land area: 967,500 sq mi/2,505,813 sq km; population: 41,186,000; capital: Khartoum

47. Swaziland – land area: 6,704 sq mi/17,363 sq km; population: 1,141,000; capital: Mbabane

48. Tanzania – land area: 364,900 sq mi/945,087 sq km; population: 43,526,000; capital: Dodoma

49. Togo – land area: 21,925 sq mi/56,785 sq km; population: 7,091,000; capital: Lome

50. Tunisia – land area: 63,170 sq mi/163,610 sq km; population: 10,640,000; capital: Tunis

51. Uganda – land area: 93,065 sq mi/241,038 sq km; population: 33,984,000: capital: Kampala

52. Zambia – land area: 290,585 sq mi/752,612 sq km; population: 12,689,000; capital: Lusaka

53. Zimbabwe – land area: 150,870 sq mi/390,757 sq km; population: 13,733,000; capital: Harare

The LRA is accused of murdering, kidnapping and rape of thousands of Central African States (French)

Decided to U.S. President Barack Obama send 100 U.S. troops to central Africa to provide advice to the forces fighting the elements of the LRA, and accused of humanitarian abuses.

This came in a letter to Congress saying that those forces will not participate in the fighting directly only when necessary for self-defense, asserting that its work will be limited to providing advice to the forces that work to get rid of LRA leader Joseph Kony and other leaders in this group.

Obama said in his letter that his troops to be sent first to Uganda is also spreading in southern Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic to promote the interests of U.S. national security and foreign policy.

He added that the groups that belong to the Lord’s Resistance Army have killed and raped and kidnapped hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in these countries, where tens of thousands during two decades, indicating that continues to commit “atrocities” in that area have an impact on regional security.

He stressed that the support provided by U.S. forces will enhance efforts against the LRA, noting that despite the combat readiness of U.S. forces, they will provide only the information, advice and assistance to the forces of participating countries, and will not clash with the forces of the LRA only to the need for self-defense.
 

Source: Agencies

LRA rebel leader Joseph Kony is wanted by the International Criminal Court

Although combat-equipped, the troops would be providing information and advice “to partner nation forces”, Mr Obama wrote in a letter to US Congress.

A small group is already in Uganda, and the troops could later be deployed in other central African nations.

The LRA is blamed for mass murder, rape and kidnapping in the region.

‘Kill or capture’

“I have authorised a small number of combat-equipped US forces to deploy to central Africa to provide assistance to regional forces that are working toward the removal of (LRA leader) Joseph Kony from the battlefield,” Mr Obama wrote on Friday.

But he stressed that “although the US forces are combat-equipped… they will not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self-defence”.

Mr Obama did not provide any details about the deployment duration, but a US military spokesman later told the BBC that the “forces are prepared to stay as long as necessary to enable regional security forces to carry on independently”.

The force will use hi-tech equipment to assist in what analysts say is a “kill or capture” policy, the BBC’s Marcus George in Washington reports.

The deployment follows recent US legislation to help disarm the LRA and bring its leader to justice. The theory is, our correspondent adds, that without Joseph Kony, the movement will collapse from within.

Senator John McCain said Central Africa would be more stable if the threat of the LRA “under the sadistic leadership of Joseph Kony,” would be “diminished”.

But Mr McCain, a long-serving senator, former veteran and Mr Obama’s opponent in the 2008 presidential election, expressed “regret” that the president did not consult with Congress on the decision to sent troops to Uganda.

“I remember how past military deployments intended to further worthy humanitarian goals, whether it was peace-keeping operations in Lebanon or Somalia, resulted in tragedies that we never intended or expected,” Mr McCain said in a statement.

Child soldiers

At least 30,000 people died as the LRA spread terror in northern Uganda for more than 20 years, displacing some two million people.

It is notorious for kidnapping children, forcing the boys to become fighters and using girls as sex slaves.

The group is listed by the US as a terrorist organisation and now operates mainly in neighbouring countries such as Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan and Central Africa Republic.

Joseph Kony and his close aides have been wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) since 2005.

He refused to sign a peace deal with the Ugandan government in 2008 when it could not guarantee the withdrawal of the ICC arrest warrants.

The Ugandan Ombudsman, Mr. Baku has started a Multi-pronged war on corruption in Uganda and he has demonstrated that he fears nobody in his determination to rid this country of corruption. Recently, he dragged the former Vice President to Court, having been charged with causing heavy financial loss to the government to the tune of millions of dollars during the 2007 Common Wealth Head of Government meeting in Kampala. As I write this article, Professor Gilbert Bukenya is behind bars in Luzira Maximum Prison after his application for bail was rejected by the presiding magistrate handling the case.

Prof. Bukenya is being accused of stealing money through a procurement connivance with a company dealing in cars that operate in the country. He is said to have flouted all the procurement procedures  and bought cars that were over valued intentionally to cause heavy loss of funds, which his tormentors believe, found way back to his pocket in the form of kick backs and the like.

The imprisonment of Dr. Bukenya on remand has sparked off a hot debate in Kampala-many think, the Inspector General of Government is being used by Bukenya’s political enemies to settle political scores. Others, including the President of Uganda believe Bukenya has no case to answer and should be immediately released. The IGG on the other hand, has exercised his constitutional independence and gone a head to subject the Professor to the due process of the law without fear or favor and in total disregard to the President’s sentiments.

Just as the public was still boiling with anger about the selective application of the law by the Inspector General of Government, this morning Ugandans woke up to the hot news issuing from the Inspector General of Government’s office to the effect that 3 of the most powerful ministers in the land have been given criminal summons to appear in court to answer charges before the Anti-Corruption Court involving the loss of close to 5million dollars which the trio are said to have misappropriated during the Common Wealth head of Government meeting held in 2007. The three powerful ministers are Sam Kutesa, the all power Foreign Affairs Minister and the father in-law of President Museveni’s own son Colonel Muhoozi, John Nassasira, government Chief Whip, and Minister of State for Labor, Mwesigwa Rukutana.

Many Ugandans are very pleased with the IGG in his all out war against the corrupt and powerful people in this country. The level of corruption in my country has reached a point where one can be forgiven to term it as broad day-light robbery. Recently, money intended to buy bicycles for local government leaders at the grass roots was stolen in a mafia style by men who won the tender with a non existent company and quickly secured an upfront payment worth about $1.7million, but the company later disappeared from the list of registered companies in the country.

The thieving rackets are managed by people in high positions in government. Since Ugandans have learnt to steal without fear or favor, we now welcome the no-nonsense Government Ombudsman who prosecutes without fear or favor. Long live Mr. Baku!

<a href=”http://www.yield2me.com/-47538/3932.htm” target=”_top”><img src=”http://www.yield2me.com/banners/banner_120×240_995244.jpg” border=”0″ alt=”Lot of Visitors” title=”Lot of Visitors” width=”120″ height=”240″ /></a><img style=”border:0″ src=”http://www.yield2me.com/services/imp.php?a_aid=47538&a_bid=3932″ width=”1″ height=”1″ alt=”" />

Half did not marry. A third would not make more children. The home of Italy are the most desperate of Europe. They would like to run away far away. They hope to make it big, winning the Superenalotto.

He recounts a search of the Women Studies Centre and quality of life. Of 4 000 women of different nationalities house, 700 were Italian. Among them, 76 percent are dissatisfied. The following are the Spanish (63%), French women (57%), the British (51%) and Germany (47%). It is the fault of the crisis. They feel themselves to fight the rising cost of living (27%), lack of childcare (23%), health and badly organized (21%). They feel that everything is on their shoulders, children, the elderly at home.

And this is only the second study published in a few days going to hit home. At the end of September, a search of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has warned women who make all the decisions at home. There would be 3 to 100 hot nights in less than the ladies who share the choices with your partner.

The desire to lower duties would like grocery shopping, bill paying, chores, appointments to the doctor and so on. Decreases with increasing home enterprise moments of passion with her ​​husband or boyfriend.

There is a “but.” The study analyzed data from six countries: Ghana, Malawi, Rwanda, Mali, Uganda and Zimbabwe. Why Africa? Because here the roles of the two sexes are distinct: the man and woman house work. According to experts, however, the results are also applications simultaneously to more developed countries.

Participants were asked to indicate day, month and year of their last sexual intercourse and the kind of decisions they face at home. For men there is no link between the decisions and the frequency of sexual intercourse. For women, however, so

But a replacement report by the aid group Oxfam finds that much foreign investment actually hurts developing economies, taking fertile land out of production, weakening a country’s ability to feed itself, and displacing tens of thousands of voters with no recourse or compensation.

In one deal alone, in the highlands of Uganda, over 20,000 villagers were forced to move out, the report details.

“Our food supply system is broken, and it desires a radical fix,” says Ray Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America, in a recent interview in Boston. “After riots broke out in the capitals of thirty five countries in Africa, we tend to started tracking the land issue. we tend to tracked a hundred and ten million hectares of land, leased or purchased, in 1,200 transactions, that is a part equal in size to any or all of Western Europe.”

What Oxfam found was a pattern of “land grabs,” in which land was sold or leased in private deals to foreign investors at preferential terms, with native voters paying an important worth in terms of livelihoods and food security.

“Seventy five % of the deals happened in Africa, lots of them concerned displacement, there wasn’t lots of transparency, government policies seemed to favor the investors,” says Mr. Offenheiser. “Our interest is not to discourage investment in agriculture, but to form a framework for reasonably moral practices for foreign investors.”

The Oxfam report comes at a time when food stocks are falling and food costs are rising, when bio-fuels production removes much of the global food crop from consumption as food, and when famine has taken hold in the Horn of Africa. Higher food prices disproportionately affect the world’s poorest voters, the majority of whom live in Africa. per the Cereal worth Index, released by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization in early September, overall cereal costs are up thirty six % from where they were in August 2010, and up 2.2 % from where they were in July.

Demand for food and competition for arable land is just likely to extend, as international population levels are expected to rise to nine billion by 2050. the global economy is probably going to triple over the same amount.

In a public statement, Oxfam International’s executive Director Jeremy Hobbs said: “The unprecedented pace of land deals and also the increased competition for land is leaving many of the world’s poorest individuals worse off. in the scramble for a lot of land, investors are ignoring the those that currently go on the land and rely on it to survive.”