Statistics on viewer development today by 16.00

Country Share
Continent Share

Figure nr 1. shows viewers in percentage pr country by today at 16.00

Figure nr 2. shows viewers in percentage pr continent by today at 16.00

We update the statistics now and then.

By Statistics section

African Press in Norway, APN, africanpress@chello.no

“..changing what outsiders think about us, might be a long shot”, writes Ndirangu

_______________ 

Commentary by Ndirangu, a reaction to our story published earlier. See the story below, at the end of his comment.

 _________________

Sometimes you teach people how to treat you. It is by no chance that I also find that my fellow Africans do not carry themselves with respect.

I am aware the idea of what is respect varies but there are some basics that we have to uphold. I am a supporter of diaspora mobilisation to 1)create some audience for ourselves, 2) make a bargaining chip for others who might be interested in our audience.

As long us we cannot think together, act together and listen to each other, changing what outsiders think about us, might be a long shot.

You can be given citizenship, nationality can only be as natural as it sounds.

Blessed times

By Ndirangu

Reacting to the story below:

• Africans must stop licking the white people’s booths!

Published by African Press in Norway, APN, africanpress@chello.no, tel +47 932 99  739 

Looking at Religious symbols in public places.

 London – There is nothing unique about the controversy over religious symbols that raged over the Christmas holiday in Canada. In the wake of heated debate over the issue of the headscarf in France, many Western countries have been the scene of similar protests.

These have targeted excessively visible crucifixes, then overly prominent minarets in Switzerland; there have been complaints against “offensive” religious garb in Holland and England, and the latest is a series of curious decisions involving the removal of Christmas trees in the United States and Canada.

At every turn, we are confronted with impassioned and irrational reactions that either feed into a sense of victimisation among those who see Islamophobia wherever they turn, or that magnify the feeling that a country’s cultural homogeneity is at risk, that it is being colonised by a foreign religion.

So acute has this sensitivity become that legal or artistic authorities anticipate negative reactions, and even take preventive measures. One has only to look at Germany, where an opera by Mozart was recently postponed because a single telephone caller suggested it would be unacceptable to Muslims. In Canada, Christmas trees are dismantled because they might offend non-Christians.

Discomfort levels in our societies are rising, or so it would seem. In theory, we invoke diversity and tolerance. But in real life, we raise our hackles and withdraw into ourselves. Today, who can confirm with any certainty what he or she has the right to say, to show? Is the expression of difference commensurate with the rights of citizenship? The situation is serious; the dangers we face should not be trivialised.

It is urgent to remind ourselves that what allows us to live together in mutual respect is the legal framework – the common legislation – that makes all citizens equal before the law. Within this framework, which forms the basis for the rule of law, and which all citizens and permanent residents must recognise, fundamental freedoms must be respected.

These include the freedom of conscience, of religion, of expression and of movement. In recent years we have witnessed a slow, steady erosion of these basic rights, which are being called into question in a particularly insidious manner.

The debate over multiculturalism and identity has become saturated with these questions, these fears, these raised hackles. The problem is not one of legislation but our own fears and perceptions, which divide us, set us against one another, and incite some to attempt to change the law. What is unfolding before our very eyes is a sharp “clash of perceptions”. If we do not exercise due caution, we stand to forfeit not only our confidence in ourselves and in our fellow citizens, but also our freedoms, which would first affect Muslims, then impact later upon all citizens.

Some believe that the only solution is to obliterate all religious or cultural symbols that indicate difference. This would, its advocates argue, ensure equality and avoid giving offence. The display of diversity, others contend, can only minimise possible fears. But the process of globalisation reminds us every day that it is not enough to observe differences for us to be able to understand them in a positive way. 

However, we are unlikely to overcome the fear of diversity and difference by hiding them or over-exposing them. The debate can take place in a climate of serenity on three conditions.

First, we must respect the law of the land and apply it in equitable fashion to all citizens, and with respect to every religious and cultural community.

Second, rather than calling for the removal of all distinctive signs from public space, these signs should be, as a matter of urgency, made an integral part of the educational curriculum. Our pluralist society must provide its citizens with the tools to understand religions, their symbols and their practices. To overcome fears, we must offer proper instruction to our young people; we must cultivate their understanding and their critical spirit. This means acquiring a better understanding of the other’s philosophical and cultural orientations: seeing the other’s world as a source of richness, and not as a threat.

The third condition concerns both common sense and civility. We must become accustomed to debating social issues in a thoroughgoing and critical way, without trading on our principles, and without confusing criticism with mindless, hurtful and sometimes ill-intended and cowardly provocation. In the guise of defending freedom of thought, some intellectuals, journalists and politicians are actually legitimising the racist hate-speech that is undermining our democracies, thus generating exactly the opposite of what they claim to defend.

To aspire to such a responsible, reasonable expression of diversity in our societies, we must explain, educate and learn to know one another and to know and respect our neighbours. It is up to us to decide how we will exercise our freedoms.

By Tariq Ramadan

###

* Tariq Ramadan is a professor of Islamic Studies and senior research fellow at St Antony’s College, Oxford University and at Lokahi Foundation, London. He is also President of the European think-tank, European Muslim Network (EMN), in Brussels.

 _________________

Published by African Press in Norway, APN, africanpress@chello.no, tel +47 932 99 739

source.mfa.no.commongroundN

Highlights made by Gareth Evans, International Crisis Group, and former foreign affairs minister of Australia in Madrid

________________________________________________________________

Remarks made on the 18th.january.

How can we now move forward, to capture and build on whatever momentum this conference has generated? Nobody can be under any illusion as to how difficult a task we face. I have never seen any set of conflict issues on which there is such a huge and depressing gap between, on the one hand, the collective awareness of what needs to be done and, on the other hand, collective impotence when it comes to doing it.

There are reasons for that discrepancy: inherent flaws in the Madrid I and Oslo processes, with their focus on sequentialism, incrementalism and confidence building at the expense of the endgame; inadequate preparation – and time – when a more comprehensive approach has been adopted, as by Barak in 2000; dysfunctional Palestinian – and, let’s be frank, Israeli – political systems; U.S. disengagement; European divisions; and insufficient, and inadequately sustained, Arab leadership.
 

We have learned in turn from that experience some pretty clear lessons, at least among those around this table, as to how any future peace process needs to be conducted:

• Strong engagement in the peace process by the wider international community is necessary and unavoidable: for reasons including the lack of trust eloquently described by Dalia Rabin, the parties will find great difficulty in reaching any deal alone, without having what Shlomo Ben-Ami nicely called an ‘international escort’.
• Peacemaking needs to be comprehensive. For most of us around this table, for example, it makes no sense at all to leave Syria aside, at a time when we have heard so clearly from its president, and delegation here, that it wants to resume negotiations without preconditions. Ten years ago, the U.S. and Israel would have dreamt of getting the Syrians so readily to the starting line.
• Interim solutions, unless part of a phased implementation with the final as well as intermediate steps agreed, are a dangerous distraction, much more likely to destroy trust than to build it.
• Action to revitalize the peace process is urgent. The passage of time, and more time, is not healing the problem but compounding the anger, not just in the immediate region but in the wider Arab-Muslim world. If we wait very much longer we risk another major explosion, and the evaporation of what so far has been extraordinarily resilient support for a two-state solution.

In moving things forward, we can distinguish five distinct roles for the outside players:

I. Do No Harm.

Always the first rule in any kind of crisis management, this means here, putting it very simply, that outside parties should do nothing that makes peacemaking more difficult. This may sound self-evident, but as often as not is honoured in the breach, as again is the case today. The U.S. is actively hindering the resumption of Israeli-Syrian negotiation. And the U.S., along with many others, is actively hindering achievement of an intra-Palestinian consensus, doing more to incite internal conflict than to prevent it: if Hamas is groping for a way to square the circle on the issue of recognizing Israel (of which we have seen some further evidence with Meshaal’s statement this week) then this is surely the time to be searching for common ground, not dismissing that possibility.

II. Help Create Optimal Conditions for Negotiations. That does not mean chasing illusory trust-building or confidence-building measures, of the kind which – as Shlomo again says – can hardly be conceived between occupier and occupied. But it does mean persuading both sides that a credible process can exist. To mention a few examples: the Arab League can better articulate (as Marwan Muasher did so well in our debate) and flesh out its peace initiative to convince the Israeli people that it is real and meaningful; and Israel can be encouraged to publicly endorse a vision of peace based specifically on that Arab initiative.

Creating the optimal conditions for negotiations also means doing everything we can in the wider world of international public opinion to create an environment in support of both the urgency of conflict resolution action, and a wider understanding that successful outcomes are possible if such action is seriously undertaken.

III. Assist in Preparing for Negotiations. The critical need here is to set up a credible negotiating process, and this is an issue to which a lot of detailed attention needs to be devoted over the next few weeks and months. We’ve heard different ideas here, and there’s a wide menu of options from which to choose:

• Amr Moussa spoke of an international conference under the auspices of the UN role; others have called for a Madrid II; and there are other ideas about creating some semi-permanent conference structure with significant input from non-government experts.
• Others have spoken of a re-energized Quartet playing the key role in initiating any new negotiating process, with many focusing on the EU playing a more creative and adventurous role in this context.
• Others have emphasized the need for the Quartet to be either formally expanded to include Arab members, or at least much more actively and visibly committed to consulting with the key Arab players, and creating common positions, for example, with the Arab League Initiative being brought from the wings to centre stage.

IV. Assist in the Conduct of the Negotiations.

One of the ways this could happen would be for the international community (perhaps though the Quartet) putting on the table at the outset its own ideas, fleshing out the Clinton Parameters, Arab League Initiative, and drawing on the Geneva Accord proposals, so as to concentrate everyone’s mind on the need for both a comprehensive and endgame-first approach. Whatever else they do, the outside players should develop and support a mechanism which avoids indefinite, open-ended negotiations, and stand constantly ready to help work around negotiating roadblocks as they inevitably develop.

V. Assist in Implementing Agreements Once Reached. For outside players, that means above all providing the necessary economic, military, and political support to ensure that agreements once reached don’t fall apart.

So what should we do right now to build on the very productive and stimulating atmosphere of this Madrid + 15 Conference? The most useful follow-on exercise would appear to be for the initiators of this conference to establish, as Sam Lewis has suggested, a small steering group – involving some or all of the sponsoring governments and organizations, together with representatives of the parties to the conflict and the broader region – to explore what kind of process would now be most productive, and to try to set that process in train.

The International Crisis Group a few months ago launched an advocacy initiative of its own – focusing on the Quartet and key regional players – but we claim no monopoly of either ideas or energy, and stand absolutely ready to work with others interested in advancing the themes which have come out of this conference.

We need to think and act quickly to see whether we can integrate our efforts in this way. This conference has achieved something extremely valuable: it has created a moment. And it’s our collective responsibility to seize that moment and take it forward.

###

* Gareth Evans is President and Chief Executive of the Crisis Group; Chair of the World Economic Forum’s Global Governance Initiative Peace and Security Expert Group; member of the International Advisory Board of UN Studies at Yale; former Foreign Minister of Australia; former Attorney General of Australia; and member of the UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change.

Lifted by Korir,

Published by African Press in Norway, APN, africanpress@chello.no, tel +47 932 99 739

source.mfa.no.commongroundN

An employee in the Norwegian embassy in Kenya is accused of corruption.

APN is asking questions now. Is the allegation true? And if it is, then one will be interested to know how much money has changed hands in many years that the man in question has been attached to the same embassy.

Another interesting thing to look at will be the number of workers who may be involved in the scam. This also raises question in other embassies. There is a possibility that Kenyans looking for visas in other embassies get the same problems, forcing them to pay cash under the table in order to get their documents processed.

Our sources claim that they suffered a lot before they acquired their visas to Norway. The Kenyan people should not be made to go through unnecessary hardships by people who want to get rich quickly through corruption.

Kenyans planning to travel save money for the ticket, pocket money, and probably education fee and other expenses required when abroad. And then when they have everything in order, ready to ask for a visa, which they know they qualify to get, then they are faced with yet another hurdle, “under the table tips” is a disgrace.

APN has been informed by some visa applicants, that there is corruption at the Norwegian embassy in Kenya, and we have no reason to start doubting them before the contrary is proven.

It is said that, one Kenyan local employee who has reportedly served in the embassy for many years has caused problems to many visa applicants wishing to travel out of Kenya.

Kenyans who have visited Norway have told APN of situations where the man in question has demanded cash, before he can accept to receive visa application forms.

When applicants arrive at the embassy to apply for visas, they are asked to deliver the necessary documents to qualify them for visa, but when they do, fulfilling all the requirements, the employee makes it difficult for them, and are only treated positively only after they part with cash.

The Norwegians criticise Kenya a lot on corruption practices, that Kenyan authorities are working hard trying to uproot. The Norwegians should clean their own doorsteps of corruption first, before they run around attacking other governments.

If we have to go by our sources, then APN is of the opinion that the Norwegian authorities must stop the scam. We know they are reliable because our sources have given us the same information, and yet they do not know one another.

Corruption is a cancer as many have said before and must be uprooted. People looking for visas to visit their loved ones abroad, travelling for further studies or on business should not be subjected to unnecessary burdens. Being forced to part with money in order to be assisted or favoured in some way is criminal.

The Embassy has an obligation to investigate the case and get a solution.

One way to do that is by contacting some of the people who have visited Norway in the last 5 years in order to find out if the information is correct.

Some of the people who were asked to part with cash in exchange for services at the embassy are more than willing to go public.

In the beginning, they were afraid to do so because of fear that they may be branded bad people and refused visas in the future. 

_______________

PS. APN has emailed this story to the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, UDI – Director, Directorate of Immigration and the Ambassador, Norwegian Embassy in Kenya for information, and hopefully action.

___________________

By Korir,

Published by African Press in Norway, APN, africanpress@chello.no, tel. +47 932 99 739. 

“I have nothing against hookers, what I don’t understand is someone like me standing in the street and waiting for “customers”, writes Esther in her commentary.

_________________

Commentary by Esther

_________________ 

To Longstory/Cutshort,

I sure understand, and I believe you are telling the truth!! I adore the way you are telling it! I mean your words! I know it is serious and real but i cant stop laughing!

Excuse my ignorance but I thought those things happen in movies. Are you sure you haven’t been watching too much of those Nigerian movies?!

Back to the story, I still believe you can choose to do it or not if you were deceived by these gangs and old prostitutes. Why not escape or report to the police? I believe prostitution is a very risky “business”. You put your life into danger,you can be killed,diseases,get raped etc.

These ladies must have guts! What keeps them warm in their business clothes?!!
350e a day! They must be loaded. Honestly very few African women makes that kind of money in Europe doing regular jobs. BUT EASY COME EASY GO.

I would love to hear a true successful story from a prostitute who made it all the way. Did you read the story of that Kenyan lady in U.K doing the same business? She was worth millions but where did she end?

I have nothing against hookers, what I don’t understand is someone like me standing in the street and waiting for “customers”! Do they have any feelings? Ten men a day? It must be hard than I imagined.

I have been living in Scandinavia for a long time but I feel like I just got here. There is so much I don’t know. Well I have been busy trying to be stable in a foreign land and bringing up my kids that I never got much time to “explore” the streets!

Thank you for taking your time to explain in details. This does not mean i support the ones doing it. If you make a lot of money and send to your relatives to improve their living standards, and then after a short while you die from AIDS or you get killed in the streets doing your thing then what.

Your family will thank you and the moment you are gone thats it. Do you hate yourself that much? Are you that worthless? You have to learn to love and respect yourself so that you can pass that love to your family.

I’m yet to see her prostitute who has succeeded in staying alive,having a stable family she can call hers,or even a decent life.

Having said all that, we all have different goals, dreams, values, ethics, morals, different ways of living, and all that. We have the power to choose what we want to do with ourselves.

Let me say I have really enjoyed reading you comments. Friends?

By Esther, Finland.

Related stories:

• On prostitution and making a documentary!
• APN to make a documentary on African prostitution in Norway!

Published by African Press in Norway, APN, africanpress@chelo.no, tel.+47 932 99 739.

Remarks by the Minister of Foreign Affairs Jonas Gahr Støre in Madrid.

___________________________________________________________________________

 Remarks on the 18th.jan

_________________________

“…The Madrid conference 15 years ago did not create peace. But it gave hope. And it lead towards peace. Against a background of a Gulf war it brought key regional parties together. What started in Madrid had lasting effects on the political map of the Middle East.

“As we look at the region today, the picture is even gloomier than the one we were facing 15 years ago. To meet these challenges we need to set a regional agenda. We need to repeat the method of Madrid….

“For various reasons some parties to the wider Middle Eastern conflicts are absent from our gathering. I believe we should recall that a perquisite for peace is that we make all parties stakeholders – that we seek to engage countries as well as key groups.

“Key to the Madrid method is engagement.

“We should recall that engagement does not mean tolerating obstructionism and extremism. We reject violence and terrorism. We expect countries and groups of the region to live up to their international obligations and to abide by international law. We object to occupation and illegal settlements.

“Engagement means exploring opportunities for a new path towards peace and security for the people in the Middle East.

“As always, there will be those who fear change and moderation, those who seek to bring engagement to an end. The history of the Middle East is full of such examples. The challenge will be to deny them the right of veto when peaceful and constructive approaches become a viable possibility.

“…The important legacy of Madrid 15 years ago was not a comprehensive peace accord. It was rather the creation of an enabling environment. The rest of the 1990s saw progress and breakthrough. A spirit of negotiations. The Oslo Accords. Peace between Israel and Jordan. Close to peace between Israel and Syria. And despite dire set backs, real steps forward between Israelis and Palestinians.

“Then the atmosphere changed around 2000 – and today, as we enter 2007, and despite the Road Map and different plans, we can hardly speak of a viable peace process.

“15 years later another war is waging in Iraq…. One after another, separate conflicts in an extended Middle Eastern region are increasingly linked together – from the Horn of Africa all the way to Afghanistan. Each conflict needs to be addressed on its own merits.

“But in addition we need to take a regional approach. We should hold open the scenario of a new formal regional conference, supported by the international community. We need to take account of new dimensions such as increased religious influence, Iran’s role and ambitions, the fight against terrorism and the issue of nuclear proliferation….

“I still believe that the Israeli Palestinian conflict continues to be a key challenge to achieving peace throughout the Middle East. We need to break the cycle of violence. Here too, there is no military solution. It can only be political. It is crucial that the parties engage in dialogue. Dialogue is not a sign of weakness. Dialogue is the difficult and brave choice, as Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman Arafat demonstrated after Oslo on the lawn of the White House.

“It was a brave act of President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert to come together last month. But to preserve this potential new start the people they represent must see the benefit in terms of commitment to concrete follow-up of results.

“Here in Madrid we are pledging to lend our support. In the present context, the countries in the region are the main stakeholders. But so are also the Quartet and other international actors. The true role of the Quartet should be to weigh in and provide a real effort to support and even initiate a process…. And if the Quartet is unable to do that as a group, then each part should not refrain from engaging. That challenge goes in particular to the European Union.

“Today the situation in Palestine is dramatic. And it may pass from bad to worse. I hear Palestinian friends say that the international community should lift the siege. Let me be clear; speaking for Norway, we have no desire to see Palestine under siege. We stand by the vision of a viable Palestinian state, and we pledge our support to assist you in getting there. We wish to see success in the Palestinian attempt to agree on a political platform that would open the road to greater internal unity and real negotiations for peace. We stand ready to respond.

“But if there is to be any such process, let us be realistic: The United States has to engage and promote a new dialogue and a new way forward. And Israel has to do its part to lift restrictions on the Palestinians and deliver tangible outcomes of political talks and pledges. Israel has the obvious right to safeguard its security. But Israel’s peace and security is directly linked to the prospects of Palestinian peace and security.

“…The method of Madrid is about engagement. There must be a diplomatic process with rights and obligations for every conflict. To halt violent extremism, we must engage all parties, including non state actors in dialogue and responsible engagement. Failing to do so would leave the initiative to extremists and to those who refuse compromise. Groups cannot be eradicated by military force or eliminated by decree.

“They too need to be engaged and held responsible.

“Norway is committed to working hard together with its partners in and outside the region to make peace in the Middle East a reality. We maintain a dialogue with all countries and key groups that need to be engaged in regional efforts to reduce conflict and violence. The road to renewed political efforts towards peace and security for all can only be found through strong commitment to engagement in dialogue. The brave and difficult choice….”

Lifted by Korir,

Published by African Press in Norway, APN, africanpress@chello.no, tel +47 932 99 739,

source.Lifted.mfa.commongroundN