Monday, 2 February 2009

[creative-radio] Digest Number 2556

There are 3 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Fwd: Re: Who Invented Radio?
From: George Lessard

2. Africa Policy Outlook 2009
From: George Lessard

3. New Radio Programs at the NCRA Program Exchange
From: George Lessard

1. Fwd: Re: Who Invented Radio?
Posted by: "George Lessard" themediamentor
Date: Sun Feb 1, 2009 5:23 pm ((PST))

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [cr-india] Who Invented Radio?
From: "Vickram Crishna" <>
Date: Sun, February 1, 2009 03:33
"CR India" <>

Interestingly (for those who believe that Wikipedia is a generally suspect
resource), the referenced article carries information on JC Bose'
experiments, establishing in particular that they predated Marconi's work.

As has been seen in the case of both Darwin and Liebniz (evolution and
calculus respectively), publishing has been taken as more important than
demonstrating, but Bose deliberately chose to publish rather than patent,
not applying for any patent until 1904, when he took a patent for a
receiver. Yet the popular impression is that Marconi invented wireless
telegraphy, and he was even given a Nobel in 1909 (sharing it with Herman
Braun) for an innovation that he could not even patent. More significant
contributors, such as Popov, have remained pretty well unsung in history.
This seems to be an example of scientific duplicity of the most
extraordinary kind. Marconi did not even send the first voice signal.

Stubblefield, incidentally, working just about the same time as Tesla, did
not believe that his experiments centered around electromagnetic waves at
all. He was more concerned about finding a universal source of energy, and
the signalling that took place from his apparatus was a side-effect of an
attempt to transmit energy wirelessly. Tesla is also misquoted in one of
the references as not seeing any practical use for wireless signalling,
and that it was wasteful of energy, but many articles have been published
that he too sought to invent lossless (and wireless) energy transmission,
and I suspect that his remark was aimed along these lines.

Oddly, the first reference, Douglas Smith's article from World Radio
(2006), does not even mention Bose.

Incidentally, I recall a (possibly apocryphal) story that Marconi found
out about radio in the course of a cross-channel steamer journey, possibly
in 1894, when he met Bose (who was on his way to present a paper to the
Royal Society about his successful Calcutta experiments). I have not been
able to find the story online. Other references Georges has quoted mention
that he discovered it from his reading of Tesla's published work.

At any rate, although Marconi was probably quite a gifted entrepreneur, he
seems not to have had too many scruples about claiming credit for anything
that would further his business interests.

As many who have the good fortune to meet with Italian wireless
enthusiasts will affirm, the country came into its own during the past 30
years or so, when it allowed licencefree low power radio broadcasting,
which led to tremendous development of inexpensive radio transmitters.
While there are many gifted radio developers around the world, Italy
probably stands out for its concentration of talent.

India's abject failure to build a reservoir of skill here is a black
stain, reflecting its true attitude to scientific research and


From: George Lessard <>
Sent: Thursday, 29 January, 2009 1:23:33
Subject: [cr-india] Who Invented Radio?

Who Invented Radio?
Historical accounts of discovery and invention sometimes sidestep the
truth. The development of radio provides a case in point.

Who Invented Radio?
With his newly created Tesla coils, the inventor soon discovered that he
could transmit and receive powerful radio signals when they were tuned to
resonate at the same frequency. When a coil is tuned to a signal of a
particular frequency, it literally magnifies the incoming electrical
energy through resonant action. By early 1895, Tesla was ready to transmit
a signal 50 miles to West Point, New York... But in that same year,
disaster struck. A building fire consumed Tesla's lab, destroying his

Who Invented Radio?
Radio was not invented by any single person, but instead was a culmination
of several scientists' research, each of whom pioneered a different area
of electromagnetic radiation and radio waves during the late 1800s and
early 1900s. Among these men are well known researchers such as Heinrich
Rudolf Hertz, James Clerk Maxwell, David E. Hughes, Thomas Edison, and
Nikola Tesla.

Who invented radio?
The answer lies in how you define "radio" or "wireless." It has something
to do with whether you prefer an elite or populist view of historical

Just Who Invented Radio
Which Was The First Station?
If you ask most people who invented Radio, the name Marconi comes to mind.
Usually KDKA Pittsburgh is the response when you ask about the first Radio
station. But are these really Radio's firsts? In the interest of curiosity
and good journalism, we set out to determine if these were in fact Radio's

Invention of radio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article covers the main arguments about who had what part in the
early development of radio.

History of radio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of oldest radio stations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The title of Oldest Radio Station is disputed by several in Europe (UK and
Germany), and in the United States and Canada.
Several potential contenders for the title of "Oldest radio station" are
listed below, organized by sign-on date:

cr-india mailing list

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Messages in this topic (1)
2. Africa Policy Outlook 2009
Posted by: "George Lessard" themediamentor
Date: Sun Feb 1, 2009 5:26 pm ((PST))

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Africa Policy Outlook 2009
From: moderator@PORTSIDE.ORG
Date: Sun, February 1, 2009 19:50

Africa Policy Outlook 2009
Gerald LeMelle and Michael Stulman
Foreign Policy In Focus
January 27, 2009

Editor's note: The Africa Policy Outlook is an annual
publication released jointly by Africa Action and
Foreign Policy In Focus that highlights the key themes
and trends in U.S. Africa policy. See the appendix below
for a general schedule of African elections planned for


The outpouring of emotion across Africa when President
Barack Obama was sworn in had as much to do with his
heritage as with the possibility that he might reverse
some of the Bush administration's disastrous policies.
President George W. Bush trumpeted Africa as a foreign
policy success, highlighting the President's Emergency
Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR) as proof. He didn't
mention the extremely unpopular ideological limitations
on PEPFAR that he championed. He also failed to mention
the impact of his administration's other key initiatives
that were also important to African people. He didn't
talk about the dramatic increase in military spending,
the controversial creation of the United States Africa
Command (AFRICOM), the extremely flawed war on terror,
his unpopular unilateral and bilateral approaches to
various countries, the collapse of Somalia, his support
for undemocratic leaders, and the undermining of the
United Nations, particularly its peacekeeping

The Obama administration must immediately address the
continent's three massive humanitarian crises in
Somalia, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(DRC), and respond to the desperate need for more United
Nations peacekeepers in all three of these nations.
Under Obama's leadership, U.S. policy also must help
Africa recover from the crisis brought on by the recent
spikes and sharp declines in food prices, cope with
terms of trade that virtually ensure Africa can't
compete in the global economy, and reverse a resurgence
of undemocratic governance - particularly in countries
that have strong military relations with our nation. In
addition, Africa needs to address other pressing
concerns, including education, climate change,
agriculture, clean water, health and transportation
infrastructure, and the effective coordination of
foreign aid.

Expectations for President Obama have become sky-
scraping. The challenges before him are enormous. One
thing he can do at no cost to the U.S. taxpayer is
change the tone of our foreign policy and the way our
policies are developed. Collaborative models in policy
design and implementation would bring far more
thoughtful and successful long-term strategies than the
present competitive and self-interested models that time
and again have left our policies misinformed,
shortsighted, and ineffective.

Military Might and Flawed Force

While a U.S. military presence on the African continent
is nothing new, the U.S. military footprint in Africa
expanded in a very alarming way during the last eight
years. In less than a decade it expanded from small
units of U.S. forces stationed in strategic regions into
AFRICOM, which became operational in October 2008.

Needless to say, this overt militarization of U.S.
policy towards Africa is a source for grave concern for
African civil society, government officials, and
advocates. The U.S. military doesn't have a good record
on the African continent. In fact, its implicit and
explicit support of regimes such as apartheid South
Africa, Mobutu's Zaire, and Samuel Doe's Liberia were
long factors in the destabilization inside and outside
those countries. Today, U.S. military might is seen
behind Rwanda's continued contribution in destabilizing
the Congo. U.S. forces are seen as the rearguard to the
Ethiopian army that overthrew the existing government in

So what will 2009 bring? It's difficult to tell what the
Obama administration will do, but what's not difficult
to see is the need to rehabilitate and reorient U.S.
policy towards Africa from military-guarded corporate
exploitation to one that's centered on human security as
a foundation for peace and development.


Somalia is just one tragic example of where U.S.
involvement has directly undermined the cause of peace
and stability. The overthrow of the Islamic Courts Union
and the subsequent Ethiopian occupation has been an
overwhelming disaster. While many Somalis disapproved of
some of the more fundamentalist ways of the original
courts, most felt that they were well organized,
disciplined, and effective civil administrators who had
certainly provided Somalia with its first semblance of
order and leadership since 1991.

Today, the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) is
divided and ineffectual in the face of a growing
Islamist insurgency. Basic services like food, water,
electricity, transportation, and education are largely
unavailable. Though the Ethiopian army has just pulled
out of Somalia, its two-year tenure in Mogadishu was
punctuated by numerous accusations of human rights
violations. For two years, the TFG and the Ethiopian
army were both extremely unpopular, and yet they stand
as visual proof of what the U.S. once called its model
for the "Global War on Terror" in Africa. The Somalis
completely ignored a peace agreement between the former
moderate elements of the Courts, now called the Alliance
for the Re-Liberation of Somalia and the TFG as they
seethed over what has been done to them.

The civilian death toll since the invasion is now close
to 10,000. More than one million people have fled their
homes, including half of Mogadishu's population, and are
now living in makeshift refugee camps. The UN now
estimates that more than 3.25 million people currently
need food aid. As desperation for food and security
increases, it's not surprising to see disaffected
Somalis resorting to piracy and other forms of violence.
While every effort should be made to stop the violence,
long-lasting peace and stability can only be reached
when the root causes of poverty are addressed and a
government responsive to the needs of Somalis first is
in place.

The U.S. military and intelligence presence throughout
this debacle seriously hurt the U.S. standing throughout
the continent. Strategic blunders in Somalia include:
the U.S. role in orchestrating the Ethiopia's invasion
of Somalia, the CIA's funding of warloards, the U.S.
role in imposing a handpicked government, and not least,
cruise missile attacks on Somali villages resulting in
civilian casualties. These actions have engendered
strong feelings of hostility towards the United States
among Somalis.

If poverty and failed states are the biggest challenge
on the global terrorism front, then the U.S. military is
assuming a role in which it can't succeed. The military
is neither a policymaker nor a humanitarian agency, and
it's certainly not known for its sensitivity and
understanding of local issues. This is a role better
played by a strong United Nations and, one day, a strong
African Union.

The United States should also reassess its heavy
reliance on the military in Africa. The U.S. military
isn't designed to manage long-term issues of poverty
reduction, lasting security, building infrastructure,
and good governance. Rather, the United States should
consider establishing a Department of Global
Development, headed by a cabinet-level secretary that
would take a comprehensive approach to these issues in
the name of lasting security.


This will be a critical year for Sudan's future. The
crisis in Darfur has grown and now affects the entire
region's stability. Conflicts in Sudan and Chad have
become mutually reinforcing. The joint UN-African Union
force (UNAMID) peacekeeping force authorized in July
2007 remains too understaffed and under-equipped to be
effective. Civilian displacements and killings in Darfur
continued throughout 2008 as UNAMID was reduced to
bystanders because of acute shortages of troops, road
transport, and helicopters. To date, less than half of
the authorized 26,000 full UNAMID force has been
deployed. Pursuing a parallel track of counterterrorism
intelligence sharing with Khartoum has undermined the
capacity of the United States to use diplomatic and
economic leverage to pressure the Khartoum government
into ending the genocide and allowing the full
deployment of UNAMID. Supporting UNAMID must be a
priority in 2009.

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) calls for free
and fair elections early this year. Presidential,
parliamentary, state, and local elections are scheduled
for February but chances are they will be delayed. A
controversial census was conducted in 2008 but hasn't
been released yet. Some are already challenging its

The elections will take place at a time when the sitting
President, Omar Al Bashir is in line to be indicted by
the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes
against humanity, war crimes, and possibly genocide.
While some analysts fear that an indictment will derail
the elections, Bashir's National Congress Party has
given several indications that they will try and derail
the elections anyway. The ICC indictment should serve as
a pressure point to promote peace and justice in the
entire Sudan and surrounding region. These prospects for
justice could be reversed if the UN Security Council
votes to suspend the charges. Article 16 of the Rome
Statute - the accord that established the ICC - allows
the UN Security Council to suspend the ICC prosecutions
for a period of 12 months. This suspension is reviewed
annually and can be renewed indefinitely. The United
States has rightly opposed invoking Article 16 but must
now take the next step by signing on to the Rome Statute
to participate in and help strengthen this global

Democratic Republic of the Congo

In the DRC, the high hopes for peace and stability that
attended the historic 2006 multiparty elections are
giving way to despair and desperation as deadly fighting
continues in the North Kivu region between government
forces and rebels loyal to General Laurent Nkunda.
Nkunda's recent threat to expand his rebellion beyond
the eastern region to overun Kinshasa threatens to
plunge the whole country into deadly civil war again.
Experts estimate that 1,000 people die every day in the
DRC due to conflict-related causes. Over the last decade
the death toll is estimated at 5.4 million, making this
the world's deadliest conflict since World War II.
Continued fighting has displaced millions and created an
impossible situation for humanitarian workers. Food
shortages have resulted in mass mulnutrition and

Naturally, the DRC's vast mineral wealth continues to be
at the center of conflict. Corporations and local elites
continue to use instability as a cover to plunder the
country's natural resources.

As tensions escalate, both government forces and rebels
have been fingered in gross human rights violations.
Women in particular have been the worst affected, as all
sides to the conflict have deliberately committed
despicable sexual atrocities. According to Professor
Yakin Ertuk, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence
against Women, "the situation is most acute in South
Kivu, where non-State armed groups, particularly foreign
militia, commit sexual atrocities that are of an
unimaginable brutality and aim at the complete physical
and psychological destruction of women with implications
for the entire society."

The UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(known by its French acronym MONUC), despite being the
largest UN peacekeeping mission in the world, has failed
to contain rebels or protect civilians. Over the last
year the mission's credibility suffered severely due to
repeated accusations of sexual abuse, and illicit guns
for drugs and minerals trade with Hutu rebels who
committed genocide in Rwanda.

To protect the Congolese people, the United States needs
to work cooperatively with the UN and civil society to
provide stronger civilian protection and resolve to end
the conflict. Again, the dismal relationship between the
United States and the United Nations undermined the
capacity of the international community to robustly
respond to the crisis. With full U.S. support, a beefed-
up and more professional UN peacekeeping force in the
DRC would be much more effective. Experts suggest that
MONUC must be expanded from the present force of 20,000
to 50,000 to effectively contain rebels, protect
civilians, and carry out its peacekeeping mandate. While
the African Union played a very important role in
brokering the peace that led to the historic 2006
mulitiparty elections, it's clear the AU presently lacks
capacity to go it alone in the DRC. Increased U.S.
support to both the UN and AU efforts in the DRC is
absolutely vital to enduring peace.

Women didn't participate in previous peace negotiations,
and they continue to be ignored despite the fact they
are often specifically targeted. Henceforth, all peace,
justice, and accountability negotiations must include
the newly formed Coalition for Women's Human Rights in
Conflict Situations Working Group, in the Great Lakes
region. The working group is comprised of the African
Women's Development and Communication Network (FEMNET),
Urgent Action Fund, Women and Law in Development, and
the Eastern African Sub-Regional Support Initiative for
the Advancement of Women.

Furthermore, the United States needs to reassess its
relationship with the powerful Rwandan Army. Today
Rwanda is a proxy for U.S. interests. Even while U.S.
officials insist that Rwanda isn't intervening in the
DRC, the recent report by the UN Security Council Group
of Experts confirms vast Rwandan support for General
Nkunda's Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP).
This report included extensive evidence of high-level
communication between the government of Rwanda and the
Tutsi rebel group. Further, it details that Rwanda has
facilitated the supply of military equipment, officers,
and recruits, some of them children, and held
fundraising meetings and opened bank accounts for
Nkunda. Clearly, U.S. support for Rwanda hasn't resulted
in greater security in the Great Lakes Region. Instead,
the reality has been further destabilization and


Since Zimbabwe's 2008 elections, the longstanding
political and economic crisis has exploded into a
serious human tragedy. The country's crucial social
services, such as health, water distribution, and
education, have virtually collapsed. An unemployment
rate estimated at 90% and an inflation rate of over 230
million percent have left millions of Zimbabweans
condemned to abject poverty and the Zimbabwean currency
virtually worthless. A nationwide cholera epidemic has
killed more than 2,000 people and continues to infect
thousands more.

Mugabe keeps his illegitimate grip on power primarily
through coercion and patronage. U.S. dollars are used to
buy loyalty from the security forces.

As Zimbabwe plunges deeper and deeper into crisis, the
reality of a capitalist class profiting from the misery
and exploitation of people in Zimbabwe can't be ignored.
Mugabe's closest supporters continue to profit from
deals secured with unscrupulous businessmen in Europe
and the United States. The United States must support
the UN Stolen Assets Recovery Initiative (StAR). This
would hold developed countries accountable for the role
they play in the corruption present in developing
countries. This bilateral intiative would target the
source of corruption, which often includes bribes and
other illegal income provided to governments from firms
and individuals in developed countries. StAR would also
force developing countries to invest recovered funds in
social and anti-poverty programs. The World Bank
estimates that for every $100 million recovered, more
than 600,000 people could receive treatment for
HIV/AIDS, or 100 million people with malaria drugs.

The political situation in Zimbabwe is characterized by
a costly political stalemate, as the Global Political
Agreement signed between Mugabe and the opposition in
October 2008 is yet to be consumated because of
continued squabbles between the two leading political
parties - the Zimbabwe African National Union -
Patriotic Front (Zanu PF) and the Movement for
Democratic Change (MDC) - over distribution of power.
U.S. support for building an international consensus on
Zimbabwe based on human rights and will be crucial for
breaking the political stalemate in 2009.

Financial Crises

The financial crisis has shaken the U.S. economy and had
a rippling effect around the world. Initially,
developing countries were first largely unaffected by
the crisis, given that many of their local banks are
less integrated into the global financial system.
However, in November the World Bank revised its economic
outlook for developing countries and acknowledged that
developing countries "are now much more vulnerable, with
dwindling capital flows, huge withdrawals of capital
leading to losses in equity markets, and skyrocketing
interest rates."

The U.S. government has a rare opportunity to build a
new global economic system and reform the failed
policies of international financial institutions (IFIs).
A responsible lending framework would redefine the role
of development finance as a more equitable and
transparent course of action. Imposing inflexible and
strict conditions on development-oriented loans has
undercut the Millennium Development Goals, causing
developing countries to divert critical resources for
HIV/AIDS programs, education, and other important needs
to pay almost $14 billion annually on debt service to
the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Debt cancellation needs to become a priority in
reexamining the global economic system. In 2008 the
"Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt
Cancellation" (HR 2634/ S 2166) passed in the House of
Representatives by a 285-132 vote and cleared the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee on June 24, 2008. It failed
to pass by a narrow margin in the full Senate and most
likely will be reintroduced in 2009. It would allow for
expanded debt cancellation in developing countries and
require an audit of past loans.

As of late 2007, 11 of 24 Heavily Indebted Poor
Countries (HIPCs) surveyed by the International Monetary
Fund were facing litigation from 46 different commercial
creditors, also known as "vulture funds." A vulture fund
is a fund or investment company that seeks to profit by
buying distressed debt and suing for exorbitantly high
returns. Debt cancellation advocates are focused on a
particular subgroup of vulture funds - those that target
distressed sovereign debt. These companies buy up the
debt of poor countries at a big discount from the
original owner (either a government or a commercial
creditor) with the purpose of suing the indebted country
in court once the poor country has some money (often
after debt cancellation) to recover the original debt
and make a profit.

Of these 46 creditors, 25 received court judgments
against HIPCs amounting to about $1 billion on original
claims of $427 million. Their activity has increased the
debt burden of the world's poorest citizens and
undermined the gains of debt cancellation.

On August 1, 2007, Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA)
introduced the Stop VULTURE Funds Act (HR 6796). This
bill would outlaw profiteering from sovereign debt by
capping the amount of profit that a fund can reap
through litigating against poor countries to collect
defaulted debts. It also requires disclosures from any
fund that pursues vulture fund activity through the U.S.

This bill is one of the most important that must be
passed by the 111th Congress.

If accruing debt weren't dire enough for some of the
world's poorest countries, limits on social spending and
agricultural subsidies under the guise of trade
liberalization are often required for development
assistance. Due to this fact, developing countries have
suffered from increased food and oil prices, which have
been a source of conflict and have driven more people
below the poverty line. It's estimated that nearly 840
million people around the world are chronically hungry.
These numbers will likely rise as developing countries
are forced to spend a disproportionately large amount of
their income on food items. Ironically, the response of
the developed countries to the crisis, including the
United States, has been to increase spending on
subsidies on our own agricultural produce.

The World Trade Organization's Doha Round mistakenly
attempted to fix global food challenges by liberalizing
agricultural markets. Poorer producers have been left
without government support and developing countries have
grown increasingly dependent on imported food. Even
given the enormity of the financial crisis, the U.S.
government continues to perpetuate failed solutions for
Africa. More must be done to protect the poor. Fair, not
free trade must be adapted immediately as a part of
creating a new global economic system.

Sustainable Solutions on HIV/AIDS

2008 was a landmark year for U.S. leadership in the
fight against HIV/AIDS in Africa. In July, the U.S.
Congress passed The Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United
States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis,
and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008 that provides up
to $48 billion in pledges over five years to stop
HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis worldwide. The
latest figures indicate that the annual number of AIDS
deaths is beginning to level off globally, after decades
of increasing mortality. But according to a 2008 UNAIDS
report, Sub-Saharan Africa continues to be the worst
affected area, accounting for over two-thirds of all
people living with HIV. With numbers still exceedingly
high, more needs to be done in order to meet the
challenges of the pandemic.

A gender-sensitive approach to alleviating HIV/AIDS must
specifically target women and young people. Vulnerable
populations continue to be disproportionately affected
by the pandemic, with an additional 370,000 children
under 15 becoming infected with HIV in 2007. National
government strategies need to acknowledge the
distinctiveness of male and female experiences in
addition to gender specific health risks. This will
begin to address the root causes of health disparities
related to HIV/AIDS.

In 2009, the U.S. government must continue the progress
that has been made in funding for HIV/AIDS. There's
still much work to be done to ensure that scientific
evidence, not ideology, drives funding for programs. By
allowing greater flexibility for local participants
(including civil society) to develop a plan to employ
U.S. foreign assistance, countries are able to develop a
specific program that will reach more people, more
effectively. This also encourages for greater
transparency and accountability.

Long-term sustainable solutions that include prevention,
early detection and testing, and treatment must now be
integrated into a bold new vision for global health and
U.S. foreign assistance. Focusing more attention on
using U.S. assistance to help build a health
infrastructure will improve Africa's ability to deliver
services, particularly in poorer and rural communities.
Without laboratories, nurses, or doctors to deliver
life-saving anti-retroviral (ARV) medicines, the effects
of our efforts are greatly reduced. An investment in
health infrastructure for HIV/AIDS can also be practical
in treating other diseases, such as tuberculosis,
malaria, cholera and more.

To accomplish this scale-up, the United States must
reform the way it coordinates foreign assistance. A new
Department of Global Development should be formed that
would have a mandate for policy consistency on the full
range of U.S. policies affecting poor countries, such as
health care, education, agriculture, trade, debt and
climate change. Human rights and development must be
integrated into the defense and diplomacy discourse to
ensure that the failed approaches to Iraq and Somalia
are never repeated. This new agency could prevent short-
term (and short-sighted) political goals from
undermining long-term development objectives.

Cultivating Conflict: Climate Change

The need for strong global leadership to fight climate
change has never been greater. As United Nations
Environmental Program (UNEP) Executive Director Achim
Steiner said in 2007, Africa "is the continent with the
least responsibility for climate change and yet it is
perversely the continent with the most [to lose] if
greenhouse gases are not cut." Global warming threatens
farmers and fishermen, flora and fauna, coastlines and
deserts, wetlands and savannah, and the critical
industries of tourism and agriculture. Dealing with the
consequences of the rich industrialized nations'
irresponsible climate management must not fall to
Africans alone. The richest countries must start holding
themselves accountable to the mandates of the Kyoto
protocol and the United States in particular now has a
chance to leave harmful ideology behind and provide the
leadership the world desperately needs. Simultaneously,
global polluters must extend resources and strategies
for African countries to adapt to the consequences of
climate change themselves.

The most natural international architecture to support
African adaptation to climate change is the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
With 197 state parties, the UNFCCC (which led to the
Kyoto protocol) is the most universally supported
multilateral environmental agreement. The UNFCCC
mandates that Northern countries provide resources to
the Global South to finance climate adaptation and
mitigation programs according to the principle of
"common but differentiated responsibilities" among
wealthy and developing nations. Financial obligations
under the UNFCCC are considered distinct from existing
commitments to provide official development assistance

Rather than pledging support through the UNFCCC or
developing an alternative funding mechanism, the U.S.
and other donors have turned to the World Bank to
finance climate adaptation and mitigation efforts in
Africa and the rest of the Global South. From both an
environmental and economic justice perspective, the Bank
is the wrong institution to take on the climate crisis
in Africa. The World Bank remains a big investor in
polluting industries. During 2007 and 2008 it has spent
more on fossil fuel projects than on renewable energy
and efficiency programs. The Bank continues to follow a
flawed approach in pursuing major infrastructure
projects such as the disastrous Chad-Cameroon oil
pipeline. It's among the world's least transparent and
democratic institutions, burdened by fundamental issues
of trust with the very constituencies it professes to

Despite these criticisms, in September 2008, donors
pledged over $6.1 billion to the Bank's Climate
Investment Funds (CIFs). These funds are being claimed
by donors to fulfill existing ODA commitments,
effectively pitting climate adaptation and mitigation
programs against other development needs. Even more
disturbing, CIFs are being issued in the form of new
loans, rather than grants, forcing African countries to
accumulate new debt to deal with a predicament for which
they bare no responsibility. This will result in
diverting resources from education, health and
transportation infrastructure, anti poverty programs and
other important needs.

Climate change is a catalyst for crisis in Africa - from
land use rivalries in Sudan to persistent famine in
Ethiopia. According to James R. Lee, director of
American University's "Inventory of Conflict and
Environment" project, there will be several likely
correlations between global warming and conflict. First,
conflict will arise from scarcity of arable land. As
people are forced to move from the hardest-hit areas and
compete with others for a new home, land and fresh water
with neighbors will develop. However, a potential offset
to this is the possibility that certain areas that were
once uninhabitable may soon be accessible, and precious
resources may be easier to extract.

To alleviate and take responsibility for the effects of
climate change in Africa, the United States should lead
by example and take bold action to reduce its own carbon
emissions and offer responsible financing to African
countries threatened by climate change. This means
adequate grants (not loans) must support adaptation and
mitigation mechanisms whose design is informed by local
input. This financing should be channeled through the
UNFCCC or a new funding instrument grounded in the
principle of common but differentiated responsibilities"
and a truly multilateral decision-making process. While
it's important that environmental impact assessments
inform development policy in general, specific climate
initiatives are vital to ensuring the health, welfare
and human security of the African people.

Elections Appendix

Democratic governance is the foundation for stability
and economic progress. Nearly 20 nations on the African
continent are planning elections this year. The
international community can play an important role
supporting democracy and human rights. The U.S.
Government must support international treaties and
existing peacekeeping missions that uphold the rule of
law, government accountability, and civilian protection.
The African Union (AU) can play a key role in elections
on the continent, but financial, political, and
logistical support remains a challenge.

Algeria General elections (presidential and
parliamentary), April and December respectively

Angola Presidential election, September

Botswana Parliamentary election, October

Chad Parliamentary election, date not yet determined

Comoros Parliamentary election, April

Congo (Brazzaville) Presidential election, March

Democratic Republic of the Congo Gubernatorial
elections, date not yet determined

Equatorial Guinea Presidential election, December

Gabon Parliamentary election, January

Malawi General elections (presidential and
parliamentary), May 19

Mauritania Presidential elections, May

Mozambique General elections (presidential and
parliamentary), December

Namibia General elections (presidential and
parliamentary), November

Niger General elections (presidential and
parliamentary), November

Somaliland (an autonomous region, part of Somalia)
Presidential election, April

South Africa General elections (presidential and
parliamentary), between April and June

Sudan General elections (presidential and
parliamentary), from January to April

Tunisia General elections (presidential and
parliamentary), October

Gerald LeMelle is executive director, and Michael
Stulman is associate director for policy analysis and
communications at Africa Action. They are Foreign Policy
In Focus contributors.


Portside aims to provide material of interest
to people on the left that will help them to
interpret the world and to change it.

Submit via email:
Submit via the Web:
Frequently asked questions:
Account assistance:
Search the archives:

Messages in this topic (1)
3. New Radio Programs at the NCRA Program Exchange
Posted by: "George Lessard" themediamentor
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 6:42 am ((PST))

The Program Exchange
National Campus and Community Radio Association
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: [ncra] New Programs at the NCRA Program Exchange
From: "NCRA Program Exchange" <>
Date: Mon, February 2, 2009 02:00

New this week on the NCRA Program Exchange

By: Frieda Werden
Series: WINGS
Length: 0:28:40 (h:mm:ss)
1 Feb, 2009
Language: English

By: Kevin Midbo
Series: People First Radio
Length: 0:23:05 (h:mm:ss)
31 Jan, 2009
Language: English

By: Kristin Schwartz
Length: 0:29:15 (h:mm:ss)
30 Jan, 2009
Language: English

By: Jennifer Moreau
Length: 0:01:00 (h:mm:ss)
30 Jan, 2009
Language: English

355 - DAILY NEWS BREAK - JAN 28, 2009
By: Irma Arkus
Length: 0:03:30 (h:mm:ss)
28 Jan, 2009
Language: English

By: CKUT News Department
Series: Weekly Headlines produced by CKUTs Community News Collective
Length: 0:08:06 (h:mm:ss)
28 Jan, 2009
Language: English

355 - DAILY NEWS BREAK - JAN 27, 2009
By: Irma Arkus
Length: 0:03:34 (h:mm:ss)
27 Jan, 2009
Language: English

UNCLE DON #300 - JANUARY 27, 2009
By: Christopher Earl
Series: Uncle Don
Length: 0:28:14 (h:mm:ss)
27 Jan, 2009
Language: English

By: CKUT News Department
Series: Travel against Canada
Length: 1:30:09 (h:mm:ss)
27 Jan, 2009
Language: English

355 - DAILY NEWS BREAK - JAN 26, 2009
By: Irma Arkus
Length: 0:05:30 (h:mm:ss)
26 Jan, 2009
Language: English

By: CKDU News Collective
Length: 0:00:00 (h:mm:ss)
26 Jan, 2009
Language: English

By: Frieda Werden
Series: WINGS
Length: 0:28:40 (h:mm:ss)
26 Jan, 2009
Language: English

The NCRA Program Exchange is a resource allowing radio producers and
programmers to upload and share radio programs and program audio. The
program can be used to share all kinds of radio programs and radio
resources. Programs can be organized into subject and type categories for
easy finding or searched using a Google-like search engine. And it is free
to use.

The Program Exchange
National Campus and Community Radio Association

Messages in this topic (1)

This e-mail service is edited, managed and moderated by
George Lessard

Make a donation via PayPal:

Creative-Radio is an independent forum for people active in or interested in the use of radio in development, in particular promoting public health, improved education, protection of the environment, improved livelihoods, good governance and conflict mitigation. Since it started in 1996, Creative-Radio has been in the forefront of radio's resurgence as a tool for social change and peace-building, and it helps promote best practice in these areas.

Creative-Radio is pleased to be supported by:
Media Support Solutions / Media Support Partnership <>

Creative-Radio Moderator

RSS feed:

Change your subscription
- to daily digest mode by sending a blank message to:

- to individual e-mails by sending a blank message to:

- delivery on hold by sending a blank message to

Caveat Lector- Disclaimers, NOTES TO EDITORS
& (c) information may be found @
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Developing Nations license.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Because of the nature of email & the WWW,
please check ALL sources & subjects.
Members who post to this list retain their copyright but grant a non-exclusive license to others to forward any message posted here. They also grant the list owner permission to maintain an archive or approve the archiving of list messages.
Other use of e-mail to this list requires the permission of individual writers

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:


Post a Comment