Gloria

At church we sing a different 'Gloria' that I've never heard before. I really like it though, in the same way that I really like that during the Prayers of the People we always pray for our Jewish and Muslim brothers and sisters and acknowledge that we all share the same Father. The Gloria is sung to the tune of Hine Ma Tov and its lyrics are below:

May none of God's works keep silence, night or morning.
Bright stars, Great river, the depths of the sea, expanse of the open desert:
May all break into song, to Father, Son and Spirit.
May all heaven join in: Amen! Amen! Amen!
Power, praise, honor and glory, to God the giver of grace.
Amen! Amen! Amen!

Democracy in Rwanda

I just found an excellent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times discussing development, democracy and human rights within Rwanda and the controversy over all three. I've had conversations about these issues with a number of people and really wanted to share the article.

Reinventing Rwanda
By Stephen Kinzer

In the dozens of poor countries I've covered as a foreign correspondent, development specialists - people who run projects aimed at pulling nations out of poverty - have generally worked hand in hand with human rights advocates. That makes sense because these two groups are natural allies. Both instinctively support governments that promote freedom and prosperity and oppose corrupt and repressive ones.

Recently, though, I've been spending time in a country where these two groups are on opposite sides: Rwanda. No other country's government is so highly praised by development specialists but also so roundly condemned by human rights advocates. In fact, Rwanda's spectacular rebirth since the shocking genocide of 1994 has reignited an old debate about the very nature of human rights -- and about whether the West's obsession with this concept can undermine innovative solutions to problems that hold entire nations in misery.

Over the last few years, Rwanda has emerged as the most exciting place on Earth for people whose dream is to end global poverty. Development specialists are flooding in, drawn by the dazzlingly original, entrepreneur-driven program that President Paul Kagame is promoting. One aid administrator told me that Rwanda is "the only country on the planet that has a chance of going from absolute poverty to middle income in the space of a generation." A Harvard Business School report last year found that economic conditions are steadily improving and that the country is "corruption free," "stable with social progress" and possibly on its way to becoming the "Switzerland of Africa."

Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa calls Rwanda "a miracle unfolding before our very eyes." All over Africa and beyond, experts are beginning to hope that this country, so devastated by the genocide 14 years ago in which more than 800,000 people were killed in 100 days, will give the world a new model for fighting poverty.

During one of my interviews with Kagame, I asked him why, despite decades of study and the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars in aid, no one has come up with a formula for ending poverty in Africa. He rejected the premise of my question. "Everyone knows how to develop Africa," he said. "The problem is that no one does it."

Kagame's formula, modeled after those that brought rapid development to East Asian countries, is simple and straightforward. First and above all, he believes in security; under his rule, Rwanda has become the safest country in Africa, a place where even in the capital people walk alone after dark carrying cash, cellphones and other valuables.

Then comes honest governance; no African government has ever waged the kind of campaign against bribery and influence-peddling that Kagame is leading in Rwanda. Add education, population control, first-class infrastructure, gender equality, good healthcare and a strong sense of private initiative, Kagame believes, and the result is prosperity.

But although diplomats, economists and development experts are full of praise for Kagame and his government - and many Rwandans share their enthusiasm - American and European human rights advocates are less impressed. They point out that Kagame won his last election with 95% of the vote and that there is no prospect of anyone defeating him in 2010, when he is expected to be reelected to a second (and, by law, final) seven-year term. The European Union judged the last election "not entirely fair," and the U.S. State Department called it "seriously marred."

Human rights advocates also reject Kagame's view that Rwandans must view themselves only as Rwandans and stop using the words "Hutu" and "Tutsi." He allows people to complain, for example, that the country is ruled by a small clique, but not that it is ruled by a small clique of Tutsi. A reporter may assert that Rwandans are miserable, but not that Hutu are miserable. Last year, a journalist was sentenced to a year in prison for writing that "those who killed Hutu are free" because national leaders "think the Hutu who perished are not human beings."

How does Kagame explain such prosecutions, which seem to contradict Western notions of free speech and an unfettered press? He says they are necessary because Rwanda faces another challenge, a psycho-spiritual one that may be even more daunting than making a poor country rich. Its population remains deeply divided as a result of factors that led to the 1994 genocide. Kagame considers the limitation on speech essential to prevent another explosion of mass murder. His critics call it an unjust, self-serving and dangerous restriction on free speech.

Another great debate between Kagame and his critics is over the question of who should be punished for horrific crimes of the 1990s. All agree that those who carried out the genocide must be held accountable. But what about soldiers who fought under Kagame's command, first in the insurgent Rwandan Patriotic Front and then, after victory, in Rwanda's national army? The front may well have committed war crimes during its fight for power. Later in the 1990s, Rwandan troops suppressed a counterinsurgency waged by fighters loyal to the deposed genocidal regime. Many innocent people were killed.

The government's position is that these two sets of crimes - the genocide and the brutal wars waged afterward - were totally different and deserve different responses. That is why, as genocidaires are being judged and punished, there is no parallel set of trials for those who fought alongside Kagame. He dismisses calls for such trials as politically motivated efforts to place his liberation army on the same moral plane as mass murderers and thereby weaken his government's moral authority.

Some human rights advocates, though, assert that because those being punished for genocidal crimes are Hutu, and most of Kagame's commanders were Tutsi, treating them so differently could stoke resentment and even fuel a future conflict.

There are genuine human rights concerns in Rwanda. A detailed report by a monitoring group sponsored by the African Union, for example, praised the country for its "dramatic recovery" but also found that judicial independence is "compromised" and urged "an opening up of political space for competition of ideas and power." Kagame dismissed the report as "simplistic" and based on "generic and oversimplified modes of analysis." When Human Rights Watch listed 20 Rwandans who allegedly died in police custody, he told reporters that anyone making such charges had "probably consumed drugs."

These dismissive responses reflect, among other things, the smoldering contempt that Kagame and his comrades feel for the "international community." Their experience - growing up as exiles without anyone lifting a finger to help them return home, and then watching the world (and particularly the United Nations) refuse to step in to stop the 1994 genocide - has given them a deep belief in self-reliance and boundless scorn for outside critics. It's easy for human rights activists to carp, they say, but those activists do not realize that Rwanda remains an explosive place where a single misstep could set off a tragedy of biblical proportions.

"Ours is not an ordinary situation," Kagame told me. "It has built into me some sort of contempt for people who don't see the situation as it actually is, who don't see the depth and breadth of what we are facing. ... For me, human rights is about everything. Even languishing in poverty as a result of colonization and other situations of the past violated human rights. If you solve that, you resolve the human rights issue."

During the pre-Kagame era, Rwanda experimented with competitive politics only once, in 1993-94. That experiment culminated in genocide. It is not surprising, therefore, that most Rwandans today are more eager for security, food, jobs and medicine than for a political system that would guarantee unfettered freedom and fully competitive elections. Only that kind of system, however, meets the one-size-fits-all standard of some human rights groups.

The most prominent clergyman in Rwanda, Bishop John Rucyahana, complained to me that Western human rights groups are "caught in the colonial mentality." If a government raises a miserably poor population toward prosperity, he asked, isn't that the greatest service it can provide to the cause of human rights? Isn't that more important than allowing politicians or journalists the freedom to stir up disunity between Hutus and Tutsis?

Not necessarily, say some outsiders.

Today, this debate over the true definition of human rights - and the right of people around the world to define it for themselves - is sharper in Rwanda than anywhere else.

Beliefs about hair

Hair, particularly women's hair, is a significant subject here. There are two beliefs in particular that can be an issue:

1. A woman with wet hair has just had sex. Although Western women are sometimes excluded from this topic, I am much more conscious now than I have ever been about leaving the house with a wet head of hair. (I'm sure my mom is reading this and loving the idea of me paying attention, for once, to drying my hair before leaving the house!)

2. A woman with visible bodily hair (on her arms, legs, toes, face - except eyebrows - and anywhere else) does not take care of herself. It is a very strong belief that a woman should have zero hair on her body other than her hair on her head and her eyebrows. Probably the closest comparison would be the way that Americans sometimes look at European women who don't shave their legs or underarms; Egyptian women are disgusted by other women who have any body hair, even though their bodies are usually completely covered to the wrists and ankles with clothing. One of my American friends here has dark arm hair and has received so many comments about it that she finally went last night and had it all waxed off. I've been told that because my hair is blonde, it's ok, but I know women still stare when sitting next to me on the metro.

Arabic names

The Arabic naming system is different than the English system most of us know and use. We're used to a person having a given name (first name and/or second and/or third...) and a family name (last name). In the Arabic system, though, there is no family name. Instead, a person has a given name (first name), which is followed by his or her father's name (second name), which is followed by his or her grandfather's name (third name), and so on and so on.

So, for example, my name would be Katherine William William, since both my father and his father are named William, and my brother would be named Duncan William William. If I were to marry, my name would remain Katherine William William. If I were to have children, they would be given a first name, their second name would be their father's name, and their third name would be his father's name; and so on and so on. With this system, individuals can trace their lineage easily just by following their names; some can even follow their family history back to the prophet Mohammed.

Speaking of the prophet, Mohammed is a very common Arabic name. Another common name involves the word "Abd". "Abd" literally means "servant of" and it is always followed by one of the ninety-nine names of God. So, for example, the name "Abd al-Allah" means "servant of God", "Abd al-Aziz" means "servant of the Almighty", and "Abd al-Rahman" means "servant of the Compassionate One". If you're curious, a list of the ninety-nine names of God can be found here.

What I'm actually doing

I think it's about time that I actually write something about what I'm actually doing here at work in Cairo. Since IEIP just started here earlier this year and since I arrived just after the beginning of a new fiscal year (meaning the arrival of lots of new funding), all of our projects are just getting off the ground. What that means practically is that I'm getting great experience seeing projects from their very earliest stages, but the tasks are pretty mundane. But still, since I find the subject material fascinating, I'm enjoying it. So, here's the run down of my projects as of right now...

Vector-borne and zoonotic disease surveillance: This project is an innovative surveillance system for vector-borne (carried by mosquitoes, ticks, flies, etc.) and zoonotic (carried by animals) diseases. Unlike other systems, this plan will incorporate surveillance within human, animal and vector populations so we have a clear understanding of not just what diseases humans are getting, but what diseases are circulating that humans are at risk of getting. We'll be doing surveillance in places where humans are at high risk of contracting these diseases - abattoirs (slaughterhouses), animal quarantine facilities and live animal markets - in hopes of detecting any outbreaks or changes in disease patterns at their very earliest stages, when it's easiest to control. The project set to begin in Egypt and then will hopefully expand to a number of other countries in the region.

Respiratory illness surveillance in Libya: Another project is setting up respiratory illness surveillance in Libya, which has very little disease surveillance capacity right now. This will actually involve four parallel surveillance systems to learn more about respiratory and to be able to compare the four systems for their effectiveness. Later we'll add other diseases like diarrhea and febrile illness to the surveillance.

Disease surveillance in Djibouti: This project involves setting up integrated surveillance for a number of diseases, since Djibouti, like Libya, has very little current capacity for surveillance. We'll be setting up systems to look for respiratory illness, diarrheal disease, febrile illness, tuberculosis and a number of other diseases.

Data management: Since these (and so many other projects) are just beginning and will be generating tons of data very soon, I'm also overseeing the development of all the data and database systems. One really interesting piece of this is the data collection system. We have the opportunity to use PDAs (Personal Digital Assistants, like executives use to manage their schedules and email and all) for data collection in the field, which is such an incredible opportunity. These devices make data collection much easier, much faster and much more accurate. It's difficult to explain just how exciting it is to be able to work with this kind of technology. Read this article to find out more.

So that's what I'm working on right now. I'm sure more projects will be added as time goes on, but so far, this is plenty to keep me busy!