Religion

Amidst final negotiations over the Sustainable Development Goals, both private and public sector development funders are turning their attention to the gap between this ambitious agenda and available resources. Last week, government, business, and NGO representatives gathered in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia for the Third Financing for Development Conference to devise ways to support this new development agenda. One proposal is to support innovation to fuel cost-effective approaches to development. On the eve of the Addis conference, I hosted a roundtable at the Council on Foreign Relations with a pioneer of development innovation: Ann Mei Chang, executive director of the Global Development Lab at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Launched in April 2014, the Global Development Lab is USAID’s newest entity, designed to fund breakthrough innovations to “accelerate development impact faster, cheaper, and more sustainably.” Such a broad mandate requires both flexibility and a willingness to fail—two characteristics not traditionally associated with government agencies. The Global Development Lab takes a venture capital-style approach to funding development. It crowdsources solutions from around the globe, including from individuals and organizations that have never before worked with USAID. The Lab makes high-risk, low-cost investments in projects, with the potential to increase funding for those that show promise. By experimenting and “failing small,” the Lab can take on more risk than the average government aid funder. Some have expressed skepticism about the power of innovation to accelerate development gains. Bill Gates, for example, has criticized models that emphasize tech innovations too heavily as potentially distracting from perpetual development challenges, such as a lack of sanitation infrastructure or access to basic health services. In fact, while the Global Development Lab does support projects that are technically advanced, some of the most successful initiatives simply improve upon common solutions and existing knowledge by permitting the flexibility to innovate. For example, in one Lab-funded project, the NGO Evidence Action explored how to enhance the uptake of chlorine to disinfect drinking water and prevent diarrhea, which is the cause of death for an estimated 760,000 children under five each year. Despite widespread acknowledgment of chlorine’s efficacy, uptake stands at less than ten percent around the world. In an attempt to improve this number, innovators from Evidence Action came up with an idea called the chlorine dispenser, a low cost machine installed in areas with community water services. With the push of a button, the dispenser distributes an appropriate amount of chlorine into a bucket or jerrican. This simple innovation has already had an outsized impact: in areas where it is operational, including Kenya, Malawi, and Uganda, it has increased the use of chlorine to nearly 50 percent. Other projects funded by the Lab stem from unlikely sources and test unexpected methods. One intervention dreamed up by a car mechanic in Argentina—called the Odón Device—became a potentially life-saving tool to assist with obstructed labor. The device, which is now in development at Becton, Dickinson and Company, features a plastic bag which inflates around the baby’s head in the womb and is pulled until it emerges. The innovator, Jorge Odón, first thought of the idea after watching a YouTube video that showed how to extract a cork stuck inside an empty wine bottle. This device is considered safer than vacuum assist and forceps, which are even more dangerous when used by inexperienced practitioners in low-resource settings. While these out-of-the-box ideas have the potential to accelerate development gains, one of the Lab’s greatest challenges is how to measure impact—particularly in areas such as democracy, human rights, and governance. The Lab is piloting sensors and mobile surveys in an attempt to obtain timely and gender-disaggregated data, but more work is certainly needed. Though the Lab is still a work in progress, its approach to innovation in development is a model to consider incorporating into the next stage of development funding.

Boko Haram is back, with a vengeance. In the two weeks from June 27 to July 10, Boko Haram killed 434, according to the Nigeria Security Tracker, a project of the Council on Foreign Relations’ Africa program. Starting July 11, Boko Haram has already killed an additional thirty-five. On July 14, a report surfaced that on July 10 Boko Haram killed at least forty. Its operations appear to be expanding geographically. Not only have there been attacks in the Borno capital of Maiduguri, there has been violence in Kano, Kaduna, and Jos. It is a truism in military circles that with respect to asymmetric warfare, if a government is not winning, it is losing. Boko Haram cannot be defeated through the use of military resources alone. The drivers of Boko Haram include pervasive underdevelopment in northern Nigeria, accelerating impoverishment, and a general sense of political marginalization. Beyond the economy, there are a host of related issues, including the failure of education and health systems and poor governance. Addressing these drivers will requires sustained attention, and money. Yet, progress in these “soft” areas necessitates some measure of security, which involves the military. That is the conundrum President Buhari faces. President Buhari understands that the police and the security services badly need thoroughgoing reform. That requires money. But, as President Buhari has emphasized, the cupboard is bare. This is partially the result of looting, but more important is the fall in international petroleum prices. So, President Buhari has less revenue with which to work than his predecessor. Nevertheless, Buhari is taking it one step at a time. He has moved the center of military operations against Boko Haram from Abuja to Maiduguri. On July 13, he fired the discredited service chiefs and the national security advisor, all appointees of his predecessor. He is emphasizing professionalization. At the swearing-in of the new service chiefs, he was quoted in the Nigeria media as saying: “All of you, including the national security advisor, were chosen on merit. Your records give you the job. Save for the new chief of army staff whom I briefly met at his command at the Multinational Joint Task Force in Chad, I don’t know any of you. Your records recommend you.”

Below is a visualization and description of some of the most significant incidents of political violence in Nigeria from July 4, 2015 to July 10, 2015. This update also represents violence related to Boko Haram in Cameroon, Chad, and Niger. These incidents will be included in the Nigeria Security Tracker.   July 4: Two students were killed by herdsmen in Barkin Ladi, Plateau. July 4: Cattle rustlers killed forty in Birnin Magaji, Zamfara. July 5: Boko Haram killed twenty-six over two nights in the towns of Merom and Tiskra in Chad. July 5: A suicide bomber killed six in a church in Potiskum, Yobe. Boko Haram is suspected. July 5: Boko Haram killed fifty-one in Jos North, Plateau. July 6: A suicide bomber killed one near a mosque in Kano. July 7: A bomb killed twenty-five in Kaduna. Boko Haram is suspected. July 7: A suicide bomber killed herself and forty others in Sabon Gari, Kaduna. Boko Haram is suspected. July 7: A suicide bomber killed herself and four others at a military checkpoint in Borno. July 7: Boko Haram killed thirteen in Bordo, Cameroon. July 9: Boko Haram killed five in Dagaya, Niger. July 10: Boko Haram killed eleven in Kaga, Borno. July 10: Boko Haram killed eight in Ngala, Borno. July 10: A suicide bombers killed him/herself and three others in Maiduguri, Borno.

There has been a significant upsurge in attacks in Nigeria attributed to Boko Haram. At least 200 were killed over the July 4 weekend, which is in the midst of Ramadan. While there were attacks in Maiduguri, the carnage also took place outside of Borno state in the far northeast of the country, Boko Haram’s usual area of operations. This time, there were attacks in Jos, in the middle belt, an area where there is conflict between Christians and Muslims, farmers and herders, and Fulani and Barome ethnic groups. Boko Haram has fished in those troubled waters before, but not recently. There is speculation that Boko Haram’s target in Jos was the mosque’s imam, who has rhetorically attacked the group. There was also an attack on a church in Potiskum in Yobe state. There have been Boko Haram attacks on Christian churches before, but these have been associated with a splinter group, Ansaru. The past few weeks have also seen an upsurge in suicide bombings carried out by girls and young women. Meanwhile, the face of Boko Haram, Abubakar Shekau, remains absent from the media. Some media has linked the upsurge in violence in Nigeria to the call by the self-proclaimed Islamic State to “make Ramadan a month of disasters for the infidels.” Maybe, maybe not. Boko Haram swore allegiance to the Islamic State in March, but there is no clear evidence of tactical or strategic coordination between the two groups. Boko Haram has, however, adopted some of the Islamic State’s tactics with respect to social media. Boko Haram has evolved rapidly since its re-emergence in 2011. We must anticipate that it will continue to evolve in response to the security initiatives Muhammadu Buhari has directed against it. The president is the type of Muslim that Boko Haram particularly loathes: a participant in the secular state who does not subscribe to Boko Haram’s theological construct. President Buhari won the March national elections on a platform of security restoration and promising an end to corruption. Last weekend is a reminder that defeating Boko Haram is a tall order and will require Nigerians to show the patience that the Buhari administration requires.

Below is a visualization and description of some of the most significant incidents of political violence in Nigeria from June 13, 2015 to June 19, 2015. This update also represents violence related to Boko Haram in Cameroon, Chad, and Niger. These incidents will be included in the Nigeria Security Tracker.   June 13: A suicide bomber killed three in Giwa, Borno. Boko Haram is suspected. June 14: Boko Haram attacked Tarmuwa, Yobe. There were no casualties. June 15: Four Boko Haram suicide bombers killed themselves and twenty-three civilians in N’Djamena, Chad. June 15: Eleven killed in two explosions in Potiskum, Yobe. June 16: Upon examination, bombs abandoned by Boko Haram exploded, killing sixty-three in Monguno, Borno. June 17: Nigerian soldiers killed two women who were protesting in Barkin Ladi, Plateau. June 17: Boko Haram killed forty in Diffa, Niger. June 17: Fulani herdsmen attacked farmers in Wukari, Taraba, resulted in eight deaths. June 18: Unknown gunmen killed thirteen in Jema’a and Birnin Gwari, LGAs of Kaduna.

This is a guest post by Allen Grane, research associate for the Council on Foreign Relations Africa Studies program. On March 30, Comedy Central’s the Daily Show announced that 31-year old Trevor Noah will replace John Stewart as the host. As the Daily Show’s twitter handle put it: Noah is just “another guy in late night from Soweto.” The announcement of his new position has drawn a great deal of attention, both positive and negative. The intial response was overwhelmingly positive in South Africa and the United States. To an American audience it was refreshing to see an international voice on a news platform, not to mention the first mixed-race host of a major late night show. To South Africans, his success in the United States has been inspirational, a fellow South African comedian, Marc Lottering, has said: “This is not only fantastic for Trevor, but also for young Africans who have big dreams.” However, this initial wave of excitement subsided as some of Noah’s older Twitter posts generated a negative backlash. The comments, which made fun of many different groups, were quickly picked up by the media and led to a flurry of commentary calling him offensive, misogynistic, homophobic, and racist. In particular, he has been categorized as anti-Semitic due to tweets such as: “Almost bumped a Jewish kid crossing the road. He didn’t look b4 crossing but I still would hav felt so bad in my german car!” and “South Africans know how to recycle like Israelis know how to be peaceful.” The anti-Semitic allegations have been overwhelmingly American. Some have said that they will no longer watch the show due to his comments, and called for his removal. The American Jewish Congress, an association of Jewish Americans organized to support Jewish interests, petitioned its supporters to call on the Daily Show to rescind Noah’s contract. Meanwhile, the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) released a statement supporting Noah: “Negative stereotypes of all people are potentially offensive. However, the SAJBD believes that tweets made by Noah do not constitute anti-Jewish prejudice on his part. Trevor Noah’s style of humor is playful, and is intended to provoke a response. The SAJBD wishes him all the success and wisdom that he will require in his new position, and is confident that he will do our country proud.” So, why does an American audience find it so offensive that Noah makes misogynistic, homophobic, and racist jokes when American comedians make similar jokes? Typically, it seems that comedians in the U.S. focus seemingly offensive jokes towards audiences they identify with, such as Chris Rock commenting on African Americans and Sarah Silverman making Jewish jokes. Noah, growing up in a mixed race family (his father is Swiss-German and his mother is of Xhosa and Jewish heritage) in Apartheid South Africa and maturing in the ‘rainbow nation,’ may not culturally identify in the same way that Americans and American comedians do. In today’s increasingly international media, this may be something to get used to for an American audience. For their part, Comedy Central and John Stewart defend their choice of Noah.

International and Nigerian media is reporting that Aviation Minister Osita Chidoka and opposition All Progressives Congress Party spokesman Lai Mohammed state that President Goodluck Jonathan has called Muhammadu Buhari to offer his congratulations on Buhari’s victory in the March 28, Nigerian presidential elections. That two senior officials, one from the ruling party and the other from the principal opposition party, are reporting the same story makes it all but authoritative. Chidoka is also saying that President Jonathan will make a speech later in the day. Already at least one Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governor has also congratulated Buhari, calling on Nigerians to accept the outcome of the elections. Jonathan’s apparent concession is a highly positive development. The fact that President Jonathan has accepted the outcome of the elections does not preclude operatives withinthe PDP from challenging the election’s credibility. But, it makes it much more difficult. It also makes it likely that those who oppose the outcome of the elections will not have command of the security services. Nigerian social media is already praising Jonathan for his “gracious acceptance of defeat” and thereby contributing to peace in the country. Already there are tweets that Jonathan’s congratulatory call is his most “notable achievement in office” as chief of state. It is now likely that Muhammadu Buhari will be the next president of Nigeria. The Nigerian elections have strengthened democracy in Nigeria and also elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa where democracies’ roots are fragile.

First Lady Dame Patience Jonathan has a big personality and is a powerful political figure. She holds multiple Nigerian university degrees. She has been the permanent secretary in the Bayelsa state government, usually the most senior civil service position. She was appointed by the governor who is a political ally of her husband, President Goodluck Jonathan. She has consistently advocated on behalf of more women in national life. She also acquired brief notoriety in the United States when she initially described the Chibok kidnapping as a fraud designed to embarrass her husband. Recent media reporting on Patience Jonathan’s verbal assaults on All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential candidate Muhammadu Buhari and the opposition’s response provides a glimpse into the current national electoral campaign. The Nigerian media reports the first lady as allegedly calling for the supporters of her husband’s Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to “stone” those canvassing for “change.” The APC has since made a formal complaint against the first lady to the International Criminal Court for inciting violence. The first lady’s media aide, Ayo Ademuyi, has since said, “Dame Patience Jonathan is a woman of peace that can never in any way be identied with violence before, during, and after elections.” At another campaign venue, the first lady said Buhari was “brain dead." Buhari’s health has become a significant campaign issue. So much so that one opposition figure complained that the first lady was commenting on Buhari’s health rather than his intelligence or political acumen when she said he was brain dead. In Kogi state, Patience Jonathan is quoted as saying, “I thank you very much the people of Kogi. This time around, I came to thank you very well. I brought some gift for you. I brought rice. I brought brocade. I brought many thanks for you. It is not for election but to thank you very well.” In Sokoto, “to empower women,” she distributed 1,200 bags of rice, 5,000 bundles of brocade, 5,000 wrappers, 800 blankets, and 2,000 rubber mats to women in 23 local government areas. Her campaign rhetoric specifically targets women, emphasizing the number of women in the Jonathan administration. According to Nigerian media, the APC’s campaign organization has responded with a statement describing Dame Jonathan as “an incredibly crude woman,” and “thanked” Nigerians for putting up with her. The statement, signed by the APC’s director of media and publicity, Malam Garba Shehu, called on Jonathan to put the First Lady “in bridles" and protested Jonathan’s use of “worship centres” as platforms for official statements: “If predecessor presidents did not use the mosques or churches to make official statements of public importance, it is wrong for President Jonathan to start something that is already sending the wrong message.” Shehu also accused the president of exploiting religion for political gains. Further, the APC campaign organization is accusing Jonathan of disbursing large sums to “religious leaders in order to buy their conscience.” The use of incendiary rhetoric, the distribution of largess, and the appeals to religious identity do not paint a pretty picture. It is likely that the APC is as guilty in intent as the PDP, but with one difference. The PDP has deep pockets. The APC does not. Some of my Nigerian interlocutors have suggested that one of the motivations for postponing the elections from February 14 to March 28 was that the longer campaign period would bleed the APC dry. Come election day, we will see what consequence this may have had.

This is a guest post by Tiffany Lynch. She is a senior policy analyst at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The views expressed are her own and may or may not reflect the views of the Commission. In early January, two years after civil war broke out in the Central African Republic (CAR) between the Séléka, a predominantly Muslim rebel faction, and the anti-balaka, a predominantly radical Christian militia, the United Nations International Commission of Inquiry on the Central African Republic publicly announced its conclusion that Christian militias were responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in this war torn country. Since September 2013, UN officials and independent human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have warned of ethnic cleansing or genocide in CAR. Underlying the Commission’s conclusion is expert testimony, which revealed that at the national level, a plan was advanced to kill as many Muslims in the country as possible. The Commission reported that starting in June 2013, deposed president François Bozizé, former Central African Armed Forces (FACA) soldiers, and members of Bozizé’s inner circle met in Cameroon and France to plan his return to power. During these meetings, they spoke of avenging Séléka attacks on non-Muslims and recruited already existing self-defense militias, known as the anti-balaka, FACA soldiers, and other aggrieved non-Muslims to carry out their plans. Bozizé himself is reported to have told supporters to kill Muslims. The anti-balaka began their ethnic cleansing campaign with the December 5, 2013 attack on Bangui, CAR’s capital. Although framed as a fight to return Bozizé to power, the anti-balaka’s lengthy campaign deliberately targeted Muslims and forcefully transferred them out of their villages. The anti-balaka also deliberately killed Muslim civilians, even those fleeing and those in evacuation convoys assisted by humanitarian organizations, and systematically destroyed mosques and Muslim homes and businesses. Muslims were told to either leave the country or die. Commission experts noted that 99 percent of Muslims have left the capital, and 80 percent of the entire country’s Muslim population has fled to Cameroon or Chad. Remaining Muslims are forced to live in peacekeeper-protected enclaves and are vulnerable to attack if they leave. The Commission’s report also censures both sides, the Séléka and FACA, for committing crimes against humanity. Both FACA and Séléka soldiers were found responsible for the enforced disappearances, illegal detention, torture, and extrajudicial killings of political opponents, many of whom ended up in mass graves. Bozizé and the FACA are charged with inciting religious hatred prior to the March 2013 coup and compiling a list of Muslim dignitaries to be detained and executed. The Séléka are charged with widespread rape and looting of non-Muslim properties and the systematic killing of non-Muslim civilians in Bossangoa. In light of these findings, addressing impunity in CAR is critical. The nature of crimes committed demands it. The Commission documented and faulted senior CAR leaders, including former presidents Bozizé and Michel Djotodia, the Séléka leader that ousted Bozizé in 2013, for their direct involvement in and knowledge of crimes against humanity being carried out in the country. Furthermore, the Commission reported that at village levels, neighbors were frequently responsible for carrying out or assisting in the execution of attacks and can therefore be identified by their victims. Unfortunately, CAR has an extremely poor history of justice. Military dictators have ruled the country all but nine years since its independence in 1960. During this time, there was only one instance in which someone was held responsible for conflict, only to be released from prison later under a general amnesty program. This climate of impunity must be tackled, and the United States and the international community can play a critical role in assisting efforts to bring justice to Central African victims. The West can help Central African authorities rebuild their rule of law sector, which was destroyed in the fighting: police and judges were forced to flee; police stations, prisons, and courts were looted and destroyed; and the judiciary is completely absent outside of the capital. These vital rule of law institutions must be rebuilt. A new Special Investigation and Instruction Unit, created by transition President Catherine Samba-Panza, to investigate and prosecute serious crimes committed since January 1, 2004, will also require assistance. While the CAR transitional government and the international community cannot erase the crimes against humanity committed since 2013, they can help innocent civilians and the country move forward by ensuring that justice is upheld.