Heim,+Emily


 * China-Guinea Mining Deal**

__Summary:__ A Chinnese company has made a 7 billion dollar mining deal with Guinea in the past two weeks. The company's name is the CIF (The China International fund). People are debating if this huge deal will affect the human rights issues going on right now in Guinea. This deal allows the CIF access to some of the country's minerals, like bauxite, used to make alumminum, gold and diamonds. According to the article the company is trying to help improve the living conditions in another african country, Angola, by building roads, housing, and an airport. The buissness' directors are believed to have connections in the military that improve the relationship with people in the government.

__Compare and Contrast:__ The two news sources I used were the Seattle Times and AbcNews. Both articles mentioned the human rights issues going on in Guinea right now, they both briefly summarized the article we read in class. The Seattle Times article was shorter than the other article and included more detail about the company that signed the deal. The AbcNews article explained more about the human rights issues going on in Guinea and had more quotes from people who are studying human rights. Neither article had a picture and both had very mild words for what is happening (highlights and question).

__Opinion:__ I believe that the deal will negatively affect the process of gaining more human rights in Guinea. It seems to me that the company is taking advantage of an under-developed country and that that isn't fair. Personally, I liked the Seattle Times coverage of the article better because the AbcNews article seemed pretty long. (Three pages is long right?)Both of these articles would have been more dificult to understand if we hadn't read the two pieces in class about what was happening in Guinea.

__Links:__ []

[]

__**11/06 Guinea Rape/Sexual Violence**__ Summary: Woman were sexually assulted and raped by the troops on September 28th in Guinea. This took place in the main stadium in Conarky, Guinea. Sexual assult and humiliation was used as a weapon against the protesters to try and control them. All the protesters were gathered to listen to leaders opposed to the government in Guinea. First, the people were shoot at and killed and after the military started raping the women. Weapons were used to rip off people's clothes.

Compare and Contrast: For this current event I used the BBC and NPR as sources. The BBC and NPR describe the protesters a little differently; in the BBC article they are described as pro-democracy protesters, the NPR article describes them as woman that had gathered to hear their political leaders denounce Guinea's government military. Both news sources describe the whole event as tramatic, horrific and very public. Another similarity between the two articles is they both said the "alleged" rape or crime. The BBC explained more about the womens personal experiences than NPR. The BBC also had pictures of a gun, a woman crying with a hand pressed over her mouth, dead bodies, and two women looking at a wall with "Non a dadis" graffitied on it. The other article had no pictures at all. Both articles ended on a positive note, how the women won't be able to be silenced and how they will win the "battle for decency, democracy, and respect in Guinea".

Opinion: Personally I thought that the BBC article was more informative because it had pictures to add to the meaning of the entire article. Neither article said what was being done against the military involved and that's not fair but at least we know the women won't give up until they're heard by the public. It doesn't seem right to be able to kill, humiliate, and assult people like the government of Guinea did and not be punished right away. I mean really this did happen on the 28th of September, that was a while ago. It's great that so many reporters are covering the issue, but what's being done to punish the government and help the women?

Links: BBC [] NPR []

Summary: South Africa's police policy is to "shoot to kill". Just recently, an innocent three year old boy named Atlegang Phalane was shoot, killing him. Apparently, he was thought to have been carrying a weapon or firearm but Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) investigated and he wasn't found to have any firearm with him or anything that looked like a gun. South Africa has the one of highest violence rates, having an average of 50 murders/killings per day. The deputy police minister for south africa, Mr Mbalula, stands by this policy even through people's outrage and critisism. He said that it's not possible for any innocent people not to be harmed not on purpose, but because of other people.
 * __11/13/09 South Africa Minister__**

Compare and Contrast: Both articles used the same quote just different parts, the BBC used: "Where you are caught in combat with criminals, innocent people are going to die - not deliberately but in the exchange of fire. They are going to be caught on the wrong side, not deliberately, but unavoidably." The Telegraph only used: "In this particular situation where you are caught in combat with criminals, innocent people are going to die not deliberately but in the exchange of fire." Both articles used the quote: "Yes. Shoot the bastards. Hard-nut to crack, incorrigible criminals". The BBC had a picture of Mr. Mbalula while the other news source had no pictures. Both articles had the word "shoot" in the title.

Opinion: It's so sad a little three year old boy died!!! Why would he even possibly have a gun? I know that the police were only doing their job but really, why would someone that young have a gun and would he even have known what to do with it? I personally liked the BBC article better because the sub-headings helped me understand better what was going on. The Telegraph article was a little hard to understand, especially the last sentance. In the begining it says he was killed and the last sentance is "If he dies...".

Links: BBC [] Telegraph []

Summary: The EU (European Union) gave a billion dollars to Nigeria to promote peace. Apparently, militants demanded a share of the wealth from the oil industry, but some have given up their weapons for education and jobs. Most people in Nigeria live on less than two dollars a day! The money will be used to promote peace, human rights, and on electrol reform. Most Nigerians don't think that the money will actually be used on these issues. There is a lot of corruption and they don't think that the government will be able to stop it. The package could also fund training for Nigeria's police and army for peacekeeping.
 * 11/20 Money for peace**

Compare and Contrast: These articles were written at different points so they are a little different. The AlertNet article is talking about how the money will affect Nigeria because it was written before the money actually was given and was only proposed. The BBC article was written recently and also has the percent of the money going to each specific issue. The difference between the two articles is the BBC had a picture and the percents. I believe that it helped prove the point. The other article had lots of quotes from people about what would happen with the money and facts. It also talked more about the militant group that was demanding money from oil.

Opinion: I liked the BBC article better because it was a little easier to read without all the numbers. It showed the point to include so many facts and figures but was a little overwhelming because that and were quotes were the main body of the article. Two dollars a day doesn't seem like it would be enough to live on. I mean really a coffee probably costs at least $3 dollars. I think it's great that the UN is helping and donating money but is it really smart to give that much money to a corrupt country?

Links: Alertnet [] BBC []

Summary: The ivory Coast elections have been postponed many times since 2005. They will finally take place in 2010 around March or February. The Ivory Coast has been in a civil war for many years causing the voting process to be postponed. The former rebels, New Forces took power in 2002. Now they are sharing power with Gbahgo, the former president who's term ended in 2005, because of a peace deal. So far 5.3 people have been registered to vote, but they haven't decided who is allowed to vote yet.
 * 12/04: Elections**

Compare and Contrast: The Afrik.com report was very very short, only about a paragraph. In contrast the BBC article was longer but still very informative. The first article seemed to be a summary of what had happened. It had one quote but didn't say directly who said it. The second article was about actually what had happened not just a summary. This article also talked about the civil war and who was in charge of the country. It had a picture of the Burkina Faso President that was apparently leading peace talks.

Opinion: I think this is very similar to what happened in Sierra Leone. It's really sad that democracy can be stopped by a group of rebels. What was the main cause of the civil war here? Personally I liked the BBC article best. The other article just seemed too short and didn't have enough information.

Sources: Afrik.com []

BBC: []

Summary: December first was world AIDs day. Jacob Zuma. the president of South Africa, announced new plans to treat HIV. According to the plan babies (all kids under one) will be treated if they test positive. Treatment will also be given to pregnant women. This is a huge change in views and information about HIV/AIDs. At one point Zuma said a shower could reduce the chances of getting it and the former president Thabo Mbeki promoted garlic and beet treatments. Zuma was accused of raping a family friend that was HIV positive, but was acquitted. He follows this Zulu tradition of having three wives.
 * Wiki #6 South Africa HIV treatment**

Compare and Contrast: The PRI article's title is longer and more descriptive than the Seattle Times. It says HIV-infected people when the other article describes them as HIV-positive babies. Neither article had pictures but the PRI had a clip of what was written, it seems the article was originally a news clip that was written down instead of written to be read because the clip is exactly the same. The ST described the plan as ambitious almost soulnding like they didnt think it would work. The PRI described the plan as aggressive and as a turning point in treatment. Both articles described the same moment when Zuma entered a hall to a standing ovation and had several quotes and statistics. Another thing both articles talked about was the former presidents promotion of beet and garlic treatments.

Opinion: I think its sad that so many people have died from HIV or eventually AIDs. It's great that something bigger is being done about the issue. It does not seem possible to completely get rid of the illness but treating people while they are still young or before they can pass it on seems like a good way to try. Oh and if anyone knows I'm just wondering about this: Do the beet and garlic treatments actually work? Personally I preferred the PRI article because you could read along as people were giving the report and it had clips of people saying their quotes, so I could almost imagine the people being there with me.

Sources: Seattle Times []

Public Radio International []

Summary: On December 19th, Nestle, a swiss company, recieved a visit from the Zimbabwe government that was unannounced. Two managers who work for nestle were questioned and released without charges according to the statement Nestle gave. The government forced the company to accept milk. The company temporarily shut down a factory in Zimbabwe because of the dispute and out of concern for the safety of their employees. In October, they stopped buying milk from Gushungo Dairy Estate, the company owned by the presidents' wife, because of critisism.
 * Wiki #7**

Compare and Contrast: The title of the CNN report is more final: //Nestle shuts Zimbabwe factory, citing imitation// and //Nestle suspends operations in Zimbabwe.// Both aricles are relatively short and have no pictures. Both articles also use the same quote: //"Since under such circumstances normal operations and the safety of employees are no longer guaranteed, Nestle decided to temporarily shut down the facility."//

Opinion: I understood better the Telegraph article. It was more direct and a little easier to understand the information about the Gushungo Dairy Estate. It doesn't seem right for a government to be able to control certain companies, how they do buisness, or who they buy raw materials from. Maybe if the company was dangerous the Zimbabwe government should have the right to make decisions for the company, but really how dangerous can chocolate be?

Links: CNN []

The Telegraph []