Buck,+Sara

SYNOPSIS: The UN torture expert, Manfred Nowak, was barred from entering Zimbabwe at the Harare airport in the capitol. Morgan Tsvangirai, Zimbabwe's prime minister, had invited Nowak to the country. It is said that the foreign ministry, under control of supporters of president Robert Mugabe, Tsvangirai's rival, had sent the order to prevent Nowak from entering the country. The reason given for the barring is that there was an unanticipated meeting with the South African Development Community (Sadc).

SOURCES: //Al Jazeera// http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2009/10/20091028203710994131.html //BBC// http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8329984.stm

COMPARE AND CONTRAST: One thing i noticed about these articles was that the Al Jazeera article was much clearer and easier to understand. It seemed like in the BBC article they expected the reader to already know some background information, but in the other article some was given. this would mean that i would most likely walk away with opinions that the Al Jazeera article gave, since the BBC article was harder to understand. Another very large difference i saw was that in the BBC article, it said that both Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa //and// Morgan Tsvangirai had invited Nowak to the country (it was unclear if they meant that both had invited him, or something else), while in the Al Jazeera article it mentioned only Tsvangirai inviting him. Also, the BBC mentions both the Zanu-PF and the MDC political parties, while the Al Jazeera article mentions only the Zanu-PF party.

OPINION: I think that Nowak should have been allowed into the country. Even if the leaders were busy at the time, Nowak could have waited until they had time to meet with him. But honestly, i don't think this even has anything to do with the "unexpected meeting" with the Sadc. I think this is because two rival political parties are sharing power and there is tension between them. A country cannot be run by rivals, because instead of focusing on what's best for the country and the people, they will be trying to out-do each other and just wasting time. I think that something needs to be done about this so that Zimbabwe can be more productive.

FOR THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 2
SYNOPSIS: Under the War Crimes Act, which allows Canada to try people for wars committed in other countries, Desire Munyaneza was given a life sentence in May. He was accused of seven crimes, committed during the Rwandan Genocide of 1994, including war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Munyaneza had been living in Toronto, Ontario when he was arrested in October of 2005. Between 500,000-800,000 people were killed in the genocide. Many people, especially survivors, are very happy with the arrest of this man, and hope that more people will be convicted soon.

SOURCES: //Al Jazeera// http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/10/200910304444692682.html //MSNBC// http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33536894/ns/world_news-africa/

COMPARE AND CONTRAST: These articles were very similar, but one difference I noticed was that the Al Jazeera article said that at least 800,000 people were killed in the genocide, while the MSNBC article said only 500,000 people were killed. Also, the MSNBC article provides a quote from the judge involved in the trial, while the Al Jazeera article does not. One more large difference I noticed was in the titles of the articles. The heading of the Al Jazeera article is 'Canada Jails Rwandan over Genocide.' The title of the MSNBC article is 'Rwandan gets Life Sentence for War Crimes.' The fact that the MSNBC article mentions that Munyaneza received a life sentence in the title and the Al Jazeera article does not makes a huge difference. When I was reading the Al Jazeera article, which was the first article I read, I didn't even realize that Munyaneza received a life sentence; I just kind of skipped over that. But when I read the MSNBC article, it was right there in the title. Other than that, the articles were quite similar. For example, both articles used quotes from survivors Emmanuel Muhawenimena and Jean-Paul Nyilinkwaya. Both articles also said there were 66 witnesses who testified in the trial.

OPINION: I think it is very good that they got this man in jail. I think it is also important that the search is continued for others involved in the genocide. It is terrible what happened in Rwanda in 1994, and putting the people involved behind bars is only the beginning of righting those wrongs. Of course we can never completely make up for all those lost lives, but this, at least, is a start.

FOR THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 9
SYNOPSIS: Judge and Sheikh Mohamed Abdi Aware was shot dead by two masked men in Bossaso, Somalia. He was known for jailing pirates and members of the anti-government group al-Shabab. Some believe that the gunmen were associated with one of these groups. Three suspects have been arrested so far. Police say this may be linked to the killing of Ibrahim Elmi Warsame, a member of parliament.

SOURCES: //Al Jazeera// http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2009/11/20091112125358501502.html //BBC// http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8356228.stm

COMPARE AND CONTRAST: Although these articles were reporting on the same things, there were a few major differences. For one, the Al Jazeera article talked about how the murder may be linked to the murder of Warsame, while the BBC article says nothing about it. Also, the BBC article mentions that three suspects have been arrested, but the Al Jazeera article doesn't. The BBC article uses a quote from a cousin of Aware, but the Al Jazeera article has no quotes at all. One final difference is that the Al Jazeera article talks a little bit about the Somalian government and the fighting going on, but the BBC article doesn't. Other than that, the articles were pretty similar. For example, both mentioned that Aware had sentenced many pirates and members of al-Shabab in the past.

OPINION: I think that whoever shot this man needs to be put in jail so that they get what they deserve and don't kill other people. Also, I think that whoever these people were probably were affiliated with either pirates or al-Shabab because they would have a motive and i don't know who else would want to kill him. I would like to know a little more about al-Shabab and what exactly they do, but i do think it's good that he was jailing pirates so that they don't abduct people and steal their money.

FOR THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 16
SYNOPSIS: Two Hutu militia leaders, Ignace Murwanashyaka and his deputy, Straton Musoni, were arrested on Wednesday in Germany. They were leaders of the Rwandan rebel group Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), which is being held responsible for the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. Murwanashyaka and Musoni are suspected of war crimes and crimes against humanity. FDLR has been in Congo since the genocide ended.

SOURCES: //MSNBC// http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33989664/ns/world_news-africa/ //The New York Times// http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/world/africa/18briefs-Hutubrief.html

COMPARE AND CONTRAST: The main difference that I noticed between these articles was that the MSNBC article was more in depth than the New York Times article. For example, the MSNBC article contains a lot of quotes, while the other article uses none. Also, the MSNBC article talks specifically about what the FDLR has done, such as burning villages, raping women and girls, and "recruiting" child soldiers. Another difference is that even though the MSNBC article is more in depth when it comes to the event itself, the New York Times gives some extra information that isn't directly related to the story. It says that two people who had been arrested for something having to do with the Rwandan Genocide were recently acquitted for lack of sufficient evidence. Other than that, the articles were fairly similar. Both were talking mainly about the exact same event-the arrest of Murwanashyaka and Musoni.

OPINION: I think it's good that these men have been arrested. As some of the people quoted in the MSNBC article said, this is like cutting off the head of the snake. Murwanashyaka was the head of the FDLR, and Musoni was his henchman, so to speak. So by arresting them, we have weakened the organization, so that they will hopefully not start another genocide, or even just another war. It is important that these people realize that what they did was wrong, and since they can't do that on their own, putting them in jail will hopefully teach them a lesson.

FOR THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 23
SYNOPSIS: Two Congolese men, Germain Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui, were put on trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. They were accused of attacking the village of Bogoro in the Ituri region of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). This attack killed more than 200 people, and women and girls were raped. Child soldiers were used and allegedly recruited during the attack. Both men are pleading guitly.

SOURCES: //Al Jazeera// http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/11/20091124142634137365.html //Yahoo News// http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20091124/twl-dr-congo-war-crimes-trial-begins-at-4bdc673.html

COMPARE AND CONTRAST: These articles had quite a few differences. For one thing, the Yahoo article used more and different quotes than the Al Jazeera article. For example, both articles used quotes from the judge for the trial, but they were different quotes. Also, the Yahoo article uses two quotes from Katanga, while the Al Jazeera article uses none. Another difference is that the Al Jazeera articles shows both sides of the situation, but the Yahoo article gives only one. They give the opinions of both people who are for the imprisonment of these men, and people defending them//.// The Yahoo article, on the other hand, gives only the opinions of people who think Katanga and Chui should be sentenced. One final difference is that the Al Jazeera article said Katanga is ethnically Ngiti and Chui is Lendu, while the Yahoo article claimed that both men are Lendu. Other than that, the articles were pretty similar. Both mentioned that the attack occuured on February 24, 2003, and both were informing the reader on the same issues around the trial and attack.

OPINION: I think it is good that these men are on trial. From what the articles said, the attack sounded pretty brutal, and whoever is responsible needs to be punished. I don't know if these men were responsible, as they're claiming that they're not, but the trial will hopefully help tp determine that. None of these violent attacks should be occuring, and people need to be in jail that did things to administer any attacks.

FOR THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 30
SYNOPSIS: Two Rwandan peacekeepers were killed in Darfur this morning, after three were killed Friday. The soldiers were serving for the UN and African Union peacekeeping force UNAMID. The two were passing out water at a camp for displaced people when men in civilian clothes shot them down. A third soldier was injured in the attack.

SOURCES: //BBC News// http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8397199.stm //Voice of America (VOA) News// http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/africa/east/Second-Darfur-Attack-Kills-2-More-UN-Peacekeepers-78602327.html

COMPARE AND CONTRAST: Although these articles are about the same thing, they were fairly different. The biggest difference was that the BBC article gave some background information on the conflict in Darfur, such as what caused it and how many people are estimated to have died, but the VOA article talked only about the recent killings. Another difference was that the VOA article mentioned Kemal Saiki, a spokesman for the Darfur peacekeeping mission, while the BBC article said nothing about him. The article mentioned Saiki so as to give him credit for basically all the information in the article. A few similarities were that neither article used any quotes, and both articles talked about the attacks both today and yesterday.

OPINION: I think it is terrible that these soldiers were killed. They were trying to help people out by giving people water, and they were shot down for a so far unknown reason. That's pretty terrible! Basically I think the conflict in Darfur in general is pretty terrible. The UN estimates 300,000 people have died so far. That is a whole lot of useless deaths. I really hope that the people responsible for this conflict are caught and arrested soon.

FOR THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 7
SYNOPSIS: In a speech dedicated to International AIDS Week, South African president Jacob Zuma announced that children under the age of one and pregnant women who tested HIV positive would receive anti-retroviral drugs (ARVs) to prolong life and prevent babies from being born with HIV. This announcement was very well received, considering that the former government had provided little HIV/AIDS treatment, and that which did exist was not easily accessible. The US also announced that it would give the South American government $120 million over two years to help pay for the ARVs.

SOURCES: //Al Jazeera// http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2009/12/2009121115918772701.html //CNBC// http://www.cnbc.com/id/34219080?__source=RSS*tag*&par=RSS

COMPARE AND CONTRAST: These articles were very similar. There was really only one big difference that I noticed. The CNBC articles said that in addition to pregnant women and young children receiving treatment, people diagnosed with both tuberculosis and HIV would receive treatment. In the Al Jazeera article, however, it only said that young children and pregnant women would receive treatment. Other than that, these articles had a lot of similarities. For example, the headlines were almost identical and both used the same quote from Zuma's speech. Also, both articles mentioned that Zuma had been under criticism from AIDS activists in 2006 for raping an HIV positive women and showering afterward to "reduce the risk of HIV."

OPINION: I think it's great that South Africa is providing treatment for all these HIV/AIDS patients, especially considering that South Africa is home to the greatest population of HIV positive people in the world. The only thing I'm worried about is how this will be funded. The articles said that Zuma did not make this clear in his speech, and I'm just hoping that this is a promise that the South African government can keep. I also hope that other countries with high numbers of HIV infected people will follow suit because things need to be done about the AIDS epidemic.