Proudly NigerianWednesday, January 31, 2007
The UN decolonisation program
The Charter of the United Nations recognises the right of peoples to self determination (*6). It also recognises that, largely because of colonialism, not all peoples who claim this right will be immediately able to exercise it fully (*7). Peoples in this situation are deemed to be in non-self-governing territories and for them the UN General Assembly has established de-colonisation programs (*8).
In 1963 Western Sahara was included in the UN list of the non-self-governing territories and in October 1964 the UN Decolonisation Committee (*9)adopted its first Resolution on Western Sahara, urging Spain to start the process of decolonising the territory (*10). The UN General Assembly issued a similar Resolution on December 16, 1965 (*11).
Initially, Spain resisted this call but in August 1974 it informed the UN that it was prepared to organize a referendum on self-determination in the territory. In this referendum, the people of Western Sahara could choose either full independence or to remain attached to Spain (*12). Morocco and Mauritania opposed the referendum idea, which excluded the possibility of integration with Morocco or Mauritania. Between 12 and 19 May 1975, a UN mission of inquiry was sent to report on the situation in Western Sahara. The mission visited Western Sahara, Morocco, Mauritania and Algeria. In its report, it stated that support for Polisario and for independence in Western Sahara was widespread and recommended the holding of a referendum for self-determination (*13).
In 1963 Western Sahara was included in the UN list of the non-self-governing territories and in October 1964 the UN Decolonisation Committee (*9)adopted its first Resolution on Western Sahara, urging Spain to start the process of decolonising the territory (*10). The UN General Assembly issued a similar Resolution on December 16, 1965 (*11).
Initially, Spain resisted this call but in August 1974 it informed the UN that it was prepared to organize a referendum on self-determination in the territory. In this referendum, the people of Western Sahara could choose either full independence or to remain attached to Spain (*12). Morocco and Mauritania opposed the referendum idea, which excluded the possibility of integration with Morocco or Mauritania. Between 12 and 19 May 1975, a UN mission of inquiry was sent to report on the situation in Western Sahara. The mission visited Western Sahara, Morocco, Mauritania and Algeria. In its report, it stated that support for Polisario and for independence in Western Sahara was widespread and recommended the holding of a referendum for self-determination (*13).
A whole new experience
Really, there is no way I can explain this tha t it would express the way I feel, but I guess I just have too. I was selected out of a keenly contested screening exercise to represent my university at the 2nd Nigerian Model United Nations in Portharcourt, Nigeria, last year November. This was my first time attending such a program, and I am excited I did.
At the General Assembly, I was representing Argentina in the Committee of Non Govermental Organizations. I was elected as President, General Assembly of theNigerian Model United Nations. This year has been wonderful. A lot of stuff has come with this honoured position. I met distnguished people, and highly intellectual Nigerian students.
I invite you to join us at Abuja 2007. It would be my greatest pleasure to have you in Abuja.
At the General Assembly, I was representing Argentina in the Committee of Non Govermental Organizations. I was elected as President, General Assembly of theNigerian Model United Nations. This year has been wonderful. A lot of stuff has come with this honoured position. I met distnguished people, and highly intellectual Nigerian students.
I invite you to join us at Abuja 2007. It would be my greatest pleasure to have you in Abuja.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
An innocent baby & an unfortunate doctor
Two weeks back, there was a report in the newspaper about a little baby who was transfused with HIV positive blood, and is now showing symptoms of full blown AIDS.
Now this is the story, The baby was brought into the emergency clinic with need for an urgent blood transfusion, the father eventually offered to donate blood which as it the practice is not necessarily used to transfuse the baby but replaced in the blood bank. Another bag was taken out of the bag, and transfused to the baby, there were no improvements, and the baby started wasting. Diverse tests were carried out to ascetain what could be the problem. When the XYZ text (HIV) was carried out, the baby tested positive. How come? The father's blood and mother's blood samples were tested, and were found to be negative. When the donor from which the blood that was transfused to the baby was tested, he tested positive. Investigations commenced, and it was discovered that the donor tested negative at the time of donation. The donor was probably just seroconverting when his blood was taken, and the viral load was not high enough to be detected. The baby who had no preformed immunity against the Human Immunodeficiency virus now has symptoms of AIDS. Accusing fingers have been pointed at the doctor, some have said it was his fault, some have said it was machine error, some have blamed the hospital for not having up to date equipment to detect the least viral load.
The big question is Who is at fault?
Now this is the story, The baby was brought into the emergency clinic with need for an urgent blood transfusion, the father eventually offered to donate blood which as it the practice is not necessarily used to transfuse the baby but replaced in the blood bank. Another bag was taken out of the bag, and transfused to the baby, there were no improvements, and the baby started wasting. Diverse tests were carried out to ascetain what could be the problem. When the XYZ text (HIV) was carried out, the baby tested positive. How come? The father's blood and mother's blood samples were tested, and were found to be negative. When the donor from which the blood that was transfused to the baby was tested, he tested positive. Investigations commenced, and it was discovered that the donor tested negative at the time of donation. The donor was probably just seroconverting when his blood was taken, and the viral load was not high enough to be detected. The baby who had no preformed immunity against the Human Immunodeficiency virus now has symptoms of AIDS. Accusing fingers have been pointed at the doctor, some have said it was his fault, some have said it was machine error, some have blamed the hospital for not having up to date equipment to detect the least viral load.
The big question is Who is at fault?
Friday, March 18, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
