Destroying sorcery
WE may now be seeing a more realistic approach by the courts to sorcery and its place in contemporary PNG.
The murder of a suspected sorcerer in Lae has led to a handing down of a more than 23 year sentence by Judge George Manuhu, and apart from the severity of the sentence, it is refreshing to see the courts taking the lead in this issue.
The Judge added that “many people accused of murder, used sorcery as an excuse for their crimes”.
The link between hatred, murder and traditional beliefs is strong and we believe that many so-called sorcery murders are plain killings of
others, with no traditional links whatever.
Perhaps it is now time to go one step further.
Sorcery as a category of crime has been on the law books for a very long time.
It was introduced in recognition of the need to develop the laws of PNG in such a way that they included as much as was possible – or seen as desirable – of the old customary laws that had long governed our individual tribes.
If many of the alleged sorcery cases can be proven to have their roots in civil society disagreements, then we might reasonably expect the abandonment of sorcery in time as a special class of crime.
Readers may recall the spate of sorcery killings that was chronicled in these pages in 2007 and earlier this year.
Many of those particularly grisly crimes occurred in run-down urban settings allegedly at the hands of youths often in an intoxicated condition.
Such deaths are a very long way indeed from traditional and customary methods of punishment of those who break traditional and customary laws.
It may be that the time has come to regard murder as murder, without the subtleties of sub-definitions common in other societies.
If our laws restricted themselves to only a handful of murder charges, or even just one, then much of the uncertain legal charting through sorcery waters might be avoided.
Sorcery related deaths are currently by far the most destructive of those loosely labelled murder cases.
They involve viciousness and a heartless streak that sees elderly grandmothers tortured to death, burned, flung over cliffs, drowned and removed by a host of other methods.
Nor is there any indication of a sudden increase in the numbers of such cases generated by traditional sorcery concerns.
We are living in a fractured society, one which has yet to recreate its own cultural
beliefs within a modern context.
Does sorcery earn a role in those parameters?
Or should it be abolished and banned as a practice out of its time and generation?
The difficulty of drafting legislation relating to sorcery is obvious and the interpretation of such legislation by a judge or magistrate is also a difficult task, since so much motivation and evidence is based upon belief and faith in intangibilities.
The facts remain, however, lives are taken, sorcery is used as justification for those crimes and the problem remains.
We need to find at least a short-term solution to deal with the burgeoning number of sorcery cases, one that underlines society’s revulsion at these deaths.
In the meantime, a general tightening up of sentencing that is more in keeping with public expectations is welcomed.
Legislation already exists to guide deliberations about the rights and wrongs of accused sorcerers and their hapless victims, sufficient to cover the existing situation.
Sorcery charges are meant for specific situations and should not be used as an easy way out of a predicament by either courts or murderers.
We look forward to further sentencing from the courts that has the potential to make sorcery charges a minefield for those who want to play with the law to benefit themselves.
In addition, a far more pro-active attempt by the nation’s churches to define their stance on sorcery could lead to much progress and produce a rare barometer of public opinion over this issue.
To The National, sorcery-related murders should belong as a milestone indicating the length and difficulty of the road we as a people have travelled, rather than as a grisly reminder of days we would sooner forget.
 
Will global trade treaty hurt more than help?

By Laura MacInnis
 Many poor countries fear they will lose jobs and revenue from a new global trade treaty that trade ministers will try to push towards conclusion next week.
This anticipated hardship is one of the main reasons a World Trade Organisation accord on tariff and subsidy cuts – in its seventh year of negotiation – has proved so hard to clinch.
Conventional wisdom dictates that increasing export opportunities can help poverty reduction by raising incomes in developing countries, whose farmers and manufacturers often struggle to sell their wares abroad.
But some economists believe that the Doha round deal under negotiation would open up borders too abruptly, flooding vulnerable markets with cheaper foreign goods and services, and make developing countries worse off.
“Many developing country negotiators are asking themselves if the emerging deal is better than no deal at all,” said Tufts University economic researcher Timothy Wise, who co-authored a new study warning unfettered trade could harm poor farmers. “It is not hard to understand why many developing countries are questioning the value of a Doha agreement.”
He estimated poorer governments would lose four times more in tariff revenue than they get from a trade-boosting deal. The talks were launched in the Qatari capital in late 2001 to boost world trade and help developing countries export their way out of poverty.
Amy Barry of the aid advocacy group Oxfam said negotiators from the developing world need to resist pressure to accept WTO proposals that do not adequately overhaul unfair trade rules.
“Developing countries are being squeezed and not getting the flexibility they need to defend vulnerable sectors and ensure food security,” she said. “This could further undermine weak agricultural sectors and lead to job losses and hunger.”
Shortly after the Doha round talks began, the World Bank projected an accord would generate global gains of US$832 billion. It later scaled back that estimate to US$96 billion to reflect less-ambitious proposals in the talks, which are politically sensitive in many countries.
According to the India-based Research and Information System for Developing Countries, only US$16 billion of that smaller total will go to poorer countries, which would also suffer US$63 billion in tariff revenue losses under a deal.
Carin Smaller of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy said these factors explained much of the hesitation around Geneva negotiating tables about a deal, especially in light of recent global economic pressures and commodity spikes.
“The Middle East and Africa are going to be the biggest losers if the Doha round is agreed. I think that is quite alarming given the impact of the food crisis on these regions,” she said.
Politically powerful farmers in the United States, Europe, Japan and other rich markets may also lose income under a deal, although in theory, wealthy-nation manufacturing exporters would gain better access to emerging markets in return.
The new research by Tuft University’s Wise and trade experts Mamerto Perez and Sergio Schlesinger, entitled The Promise and the Perils of Agricultural Trade Liberalisation, said that only Brazilian and Argentinian agro-exporters stand to be clear emerging-nation winners from a Doha deal on farming.
“Developing countries have far less to gain from agricultural trade liberalisation than is often promised,” they said. “The projected gains are quite small and they don’t account for revenues lost to tariff cuts.”
Many, including WTO director-general Pascal Lamy and EU trade chief Peter Mandelson believe success in the WTO talks is necessary as a symbol that multilateral negotiations can work in tackling other, potentially more complicated, issues such as the international response to climate change.
Ministers meeting in Geneva next week will seek to strike a deal in agriculture and industrial goods trade, leaving talks on how to open up cross-border services later in the year.
Consensus is needed across all negotiating areas from each of the WTO’s 152-member governments for a Doha deal to be struck, meaning that poorer countries have significant influence in the talks whose original aim was to help boost development. – Reuters

Editorial