Africa—Latin America—Asia—Middle-East

1989 ◽  
Vol 29 (273) ◽  
pp. 571-576

In September, the ICRC began its annual seed distribution programme for some 120,000 families on the Angolan Planalto. The delegation continued to keep the food situation there under close observation and distributed food where necessary. The many nutritional surveys carried out on the Planalto showed an alarming rise in the rate of malnutrition.

1990 ◽  
Vol 30 (276) ◽  
pp. 264-271

In April, the ICRC was able to start reducing the amount of food it had been providing to the population living on the Planalto. With the beginning of the harvest season, the people could once again count to a certain extent on their own crops to survive. The ICRC's agricultural engineers already anticipate however, that the harvest will not suffice to cover the population's needs beyond the month of October. In the second half of April, the ICRC began a new seed distribution programme on the Planalto. This programme will benefit some 55,000 families, each of which will receive 2.5 kg of seed.


1987 ◽  
Vol 27 (261) ◽  
pp. 641-652

The seed distribution programme (mainly maize, sorghum and soya beans) had started off well in September, the plan being to assist some 100,000 displaced civilians in the provinces of Huambo and Bié, but the work was interrupted by a tragic plane crash on 14 October. The aircraft was a Hercules transport plane chartered by the ICRC in Switzerland, and it crashed soon after take-off, about 40 km from Kuito. There were no survivors among the four crew members—two Irish, Dorian Shone, the Captain, and Kevin Tocknell; one British, Nicholas Duff; and one New Zealander, Gary Heap—or among the passengers—one Angolan, Nuno Ferreira, and the Swiss secretary of the ICRC delegation in Kuito, Miss Catherine Chappuis.


Cephalalgia ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 033310242110241
Author(s):  
Shuu-Jiun Wang ◽  
Artemio A Roxas ◽  
Bibiana Saravia ◽  
Byung-Kun Kim ◽  
Debashish Chowdhury ◽  
...  

Objective EMPOwER, a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 study, evaluated the efficacy and safety of erenumab in adults with episodic migraine from Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America. Methods Randomised patients (N = 900) received monthly subcutaneous injections of placebo, erenumab 70 mg, or 140 mg (3:3:2) for 3 months. Primary endpoint was change from baseline in monthly migraine days at Month 3. Other endpoints included achievement of ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reduction in monthly migraine days, change in monthly acute migraine-specific medication treatment days, patient-reported outcomes, and safety assessment. Results At baseline, mean (standard deviation) age was 37.5 (9.9) years, 81.9% were women, and monthly migraine days was 8.2 (2.8). At Month 3, change from baseline in monthly migraine days (primary endpoint) was −3.1, −4.2, and −4.8 days for placebo, erenumab 70 mg, and erenumab 140 mg, respectively, with a statistically significant difference for erenumab versus placebo (P = 0.002 [70 mg], P < 0.001 [140 mg]). Both erenumab doses were also significantly superior to placebo on all secondary endpoints, including the proportion of patients achieving ≥50% reduction from baseline in monthly migraine days, change from baseline in monthly acute migraine-specific medication treatment days and change from baseline in the Headache Impact Test-6™ scores. The safety profile of erenumab was comparable with placebo; no new safety signals were observed. Conclusions This study of erenumab in patients with episodic migraine from Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America met all primary and secondary endpoints. A consistent numerical benefit was observed with erenumab 140 mg versus erenumab 70 mg across all efficacy endpoints. These findings extend evidence of erenumab’s efficacy and safety to patients under-represented in previous trials. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03333109


1979 ◽  
Vol 19 (211) ◽  
pp. 204-213

At the beginning of June, the ICRC made a further appeal to governments and National Red Cross Societies for their material and financial support to continue its humanitarian activities for the victims of the conflicts in Africa. It requested, for the period from 1 July to 31 December,the sum of 35.8 million Swiss francs, equivalent to about 5 million Swiss francs per month. The ICRC warned prospective donors that, if no help was swiftly forthcoming, it would be compelled to reduce the activities of its delegations in various African countries, and that the consequences would mean considerable hardship for the people in need of ICRC aid.


1983 ◽  
Vol 23 (232) ◽  
pp. 30-49

A repatriation of prisoners and mortal remains took place on 16 November, via Lusaka (Zambia), under ICRC auspices. It was the result of more than a year of negotiations conducted by the ICRC with the seven interested parties: South Africa, Angola, USSR, Cuba, United States, UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola) and Zambia, the country chosen for the operation to take place.


2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 1092-1094 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheri Berman

Among the many scholarly attempts to reckon with the causes and consequences of Donald Trump’s rise, few have attracted popular attention on the scale of Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s How Democracies Die. Seldom do books by political scientists make it onto the New York Times best sellers list, but this one has, a testament to its broad influence. Levitsky and Ziblatt situate Trumpism within a broader comparative and historical context in order to assess its similarities to and differences from democratic breakdowns elsewhere, particularly in Europe and Latin America. Their broad argument is that modern slides into authoritarianism are not the result of revolutions or military coups, but rather the consequence of a steady erosion of political norms and the assault on such fundamental democratic institutions as an independent judiciary and a free press. In short, contemporary democracies die not as a result of men with guns attacking from outside the system, but rather because elected leaders from inside that system slowly undermine them. Judged from this standpoint, the authors argue that American democracy is now in real danger, and they offer a range of suggestions for saving it. How convincing is Levitsky and Ziblatt’s analysis of democratic breakdown, and how well does it apply to the American case? How useful are the solutions that they offer for rescuing American democracy? We have asked a range of prominent scholars from across the discipline to consider these questions in the present symposium.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document