The administration just can't keep its hands off USAID funding.
First it was reinstating the Global Gag Rule, and barring what NGOs could say or advise women on regarding abortion. Then it was sex workers in the crosshairs of USAID funding restrictions, and effective HIV/AIDS prevention programs are suffering with the "Trafficking Prevention Reauthorization Act."
Do we really want to be that nation, the one who withholds money from HIV/AIDS prevention because we feel the need to take some perceived moral highground on sex work? Because, really, that's all TVPRA is. It's dressed up as an anti-trafficking initiative but--wait for it--provides no funding for actual prevention of trafficking. It just stops NGOs from working with sex worker unions or community groups. It is brutally unfair to women who really are suffering from trafficking in the sex industry than telling them the United States is serious about ending trafficking and then holding out little but empty promises like TVPRA.
For my final project in public policy I wrote an analysis of TVPRA and advocated for its hasty removal. I'll be posting it in parts.
Executive Summary
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Congressional leadership have an opportunity to significantly increase the impact of U.S. foreign aid on the global AIDS crisis by overturning the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) attached to United States Agency for International Development (USAID) funding in 2008. At present, TVPRA ties the hands of any non-governmental organization conducting HIV/AIDS programs abroad by forcing them to adopt government-mandated language condemning sex work, curtailing effective programs that could protect thousands of people from acquiring HIV/AIDS next year.
TVPRA should be overturned because it denies funding to effective programs, places unconstitutional restrictions on US non-governmental organizations, tarnishes the image of the U.S. as a leader in the fight against HIV/AIDS, and is counter-productive to its stated goal of actually decreasing trafficking in women.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Keeping 'We' in 'We the People'
Until finals are over (1 more week) I'm planning on running re-runs of my papers this semester. At least there will be new posts...and some quite appropriate as we are about to enter hunting season--I mean, election year 2008.
My public policy midterm asked "Is the US public too ignorant to govern itself?"
Removing the American public from the governance of this country, even if as Hardin states they would get the same outcome if they did not vote, would fundamentally undermine the very concept of a country built on the principle of restrained government power and explicit rights of the individual from government protected in a constitution. If the people are taken out of “We the People,” it in effect cements into place every discrimination and social inequality that has to date not been resolved. The representatives of the American people are not representative of the people, and without public involvement in the process, however limited, there is no incentive for their interests to be considered.
Congress is overwhelmingly white, male and middle-aged. The hundreds of thousands of constituents per representative of the House largely do not fit that profile, at least half of them after all being biologically female. As mentioned in class, only 16.3% of Congress is female, 3% of the Senate is Latino, and there is one lone African-American in the Senate. If this group of representatives were left to make decisions for constituents they share little to no common life experiences, with no input or threat of ouster by the people they represent, there is more than a fleeting chance that social services would be distributed even less equally than at present and laws preventing racial and sexual discrimination in the workplace would not be made into law. Such issues of discrimination would simply not have been experienced by the vast majority of officials.
Historically, the view that "the people" could not govern themselves and needed the help of an aristocratic and benevolent elite to guide them was widely accepted. Some might say that with the emergence of professional politicians in the U.S. we are returning to this school of thought in some regard. As we discussed in the class, the more highly specialized a field becomes, the easier it is for political decisions to pose as technical ones. Removing the people from the process of governance removes yet one more barrier to keeping corruption in check.
Hardin has a dim view of how Americans make decisions on important political issues such as spending on foreign policy. However, one can argue that it is not the ignorance of the average American so much as it is the politicization of the (mis)information she has access to that lies underneath the problem of a misinformed citizenry. Increasingly polarized parties and media outlets shape the course of debate, skewing statistics as it suits the issue. The prevalence of interest groups in theory provides one recourse for citizens to speak truth to power. Groups with the largest numbers of members sharing their concerns are by and large the most effective groups in Washington. Their power comes from the number of engaged citizens they bring to the table with them when meeting about their issues. Yet even with this power, placing politicians above the reach of the public's vote would remove the bulk of their leverage in getting the ear of members of Congress.
It is a slippery slope to remove power from people to have a place at the table of governance. We routinely point fingers at other nations with less democratic participation—perhaps China one day or Russia the next—and decry the ways the will of the people living there is suppressed and ignored. We see the results in exposes on levels of pollution in Chinese rivers, injured miners, or patronage in Russian political circles. We do not say that the people in those nations are too ignorant to question their leaders or fight for change; instead, we applaud them. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard, but we do not do that by removing our power as citizens.
My public policy midterm asked "Is the US public too ignorant to govern itself?"
Removing the American public from the governance of this country, even if as Hardin states they would get the same outcome if they did not vote, would fundamentally undermine the very concept of a country built on the principle of restrained government power and explicit rights of the individual from government protected in a constitution. If the people are taken out of “We the People,” it in effect cements into place every discrimination and social inequality that has to date not been resolved. The representatives of the American people are not representative of the people, and without public involvement in the process, however limited, there is no incentive for their interests to be considered.
Congress is overwhelmingly white, male and middle-aged. The hundreds of thousands of constituents per representative of the House largely do not fit that profile, at least half of them after all being biologically female. As mentioned in class, only 16.3% of Congress is female, 3% of the Senate is Latino, and there is one lone African-American in the Senate. If this group of representatives were left to make decisions for constituents they share little to no common life experiences, with no input or threat of ouster by the people they represent, there is more than a fleeting chance that social services would be distributed even less equally than at present and laws preventing racial and sexual discrimination in the workplace would not be made into law. Such issues of discrimination would simply not have been experienced by the vast majority of officials.
Historically, the view that "the people" could not govern themselves and needed the help of an aristocratic and benevolent elite to guide them was widely accepted. Some might say that with the emergence of professional politicians in the U.S. we are returning to this school of thought in some regard. As we discussed in the class, the more highly specialized a field becomes, the easier it is for political decisions to pose as technical ones. Removing the people from the process of governance removes yet one more barrier to keeping corruption in check.
Hardin has a dim view of how Americans make decisions on important political issues such as spending on foreign policy. However, one can argue that it is not the ignorance of the average American so much as it is the politicization of the (mis)information she has access to that lies underneath the problem of a misinformed citizenry. Increasingly polarized parties and media outlets shape the course of debate, skewing statistics as it suits the issue. The prevalence of interest groups in theory provides one recourse for citizens to speak truth to power. Groups with the largest numbers of members sharing their concerns are by and large the most effective groups in Washington. Their power comes from the number of engaged citizens they bring to the table with them when meeting about their issues. Yet even with this power, placing politicians above the reach of the public's vote would remove the bulk of their leverage in getting the ear of members of Congress.
It is a slippery slope to remove power from people to have a place at the table of governance. We routinely point fingers at other nations with less democratic participation—perhaps China one day or Russia the next—and decry the ways the will of the people living there is suppressed and ignored. We see the results in exposes on levels of pollution in Chinese rivers, injured miners, or patronage in Russian political circles. We do not say that the people in those nations are too ignorant to question their leaders or fight for change; instead, we applaud them. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard, but we do not do that by removing our power as citizens.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Commerce Clause: Who Knew?
I never knew just how many ways the Commerce Clause had been sliced, diced, twisted and turned over the years to justify the promotion or restriction of pretty much anything. It was very much a lightbulb-moment for me reading some papers on the commerce clause and realized how it was used to restrict reproductive rights while I was working at a women's health organization not long ago.
Citizens as Commerce?
The Commerce Clause, a seemingly straight-forward enough clause regulating trade between states, has in a relatively short time frame been used to both give and take away individual rights and liberties. Lens writes that since the 1990's, the Supreme Court has handed down decisions trending towards using the clause to “invalidate federal legislation to address social problems.”1 Having once seen enshrined in the Commerce Clause the means to outlaw segregation and promote civil rights, the Court has increasingly moved in the direction of erring on the side of favoring laws and legislation of states over the greater national public welfare on issues like violence against women.2
The definition of commerce has been stretched and molded according to political motivations, both progressive and conservative. Used to restrict states' attempts to enact progressive federal laws on child labor and civil rights through much of this country's history, the tide was turned through the heavy-handed threat of FDR's court-packing plan after the Court ruled against some of his New Deal legislation.3 From that point forward, “the Commerce Clause was no longer construed as limiting that [federal] power. The utility of the Commerce Clause as a basis for Congressional action was restored and then expanded...broadening the distinction between manufacturing and commerce to include even non-commerce type activities.”4 Lens goes on to write that the Commerce Clause was used as justification to pass laws addressing perceived moral and social wrongs.
A recent Congressional effort to prevent young women from crossing state lines in order to seek abortion services illustrates the reach of the interpretation of the Commerce Clause today. Recently, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, or CIANA, proposed to make it a crime for any adult, including immediate family, to transport a woman under the age of 18 across state lines for the purposes of obtaining an abortion. This law, which would have potentially imprisoned concerned grandmothers, aunts, and clergy members potentially helping young girls--who potentially faced physical harm if they informed their parents—used the Commerce Clause as the basis of its legal justification.5 In fact, the law was following a long line of precedent. In addition to its application in ending segregation, “with the passage of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (1938)....consumer protection, health, and safety also fell within the legitimate scope of the Commerce Clause.”6
What about a young woman seeking abortion services in a neighboring state qualifies as commerce? She is certainly not a business nor is she seeking to trade goods or make a sale for profit. She is a consumer of a medical service. Clearly the consumer is not the target of legislation such as CIANA. For anti-abortion members of Congress the reproductive health centers she seeks to access are an industry and, in their view, a negative one that consumers need protection from. As much as the Commerce Clause can be seen to protect state rights and individuals from the overreaching power of the federal branch, so too it can just as easily be used to restrict the rights of individuals. This legislation is a remarkable change of tack from just thirty years ago, when New York was one of the only states with legal abortion services. New York clinics would advertise their services to out-of-state women, and early morning shuttle flights to New York would be filled largely with affluent women from other states.
Rights for Whom?
In the case above, what rights would the young woman seeking services expect to have? She likely would not expect her state of residence to provide her with the medical services she seeks free of charge. She would not expect the state to provide her with transportation enabling her to access services out of state. She would, however, expect to be able to travel across state lines unimpeded. According to Stone, a right of this nature would be classified as a negative substantive right. Negative substantive rights, according to Stone, are the right to do something free of restraint. These rights “create relationships of non-interference” and in this aspect function as social regulatory systems.”7
Where would this young woman in question get the idea that she has the right to seek a medical procedure without her parents' consent, or even to cross a state line without their permission? She might state that as an individual she has the right to bodily autonomy, and as a U.S. citizen she has the right to travel the country unimpeded. In the U.S., Stone writes, the idea of “natural rights” has been an incredibly successful and influential philosophy, going so far as to be “exemplified in the Declaration of Independence.”8 With the passage of CIANA, the young woman would that her rights are dependent on the ideas of the political power of the moment9, and the protection of her rights dependent upon the character and ideology of the Supreme Court of the era.
1Ibid, 319.
2Ibid, 319. Lens writes that the Court invalidate the Violence Against Women Act's provision for a victim to sue her attacker in federal, not just criminal, court.
3Ibid, 322-323.
4Ibid, 323.
5http://boustany.house.gov/LatestNews.asp?ARTICLE3149=3186&PG3149=7, last access 10/26/2007.
6V. Lens, 324.
7D. Stone, Policy Paradox, New York: W.W. Nortan & Company, 1997. p327-327.
8Ibid, 334.
9Ibid, 350.
Citizens as Commerce?
The Commerce Clause, a seemingly straight-forward enough clause regulating trade between states, has in a relatively short time frame been used to both give and take away individual rights and liberties. Lens writes that since the 1990's, the Supreme Court has handed down decisions trending towards using the clause to “invalidate federal legislation to address social problems.”1 Having once seen enshrined in the Commerce Clause the means to outlaw segregation and promote civil rights, the Court has increasingly moved in the direction of erring on the side of favoring laws and legislation of states over the greater national public welfare on issues like violence against women.2
The definition of commerce has been stretched and molded according to political motivations, both progressive and conservative. Used to restrict states' attempts to enact progressive federal laws on child labor and civil rights through much of this country's history, the tide was turned through the heavy-handed threat of FDR's court-packing plan after the Court ruled against some of his New Deal legislation.3 From that point forward, “the Commerce Clause was no longer construed as limiting that [federal] power. The utility of the Commerce Clause as a basis for Congressional action was restored and then expanded...broadening the distinction between manufacturing and commerce to include even non-commerce type activities.”4 Lens goes on to write that the Commerce Clause was used as justification to pass laws addressing perceived moral and social wrongs.
A recent Congressional effort to prevent young women from crossing state lines in order to seek abortion services illustrates the reach of the interpretation of the Commerce Clause today. Recently, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, or CIANA, proposed to make it a crime for any adult, including immediate family, to transport a woman under the age of 18 across state lines for the purposes of obtaining an abortion. This law, which would have potentially imprisoned concerned grandmothers, aunts, and clergy members potentially helping young girls--who potentially faced physical harm if they informed their parents—used the Commerce Clause as the basis of its legal justification.5 In fact, the law was following a long line of precedent. In addition to its application in ending segregation, “with the passage of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (1938)....consumer protection, health, and safety also fell within the legitimate scope of the Commerce Clause.”6
What about a young woman seeking abortion services in a neighboring state qualifies as commerce? She is certainly not a business nor is she seeking to trade goods or make a sale for profit. She is a consumer of a medical service. Clearly the consumer is not the target of legislation such as CIANA. For anti-abortion members of Congress the reproductive health centers she seeks to access are an industry and, in their view, a negative one that consumers need protection from. As much as the Commerce Clause can be seen to protect state rights and individuals from the overreaching power of the federal branch, so too it can just as easily be used to restrict the rights of individuals. This legislation is a remarkable change of tack from just thirty years ago, when New York was one of the only states with legal abortion services. New York clinics would advertise their services to out-of-state women, and early morning shuttle flights to New York would be filled largely with affluent women from other states.
Rights for Whom?
In the case above, what rights would the young woman seeking services expect to have? She likely would not expect her state of residence to provide her with the medical services she seeks free of charge. She would not expect the state to provide her with transportation enabling her to access services out of state. She would, however, expect to be able to travel across state lines unimpeded. According to Stone, a right of this nature would be classified as a negative substantive right. Negative substantive rights, according to Stone, are the right to do something free of restraint. These rights “create relationships of non-interference” and in this aspect function as social regulatory systems.”7
Where would this young woman in question get the idea that she has the right to seek a medical procedure without her parents' consent, or even to cross a state line without their permission? She might state that as an individual she has the right to bodily autonomy, and as a U.S. citizen she has the right to travel the country unimpeded. In the U.S., Stone writes, the idea of “natural rights” has been an incredibly successful and influential philosophy, going so far as to be “exemplified in the Declaration of Independence.”8 With the passage of CIANA, the young woman would that her rights are dependent on the ideas of the political power of the moment9, and the protection of her rights dependent upon the character and ideology of the Supreme Court of the era.
1Ibid, 319.
2Ibid, 319. Lens writes that the Court invalidate the Violence Against Women Act's provision for a victim to sue her attacker in federal, not just criminal, court.
3Ibid, 322-323.
4Ibid, 323.
5http://boustany.house.gov/LatestNews.asp?ARTICLE3149=3186&PG3149=7, last access 10/26/2007.
6V. Lens, 324.
7D. Stone, Policy Paradox, New York: W.W. Nortan & Company, 1997. p327-327.
8Ibid, 334.
9Ibid, 350.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
How responsible is corporate responsibility?
Popular convention holds that any company wishing to remain competitive in the market needs some element of corporate social responsibility (CSR).1 Consumers, it is argued, demand that the companies reflected in their stock portfolios and shopping cards make a contribution to ending environmental degradation, social inequalities, human rights abuses, and the like. Companies have both expanded their CSR programs and turned back out to consumers products that are co-branded with charitable organizations, a portion of whose sales are promised to go toward ending breast cancer, saving whales, and other such noble causes.
Vogel rights casts a skeptical eye towards the prevalence of CSR in today's marketplace, writing that CSR in itself “reflects both the strengths and the shortcomings of market capitalism.”2 While it may prompt certain business to create new environmental safeguards and gives a certain voice to employee and consumer social values, in most cases it does so on only the most superficial of levels. In addition, Vogel writes that since CSR is completely optional, companies treat CSR as any other research and development project, using CSR only if it will produce a return on their investment.3
Corporate social responsibility programs are often appealing for the wrong reasons. Since the definition of CSR is unclear, companies can point to activities that would normally fall into their strategic planning as examples of CSR.4 There are no guidelines for CSR, so even token programs with no real impact can be listed proudly in the company annual report to shareholders. Vogel cites Enron as one prominent example, which before its notorious downfall was well-known for its local philanthropy.5 Philip Morris/Altria Group is another example of a company giving hundreds of millions of dollars to the non-profit sector. Does such philanthropy—no doubt called “corporate social responsibility” by the company—undue the fact that instead of defrauding investors Philip Morris/Altria instead produces a known carcinogen?
The prevalence and trendiness of CSR can also induce a certain social laziness in consumers, the effect of which can be fairly readily seen in the non-profit world. Co-branded products with “a portion going to support” the work of charities from health to children to animals can lull people into thinking that all they need to do to make a difference is consume. The beneficiaries of such actions are more likely to be companies than non-profits, who have hardly had a chance to convert the customer into a loyal donor or educated activist through their purchase. Fundamentally such initiatives reduce philanthropy and activism to market transactions instead of social movements. While co-branded products, rubber bracelets, and t-shirts hardly paint the entire picture when it comes to examining the flaws of CSR, they do show the superficial nature of both some CSR programs and consumer 'activists.'
Social Changes and the Market
Stone challenges the claim of programs like CSR that market competition increases social welfare.6 She writes that organizing activities people enjoy and care about as market exchanges actually decreases their motivation to pursue them and can actually even decrease the net social benefit.7 By this view, providing an alternative to direct social action, such buying a T-shirt instead of writing a member of Congress or donating directly to a political advocacy organization, people are not only becoming less engaged in social change but they are also less satisfied. The unfortunate, and no doubt unintended, consequence is that citizens become disenchanted with social service and advocacy organizations—and possibly even philanthropic activities as a whole—leading to an even greater decrease in social change.
Both Vogel's critique of CSR and Stone's of market failures boil down to the central issue of power. In CSR, while consumer demands may have produced some tangible changes, the fact of the matter is that the products being put back on the shelves for them to consume are being chosen and shaped by the company bottom line. Stone summarizes this argument by stating, “if consumer preferences are not really individual but shaped by sellers, we can no longer assume that each transaction does increase the welfare of both parties.”8 Indeed, by linking corporate and social goals consumers may actually be doing more harm than good. Certain social issues rise and fall in trendiness for both the average consumer and larger institutional donors. Africa, after years of funding neglect, suddenly finds its HIV/AIDS endemic being used to sell Product(Red) sneakers. Should the problems in Africa prove to be longer-lasting than the seasonality of sneakers, will consumers attention span on the issue last? Or will they turn away from the disappointment and onto another product claiming to alleviate a different injustice in another region of the world?
Perhaps the issue lies not with consumers, as Americas truly are a philanthropic and civic-minded group, more generous with their income to social causes than almost any other nation. The solution, then, lies in reclaiming social issues and their power to move people to action from corporate branding and 'green-washing' campaigns to the activist and community organizations actually making real impacts. How to do that, however, will be more difficult than launching the next co-branded cell phone.
1 D. Vogel, “Corporate Social Responsibility” (Market for Virtue, 2006), p.2. Jeffrey Hollender is quoted that “Corporate Social Responsibility [is]...the future of business. It's what companies have to do to survive and prosper in a world where more and more of their behavior is under a microscope.”
2Vogel, p.3
3Ibid, p.3-4
4Ibid, p.4
5Ibid, p.5
6D. Stone, Policy Paradox, New York: W.W. Nortan & Company, 1997. p73
7Ibid.
8Ibid, p.74
Vogel rights casts a skeptical eye towards the prevalence of CSR in today's marketplace, writing that CSR in itself “reflects both the strengths and the shortcomings of market capitalism.”2 While it may prompt certain business to create new environmental safeguards and gives a certain voice to employee and consumer social values, in most cases it does so on only the most superficial of levels. In addition, Vogel writes that since CSR is completely optional, companies treat CSR as any other research and development project, using CSR only if it will produce a return on their investment.3
Corporate social responsibility programs are often appealing for the wrong reasons. Since the definition of CSR is unclear, companies can point to activities that would normally fall into their strategic planning as examples of CSR.4 There are no guidelines for CSR, so even token programs with no real impact can be listed proudly in the company annual report to shareholders. Vogel cites Enron as one prominent example, which before its notorious downfall was well-known for its local philanthropy.5 Philip Morris/Altria Group is another example of a company giving hundreds of millions of dollars to the non-profit sector. Does such philanthropy—no doubt called “corporate social responsibility” by the company—undue the fact that instead of defrauding investors Philip Morris/Altria instead produces a known carcinogen?
The prevalence and trendiness of CSR can also induce a certain social laziness in consumers, the effect of which can be fairly readily seen in the non-profit world. Co-branded products with “a portion going to support” the work of charities from health to children to animals can lull people into thinking that all they need to do to make a difference is consume. The beneficiaries of such actions are more likely to be companies than non-profits, who have hardly had a chance to convert the customer into a loyal donor or educated activist through their purchase. Fundamentally such initiatives reduce philanthropy and activism to market transactions instead of social movements. While co-branded products, rubber bracelets, and t-shirts hardly paint the entire picture when it comes to examining the flaws of CSR, they do show the superficial nature of both some CSR programs and consumer 'activists.'
Social Changes and the Market
Stone challenges the claim of programs like CSR that market competition increases social welfare.6 She writes that organizing activities people enjoy and care about as market exchanges actually decreases their motivation to pursue them and can actually even decrease the net social benefit.7 By this view, providing an alternative to direct social action, such buying a T-shirt instead of writing a member of Congress or donating directly to a political advocacy organization, people are not only becoming less engaged in social change but they are also less satisfied. The unfortunate, and no doubt unintended, consequence is that citizens become disenchanted with social service and advocacy organizations—and possibly even philanthropic activities as a whole—leading to an even greater decrease in social change.
Both Vogel's critique of CSR and Stone's of market failures boil down to the central issue of power. In CSR, while consumer demands may have produced some tangible changes, the fact of the matter is that the products being put back on the shelves for them to consume are being chosen and shaped by the company bottom line. Stone summarizes this argument by stating, “if consumer preferences are not really individual but shaped by sellers, we can no longer assume that each transaction does increase the welfare of both parties.”8 Indeed, by linking corporate and social goals consumers may actually be doing more harm than good. Certain social issues rise and fall in trendiness for both the average consumer and larger institutional donors. Africa, after years of funding neglect, suddenly finds its HIV/AIDS endemic being used to sell Product(Red) sneakers. Should the problems in Africa prove to be longer-lasting than the seasonality of sneakers, will consumers attention span on the issue last? Or will they turn away from the disappointment and onto another product claiming to alleviate a different injustice in another region of the world?
Perhaps the issue lies not with consumers, as Americas truly are a philanthropic and civic-minded group, more generous with their income to social causes than almost any other nation. The solution, then, lies in reclaiming social issues and their power to move people to action from corporate branding and 'green-washing' campaigns to the activist and community organizations actually making real impacts. How to do that, however, will be more difficult than launching the next co-branded cell phone.
1 D. Vogel, “Corporate Social Responsibility” (Market for Virtue, 2006), p.2. Jeffrey Hollender is quoted that “Corporate Social Responsibility [is]...the future of business. It's what companies have to do to survive and prosper in a world where more and more of their behavior is under a microscope.”
2Vogel, p.3
3Ibid, p.3-4
4Ibid, p.4
5Ibid, p.5
6D. Stone, Policy Paradox, New York: W.W. Nortan & Company, 1997. p73
7Ibid.
8Ibid, p.74
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
News Round Up
Blame summer and many other things on the fact that I haven't made time to keep up with this. I've lived in the city for 7 years now and this is the first year I've used the public bike paths and parks. My new-found favorite Sunday activity (after coffee and the NYT, of course) is a 90 minute ride up the west side bike path and the Hudson River. It is a gorgeous ride, fun and a really good time out for my brain.
So many thanks to groups like Riverkeeper, NY Restoration Project, and many others who help keep the outdoor spaces in this city beautiful.
But never fear--"vacation" such as it has been is nearing it's end with a jarring stop. School is a week away; expect to be reading a LOT of papers!
CARE made headlines recently when they decided to turn down US food aid. The process of sending US crops to, for example, African programs costs aid organizations money that could otherwise be used to deliver other much-needed services, and undermines local markets. Oxfam America's president also backed CARE's decision in a letter to the NYT.
Iraqi refugees still face hurdles in seeking asylum in the US--including those who have worked for the US military in Iraq. The US refuses to accept asylum applications from Iraqis still residing in Iraq, forcing them between a rock and a hard place: make the risky trip to cross into Syria and Jordan, or make the risky trip into your own backyard?
Finally, the BBC reports that an inflatable boat filled with 59 people trying to reach Europe from Africa is adrift in Africa waters. Human traffickers set the boat loose after telling the passengers they were in Italian waters already. With no engine, they are at the whim of ocean currents. The BBC has a good feature on what motivates people to undertake the risky journey to reach Europe. When your life expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa is 37 years shorter than the average in Europe, I find it hard to label you as 'just' an "economic refugee."
So many thanks to groups like Riverkeeper, NY Restoration Project, and many others who help keep the outdoor spaces in this city beautiful.
But never fear--"vacation" such as it has been is nearing it's end with a jarring stop. School is a week away; expect to be reading a LOT of papers!
CARE made headlines recently when they decided to turn down US food aid. The process of sending US crops to, for example, African programs costs aid organizations money that could otherwise be used to deliver other much-needed services, and undermines local markets. Oxfam America's president also backed CARE's decision in a letter to the NYT.
Iraqi refugees still face hurdles in seeking asylum in the US--including those who have worked for the US military in Iraq. The US refuses to accept asylum applications from Iraqis still residing in Iraq, forcing them between a rock and a hard place: make the risky trip to cross into Syria and Jordan, or make the risky trip into your own backyard?
Finally, the BBC reports that an inflatable boat filled with 59 people trying to reach Europe from Africa is adrift in Africa waters. Human traffickers set the boat loose after telling the passengers they were in Italian waters already. With no engine, they are at the whim of ocean currents. The BBC has a good feature on what motivates people to undertake the risky journey to reach Europe. When your life expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa is 37 years shorter than the average in Europe, I find it hard to label you as 'just' an "economic refugee."
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Nurses in Libya freed
Wow! The nurses accused by the Libyan government of intentionally infecting children with HIV have been released after years of imprisonment. Read the full story on the NYT website.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Water, Water Everywhere...
....but not a drop to drink.
This old rhyme would be cute if only it weren't true.
Over the past weekend I read three separate articles on water, appearing in Fast Company, Good, and the Sunday NYT Week in Review. It would appear that some people in the philanthropic communities are starting to realize that water safety and access lies at the heart of many other public health and development issues.
Don't have access to clean water? Then your wife or daughter can walk 4 hours roundtrip to collect it. If there's water to be collected. She can't start a small business to earn extra money, and she can't go to school because collecting water takes so much time. She might face assault on her way to the water source. But someone has to collect the water.
You walked 4 hours to collect water, so you don't want it wasted. So you don't wash your vegetables, or yourself, as often as you'd like because water is precious and your family needs it. You get skin problems; your child has diarrhea. Lots of children in your town have died from diarrhea--and you've seen worse caused by the water.
In the interest of full disclosure, I'm doing some work for a water org now and learning more about all these issues that intersect with water. In a previous life and org we did work with water but in an emergency relief context. I have to admit it's shocking to see just how bad these issues are even in stable, if extremely poor, countries.
More to come...
This old rhyme would be cute if only it weren't true.
Over the past weekend I read three separate articles on water, appearing in Fast Company, Good, and the Sunday NYT Week in Review. It would appear that some people in the philanthropic communities are starting to realize that water safety and access lies at the heart of many other public health and development issues.
Don't have access to clean water? Then your wife or daughter can walk 4 hours roundtrip to collect it. If there's water to be collected. She can't start a small business to earn extra money, and she can't go to school because collecting water takes so much time. She might face assault on her way to the water source. But someone has to collect the water.
You walked 4 hours to collect water, so you don't want it wasted. So you don't wash your vegetables, or yourself, as often as you'd like because water is precious and your family needs it. You get skin problems; your child has diarrhea. Lots of children in your town have died from diarrhea--and you've seen worse caused by the water.
In the interest of full disclosure, I'm doing some work for a water org now and learning more about all these issues that intersect with water. In a previous life and org we did work with water but in an emergency relief context. I have to admit it's shocking to see just how bad these issues are even in stable, if extremely poor, countries.
More to come...
Follow the Money
Part 4 of 5
U.S. Policy in Colombia: The Money Trail
Economically, geographically, and politically important, Colombia has been and continues to be the focus of U.S. policy in the Southern hemisphere. The U.S. Department of State reports that the U.S. represents the largest source of foreign direct investment in Colombia, and last year Colombia was the fifth largest export market in the Western Hemisphere for U.S. goods. The country has natural resources of interest to the U.S., including modest stores of petroleum and natural gas and represents one of the more stable economies in its region.1
Current U.S. foreign policy continues to focus on the war on drugs and assisting the Colombian government's counter-insurgency efforts. Since 2000, the U.S. has spent close to $3 billion in
Colombia, of which 75% was directed towards military and policy assistance.2 For fiscal year 2007, the Congressional Budget and Justification for Foreign Operations listed a request of $78 million for foreign military training (FMT) in Colombia, and $1.68 million for International Military Education and Training, the part of their work that encompasses the “human rights” part of military work.3 The Center for International Policy reports these figures at $90 million and $1.68 million, respectively.4 However, these two figures represent a very small part of the total military spending package for Colombia. For FY07, International Narcotics Control was projected at $366.55 million, and “Section 1033” Defense Department counter-narcotics programs were projected at $122 million. When all budget lines are added, the total is $584.44 million.5 Comparatively, in 2004 USAID spent an estimated additional $122 million in humanitarian aid directed to Colombia through non-governmental programs.6
The amount of money directed at counter-narcotics and other military programs in Colombia—coupled with the country's human rights record—has not escaped the scrutiny of Congress. The Leahy Provision prohibits military aid from being sent to foreign military units accused of human rights violations until reports show redress of grievances to the satisfaction of Congress.7 Congress has gone so far as to include specific human rights provisions specific to Colombia when funding for military operations for that country were increased. Under the Leahy Provision, funds have been withheld from Colombia in the past, but the executive branch has the power to sign a waiver to override Congress. One such instance of the use of a waiver for Colombia occurred in 2000 by then-President Clinton. Human Rights Watch contends that by signing the waiver the White House “sent a message to Colombia's leaders that overshadowed any other related to human rights...that as long as the Colombian military cooperated with the U.S. anti-drug strategy, American officials would waive human rights conditions and skirt their own human rights laws.”8
International foreign policy, and with it military spending, are not immune from domestic politicking and, in an age of globalization, nor should it be. In addition to the power of the purse Congress has through the Leahy Provision and other measures, a current bill before Congress would move to have the U.S. take an active role in ending the use of child soldiers. Senate Bill 1175, the 'Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2007' a bi-partisan bill presented in April of this year, states that Congress believes “that the United States Government should support and, where practicable, lead efforts to establish and uphold international standards designed to end this abuse of human rights...expand ongoing services to rehabilitate child soldiers...work with the international community...on efforts to bring to justice rebel organizations that kidnap children for use as child soldiers, such as the FARC.”9 In addition the bill calls on State and Defense to coordinate on programs to end the use of child soldiers and that no military funding or training be made available to countries known by the Department of State or Defense to use child soldiers. Many of the provisions in the bill echo the language of the Leahy Provision, but the bill notably requires that foreign officers of the State Department be trained on matters pertaining to child soldiers.
1United States Department of State, “Background Note: Colombia,” http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35754.htm. Last accessed July 1, 2007.
2 Sweig, Julia E, “Challenges for U.S. Policy Toward Colombia: Is Plan Colombia Working—the Regional Dimensions?”, Testimony to U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, October 29, 2003, Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.orf/publication/6511/challenges_for_US_policy_toward_colombia.html. Last accessed June 22, 2007.
3United States Department of State, FY07 Congressional Budget and Justification for Foreign Operations, www.state.gov/documents/organization/60656.pdf. Last accessed June 25, 2007.
4Center for International Policy, “Just the Facts: A civilian's guide to U.S. defense and security assistance to Latin America and the Carribean,” www.ciponline.org/facts/co.htm, June 25, 2007
5Center for International Policy, “Just the Facts: A civilian's guide to U.S. defense and security assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean,” www.ciponline.org/facts/co.htm
6United States Agency for International Development, “Colombia: Overview,” http://www.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean/country/colombia/. Last accessed June 30, 2007.
7 Human Rights Watch, “Sixth Division,” hrw.org/reports/2001/colombia/6theng.pdf. Last accessed June 26, 2007, 4
8Ibid
9 United States Senate, “S.1175, Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2007,” The Library of Congress, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c110:./temp/~c110K3DOWe,. Last accessed May 30, 2007.
U.S. Policy in Colombia: The Money Trail
Economically, geographically, and politically important, Colombia has been and continues to be the focus of U.S. policy in the Southern hemisphere. The U.S. Department of State reports that the U.S. represents the largest source of foreign direct investment in Colombia, and last year Colombia was the fifth largest export market in the Western Hemisphere for U.S. goods. The country has natural resources of interest to the U.S., including modest stores of petroleum and natural gas and represents one of the more stable economies in its region.1
Current U.S. foreign policy continues to focus on the war on drugs and assisting the Colombian government's counter-insurgency efforts. Since 2000, the U.S. has spent close to $3 billion in
Colombia, of which 75% was directed towards military and policy assistance.2 For fiscal year 2007, the Congressional Budget and Justification for Foreign Operations listed a request of $78 million for foreign military training (FMT) in Colombia, and $1.68 million for International Military Education and Training, the part of their work that encompasses the “human rights” part of military work.3 The Center for International Policy reports these figures at $90 million and $1.68 million, respectively.4 However, these two figures represent a very small part of the total military spending package for Colombia. For FY07, International Narcotics Control was projected at $366.55 million, and “Section 1033” Defense Department counter-narcotics programs were projected at $122 million. When all budget lines are added, the total is $584.44 million.5 Comparatively, in 2004 USAID spent an estimated additional $122 million in humanitarian aid directed to Colombia through non-governmental programs.6
The amount of money directed at counter-narcotics and other military programs in Colombia—coupled with the country's human rights record—has not escaped the scrutiny of Congress. The Leahy Provision prohibits military aid from being sent to foreign military units accused of human rights violations until reports show redress of grievances to the satisfaction of Congress.7 Congress has gone so far as to include specific human rights provisions specific to Colombia when funding for military operations for that country were increased. Under the Leahy Provision, funds have been withheld from Colombia in the past, but the executive branch has the power to sign a waiver to override Congress. One such instance of the use of a waiver for Colombia occurred in 2000 by then-President Clinton. Human Rights Watch contends that by signing the waiver the White House “sent a message to Colombia's leaders that overshadowed any other related to human rights...that as long as the Colombian military cooperated with the U.S. anti-drug strategy, American officials would waive human rights conditions and skirt their own human rights laws.”8
International foreign policy, and with it military spending, are not immune from domestic politicking and, in an age of globalization, nor should it be. In addition to the power of the purse Congress has through the Leahy Provision and other measures, a current bill before Congress would move to have the U.S. take an active role in ending the use of child soldiers. Senate Bill 1175, the 'Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2007' a bi-partisan bill presented in April of this year, states that Congress believes “that the United States Government should support and, where practicable, lead efforts to establish and uphold international standards designed to end this abuse of human rights...expand ongoing services to rehabilitate child soldiers...work with the international community...on efforts to bring to justice rebel organizations that kidnap children for use as child soldiers, such as the FARC.”9 In addition the bill calls on State and Defense to coordinate on programs to end the use of child soldiers and that no military funding or training be made available to countries known by the Department of State or Defense to use child soldiers. Many of the provisions in the bill echo the language of the Leahy Provision, but the bill notably requires that foreign officers of the State Department be trained on matters pertaining to child soldiers.
1United States Department of State, “Background Note: Colombia,” http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35754.htm. Last accessed July 1, 2007.
2 Sweig, Julia E, “Challenges for U.S. Policy Toward Colombia: Is Plan Colombia Working—the Regional Dimensions?”, Testimony to U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, October 29, 2003, Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.orf/publication/6511/challenges_for_US_policy_toward_colombia.html. Last accessed June 22, 2007.
3United States Department of State, FY07 Congressional Budget and Justification for Foreign Operations, www.state.gov/documents/organization/60656.pdf. Last accessed June 25, 2007.
4Center for International Policy, “Just the Facts: A civilian's guide to U.S. defense and security assistance to Latin America and the Carribean,” www.ciponline.org/facts/co.htm, June 25, 2007
5Center for International Policy, “Just the Facts: A civilian's guide to U.S. defense and security assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean,” www.ciponline.org/facts/co.htm
6United States Agency for International Development, “Colombia: Overview,” http://www.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean/country/colombia/. Last accessed June 30, 2007.
7 Human Rights Watch, “Sixth Division,” hrw.org/reports/2001/colombia/6theng.pdf. Last accessed June 26, 2007, 4
8Ibid
9 United States Senate, “S.1175, Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2007,” The Library of Congress, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c110:./temp/~c110K3DOWe,. Last accessed May 30, 2007.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
No Place for Children: Foreign policy and security rationale for the U.S. to move to end the use of child soldiers in Colombia
Part 3 of 5
Cycles of Violence
Modern warfare ignores the traditional rules of the battlefield. Today, more than 90% of all war casualties are civilian, and children are increasingly not only victims of the violence but direct actors in it.1 As recently as 2001, it was estimated that 300,000 children were participating in armed conflicts around the world, and thousands more were facing recruitment or serving in armed forces not engaged in conflicts.2 The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict bans the involvement and recruitment of children under 18 in armed conflict.3 Despite 110 countries signing onto the Optional Protocol, both state and non-state actors continue to actively recruit and use children under 18 in both formal and non-formal militias. Currently, 20 countries are known to have children fighting in their conflicts; 10 of these have state militias implicated in the use of child soldiers. The United States provides 9 of these states with military assistance, one of which is Colombia.
Colombia has been in the throes of an internal conflict for 40 years. An estimated 1.4 million of the country's 43.3 people are internally displaced within Colombia itself, while hundreds of thousands more have fled to neighboring countries.4 The vast majority of children engaged in Colombia's conflict serve in two guerrilla organizations. Colombia's largest and oldest guerrilla group, Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) began in the late 1960's in response to a U.S.-sponsored attack on a Communist-inspired peasant cooperative in the southern Tomila department.5 Today FARC also has the dubious distinction of being the largest guerrilla group in the southern hemisphere, financing itself through kidnapping and ransom, extortion, and the drug trade. National Liberation Army (ELN), the other main guerrilla group, is significantly smaller than FARC. It primarily targets the oil sector and energy infrastructures in its attacks. Finally, United Self-Defense Groups of Colombia (AUC) is the largest paramilitary organization in the country. Though groups like the AUC were declared illegal in Colombia in 1989, funded by the drug trade and support of wealthy landowners, AUC is known for close and open collaboration with Colombia's official armed forces.6
Human Rights Watch reports that “in the debate over U.S. policy in Colombia, the recruitment of children by Colombia's illegal armed groups has been a secondary issue. Concern has focused more intensely on the Colombian military's tolerance and complicity in other grave (human rights) abuses.”7 Previously, the Colombian government and official armed forces were also actively recruiting and using child soldiers. In recent years the Colombian government has made some good faith efforts to end the use and recruitment of child soldiers within its own forces. In 1991, Colombia signed the Optional Protocol, although it has not yet been ratified. In 1997, documentation showed more than 15,000 children serving as soldiers in Colombia's government forces. Two years later the Colombian government demobilized 800 under 18-year-olds from government forces. While there are no current credible reports of children serving in Colombian government forces, there have been reports of the use of children as spies and informers by police and army units. In addition, the government has offered financial incentives for minors to become “peasant soldiers”, a scheme launched by the government at the end of 2002 to build a peasant army of 20,000.8
The phenomena of child soldiers in Colombia is a reflection of deep-rooted poverty and instability due to years of conflict. While some children are abducted into service, others, with few options for either security or sustenance, join militias out of desperation.9 The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research writes that “the lines between compulsory, voluntary, and forced recruitment are often blurred.” Once in service, child soldiers in Colombia are not protected from the horrors of combat. Human Rights Watch, in an interview with demobilized child soldiers in Colombia, found that children not only fought but also participated in human rights crimes such as torture, assassinations, and executions of non-military actors. Despite some efforts being made by the Colombian government to reintegrate demobilized child soldiers, the lack of an overall campaign to end the practice amounts to a failure to protect the human rights of these children on the part of the Colombian government.10
The lasting effect of child soldiering is recognized in the Optional Protocol, and states that agree to its terms are “disturbed by the harmful and widespread impact of armed conflict on children and the long-term consequences it has for durable peace, security and development.”11 Effects to children include physical and emotional scarring, disrupted psychological development, violent tendencies when removed from the conflict setting, and a lack of any peacetime skills.12 The impact is not confined within a country's borders. One need only to look to contemporary situations such as the recent fighting in Liberia to see militarizing children endangers the stability of entire regions. While it has been argued by some states that recruiting and using minors in armed service could be necessary for national security, the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research counters this claim in a report, stating that “the effects of armed conflict on children are devastating, not only for children themselves but for their societies.”13 Singer writes that “a particularly pernicious characteristic of child soldiering is the potential to ruin the lives of children and, in doing so, lay the groundwork for future conflict.”14 According to the CIA World Factbook, almost 30% of Colombia's population is under the age of 1415--a substantial population that could be the future hope or the future fighters of their country.
1 McManimom, Shannon and Stohl, Rachel. 2001. “Use of Children as Soldiers.” Foreign Policy in Focus, Vol. 6. , 1
2Ibid
3Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict,” http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/protocolchild.htm. Last accessed July 5, 2007.
4 United States Agency for International Development, “Latin America and the Caribbean: Colombia Overview,” http://www.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean/country/colombia/, June 30, 2007.
5Center for International Policy, “Colombia Program,” www.ciponline.org//colombia/infocombat.htm. Last accessed June 12, 2007.
6Ibid
7 Human Rights Watch, “You'll Learn Not to Cry: Child Combatants in Colombia,” hrw.org/reports/2003/colombia0903.html, June 22, 2007, 21
8Ibid, 25
9Ibid, 20
10Ibid
11Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict.”
12Singer, P.W. “Addressing the Global Challenge of Child Soldiers,” Geneva Center for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, www.dcaf.ch/_docs/Yearbook2005/Chapter6.prf, 117. Last accessed July 5, 2007.
13 Alfreson, Lisa, “Child Soldiers, Displacement and Human Security,” United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, www.unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdf_art1728.pdf, June 22, 2007.
14Singer, 119
15 Central Intelligence Agency, “Colombia,” The World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/
publications/the-world-factbook/geos/co.html, June 26, 2007
Cycles of Violence
Modern warfare ignores the traditional rules of the battlefield. Today, more than 90% of all war casualties are civilian, and children are increasingly not only victims of the violence but direct actors in it.1 As recently as 2001, it was estimated that 300,000 children were participating in armed conflicts around the world, and thousands more were facing recruitment or serving in armed forces not engaged in conflicts.2 The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict bans the involvement and recruitment of children under 18 in armed conflict.3 Despite 110 countries signing onto the Optional Protocol, both state and non-state actors continue to actively recruit and use children under 18 in both formal and non-formal militias. Currently, 20 countries are known to have children fighting in their conflicts; 10 of these have state militias implicated in the use of child soldiers. The United States provides 9 of these states with military assistance, one of which is Colombia.
Colombia has been in the throes of an internal conflict for 40 years. An estimated 1.4 million of the country's 43.3 people are internally displaced within Colombia itself, while hundreds of thousands more have fled to neighboring countries.4 The vast majority of children engaged in Colombia's conflict serve in two guerrilla organizations. Colombia's largest and oldest guerrilla group, Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) began in the late 1960's in response to a U.S.-sponsored attack on a Communist-inspired peasant cooperative in the southern Tomila department.5 Today FARC also has the dubious distinction of being the largest guerrilla group in the southern hemisphere, financing itself through kidnapping and ransom, extortion, and the drug trade. National Liberation Army (ELN), the other main guerrilla group, is significantly smaller than FARC. It primarily targets the oil sector and energy infrastructures in its attacks. Finally, United Self-Defense Groups of Colombia (AUC) is the largest paramilitary organization in the country. Though groups like the AUC were declared illegal in Colombia in 1989, funded by the drug trade and support of wealthy landowners, AUC is known for close and open collaboration with Colombia's official armed forces.6
Human Rights Watch reports that “in the debate over U.S. policy in Colombia, the recruitment of children by Colombia's illegal armed groups has been a secondary issue. Concern has focused more intensely on the Colombian military's tolerance and complicity in other grave (human rights) abuses.”7 Previously, the Colombian government and official armed forces were also actively recruiting and using child soldiers. In recent years the Colombian government has made some good faith efforts to end the use and recruitment of child soldiers within its own forces. In 1991, Colombia signed the Optional Protocol, although it has not yet been ratified. In 1997, documentation showed more than 15,000 children serving as soldiers in Colombia's government forces. Two years later the Colombian government demobilized 800 under 18-year-olds from government forces. While there are no current credible reports of children serving in Colombian government forces, there have been reports of the use of children as spies and informers by police and army units. In addition, the government has offered financial incentives for minors to become “peasant soldiers”, a scheme launched by the government at the end of 2002 to build a peasant army of 20,000.8
The phenomena of child soldiers in Colombia is a reflection of deep-rooted poverty and instability due to years of conflict. While some children are abducted into service, others, with few options for either security or sustenance, join militias out of desperation.9 The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research writes that “the lines between compulsory, voluntary, and forced recruitment are often blurred.” Once in service, child soldiers in Colombia are not protected from the horrors of combat. Human Rights Watch, in an interview with demobilized child soldiers in Colombia, found that children not only fought but also participated in human rights crimes such as torture, assassinations, and executions of non-military actors. Despite some efforts being made by the Colombian government to reintegrate demobilized child soldiers, the lack of an overall campaign to end the practice amounts to a failure to protect the human rights of these children on the part of the Colombian government.10
The lasting effect of child soldiering is recognized in the Optional Protocol, and states that agree to its terms are “disturbed by the harmful and widespread impact of armed conflict on children and the long-term consequences it has for durable peace, security and development.”11 Effects to children include physical and emotional scarring, disrupted psychological development, violent tendencies when removed from the conflict setting, and a lack of any peacetime skills.12 The impact is not confined within a country's borders. One need only to look to contemporary situations such as the recent fighting in Liberia to see militarizing children endangers the stability of entire regions. While it has been argued by some states that recruiting and using minors in armed service could be necessary for national security, the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research counters this claim in a report, stating that “the effects of armed conflict on children are devastating, not only for children themselves but for their societies.”13 Singer writes that “a particularly pernicious characteristic of child soldiering is the potential to ruin the lives of children and, in doing so, lay the groundwork for future conflict.”14 According to the CIA World Factbook, almost 30% of Colombia's population is under the age of 1415--a substantial population that could be the future hope or the future fighters of their country.
1 McManimom, Shannon and Stohl, Rachel. 2001. “Use of Children as Soldiers.” Foreign Policy in Focus, Vol. 6. , 1
2Ibid
3Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict,” http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/protocolchild.htm. Last accessed July 5, 2007.
4 United States Agency for International Development, “Latin America and the Caribbean: Colombia Overview,” http://www.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean/country/colombia/, June 30, 2007.
5Center for International Policy, “Colombia Program,” www.ciponline.org//colombia/infocombat.htm. Last accessed June 12, 2007.
6Ibid
7 Human Rights Watch, “You'll Learn Not to Cry: Child Combatants in Colombia,” hrw.org/reports/2003/colombia0903.html, June 22, 2007, 21
8Ibid, 25
9Ibid, 20
10Ibid
11Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict.”
12Singer, P.W. “Addressing the Global Challenge of Child Soldiers,” Geneva Center for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, www.dcaf.ch/_docs/Yearbook2005/Chapter6.prf, 117. Last accessed July 5, 2007.
13 Alfreson, Lisa, “Child Soldiers, Displacement and Human Security,” United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, www.unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdf_art1728.pdf, June 22, 2007.
14Singer, 119
15 Central Intelligence Agency, “Colombia,” The World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/
publications/the-world-factbook/geos/co.html, June 26, 2007
Monday, July 2, 2007
People smarter than me agree...
I assume this is the point of the all-important paper literature review? So be it. I promise things will get more interesting after this post. I'll remind you again that I'm still polishing things. Paper is due Sunday--there are many days for fine-tuning.
Donnelly writes of the many tools with which states have pursued human rights goals, including but not limited to investigations, cancellation of ministerial visits, embargoes, withdrawal or increasing of aid, and direct aid to both peaceful and military opposition—but rarely direct military action on behalf of human rights. When U.S. military policy has been addressed in relation to human rights, it is often in the context of either modern day imperialism or abuses carried out by U.S. forces past and present. It can be argued that it it simply not the role of an army tasked with providing national defense to end human rights abuses of foreign governments against their own citizens, as has certainly been the habit of more conservative circles within the United States itself. However, the military has increasingly been given the task of global public relations ambassador on top of national defense, charged with promoting a favorable impression of the U.S. abroad, for example through showing that U.S. troops can “use our combat skills to drop...supplies to those in need” in the aftermath of the tsunami . Recently the Defense Department has been expanding its control over foreign military training programs formerly run by the State Department, moving a former tool of foreign policy out of State's hands and into the pervue of the U.S. military. With arguably the world's largest skilled and highly-trained army, the U.S. is also uniquely positioned to use its military operations for both security protection and the greater good. While he was not explicitly discussing military objections, Donnelly bolsters this point when discussing the unique role of the U.S. in leading by example on the issue of human rights: “On the one hand, America has been seen as a beacon, the proverbial city on a hill, whose human rights mission was to set an example for a corrupt world...On the other hand, the American mission has been seen to require positive action abroad. The United States must teach not simply by its domestic example but by active international involvement on behalf of human rights.”
Recommending the U.S. to use its considerable monetary and international influence to end the recruitment and use of child soldiers in Colombia does is not a prescription that readily lends itself to categorization as a realist, liberal, or constructivist approach to the problem. As described in greater detail in a later section, the U.S. has pressing strategic interests in maintaining its influence in Latin American through Colombia. Therefore, there is “an intrinsic concern for power” that Donnelly writes as being a characteristic of a realist approach . However, a realist would likely see the prioritization of ending human rights abuses in Colombia as a non-central component of U.S. foreign policy in that country, especially when such large military operations and budgets are at play. The Center for International Policy, in a recent report on the increasingly blurring lines between State Department diplomatic programs and Department of Defense programs, writes that historically U.S. policy was often formed in agreement with a realist principle, as the “executive branch generally dislikes the idea of human rights conditionality in the law governing military assistance, since it may disrupt the flow of military aid.”
The case for U.S. involvement in stemming the use of child soldiers is a policy rooted somewhere between the liberal and constructivist schools of thought. Liberals, concerned with absolute gains from cooperation, have trade at the heart of interests in promoting human rights. However, in the case of Colombia and the United States one could argue that the interest is in ending trade—at least in the primary product of trade, narcotics. That said, the U.S. desire to maintain a stronghold of influence in the region, with particular regard to systems of government and social system, could be seen as tied closely to trade interests. The U.S. has already seen what can happen to trade in oil, for example, when a government becomes hostile to the U.S., as is the recent case of Chavez in Venezuela. Finally, constructivists view human rights as powerful forces with the potential to change international politics. Actors, both individual and collective, are shaped by the norms espoused in human rights doctrine. Societal change is possible through the promotion of human rights at all levels. In the case of Colombia, ending the use of child soldiers will break the cycle of violence in the civil conflict, at least in the long-term. Therefore, because of balance of U.S. strategic interests and the hopes for societal change, the policy prescription advanced in this study has its basis in both these schools of thought.
In Human Rights and National Security: The Strategic Coorelation, Burke-White advances a theory of “correlation between the domestic human rights practices of states and their propensity to engage in aggressive international conduct." As a result of this correlation between advancing rights and decreasing aggression, Burke-White recommends that the U.S. adopt a foreign policy informed by human rights so as to enhance its own security. It can be argued that while the risk of aggression on one's own soil is perhaps a nation's most paramount security concern, a state need not attack its neighbor or a far-away rival to pose a security threat. Refugee flows from a conflict-ridden nation across the border to a neighboring state can be equally disruptive. A January 2007 release from the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR) described the growing need for refugee processing centers on the Venezuelan border to deal with the increasing number of Colombians seeking security outside their country. According to ReliefNet, a respected resource for humanitarian workers, UNHCR and the Venezuelan government estimate 200,000 Colombians are seeking protection in Venezuela.
Both Burke-White and Robert Dahl advance the theory that democratic states do not abuse the human rights of their citizens. In citing the situation in Lebanon at the time of his piece, Dahl notes that negative impact of long-term conflict on the development of democratic institutions that protect human rights--an observation as relevant to Colombia and its 40 year conflict as to Lebanon.
Donnelly writes of the many tools with which states have pursued human rights goals, including but not limited to investigations, cancellation of ministerial visits, embargoes, withdrawal or increasing of aid, and direct aid to both peaceful and military opposition—but rarely direct military action on behalf of human rights. When U.S. military policy has been addressed in relation to human rights, it is often in the context of either modern day imperialism or abuses carried out by U.S. forces past and present. It can be argued that it it simply not the role of an army tasked with providing national defense to end human rights abuses of foreign governments against their own citizens, as has certainly been the habit of more conservative circles within the United States itself. However, the military has increasingly been given the task of global public relations ambassador on top of national defense, charged with promoting a favorable impression of the U.S. abroad, for example through showing that U.S. troops can “use our combat skills to drop...supplies to those in need” in the aftermath of the tsunami . Recently the Defense Department has been expanding its control over foreign military training programs formerly run by the State Department, moving a former tool of foreign policy out of State's hands and into the pervue of the U.S. military. With arguably the world's largest skilled and highly-trained army, the U.S. is also uniquely positioned to use its military operations for both security protection and the greater good. While he was not explicitly discussing military objections, Donnelly bolsters this point when discussing the unique role of the U.S. in leading by example on the issue of human rights: “On the one hand, America has been seen as a beacon, the proverbial city on a hill, whose human rights mission was to set an example for a corrupt world...On the other hand, the American mission has been seen to require positive action abroad. The United States must teach not simply by its domestic example but by active international involvement on behalf of human rights.”
Recommending the U.S. to use its considerable monetary and international influence to end the recruitment and use of child soldiers in Colombia does is not a prescription that readily lends itself to categorization as a realist, liberal, or constructivist approach to the problem. As described in greater detail in a later section, the U.S. has pressing strategic interests in maintaining its influence in Latin American through Colombia. Therefore, there is “an intrinsic concern for power” that Donnelly writes as being a characteristic of a realist approach . However, a realist would likely see the prioritization of ending human rights abuses in Colombia as a non-central component of U.S. foreign policy in that country, especially when such large military operations and budgets are at play. The Center for International Policy, in a recent report on the increasingly blurring lines between State Department diplomatic programs and Department of Defense programs, writes that historically U.S. policy was often formed in agreement with a realist principle, as the “executive branch generally dislikes the idea of human rights conditionality in the law governing military assistance, since it may disrupt the flow of military aid.”
The case for U.S. involvement in stemming the use of child soldiers is a policy rooted somewhere between the liberal and constructivist schools of thought. Liberals, concerned with absolute gains from cooperation, have trade at the heart of interests in promoting human rights. However, in the case of Colombia and the United States one could argue that the interest is in ending trade—at least in the primary product of trade, narcotics. That said, the U.S. desire to maintain a stronghold of influence in the region, with particular regard to systems of government and social system, could be seen as tied closely to trade interests. The U.S. has already seen what can happen to trade in oil, for example, when a government becomes hostile to the U.S., as is the recent case of Chavez in Venezuela. Finally, constructivists view human rights as powerful forces with the potential to change international politics. Actors, both individual and collective, are shaped by the norms espoused in human rights doctrine. Societal change is possible through the promotion of human rights at all levels. In the case of Colombia, ending the use of child soldiers will break the cycle of violence in the civil conflict, at least in the long-term. Therefore, because of balance of U.S. strategic interests and the hopes for societal change, the policy prescription advanced in this study has its basis in both these schools of thought.
In Human Rights and National Security: The Strategic Coorelation, Burke-White advances a theory of “correlation between the domestic human rights practices of states and their propensity to engage in aggressive international conduct." As a result of this correlation between advancing rights and decreasing aggression, Burke-White recommends that the U.S. adopt a foreign policy informed by human rights so as to enhance its own security. It can be argued that while the risk of aggression on one's own soil is perhaps a nation's most paramount security concern, a state need not attack its neighbor or a far-away rival to pose a security threat. Refugee flows from a conflict-ridden nation across the border to a neighboring state can be equally disruptive. A January 2007 release from the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR) described the growing need for refugee processing centers on the Venezuelan border to deal with the increasing number of Colombians seeking security outside their country. According to ReliefNet, a respected resource for humanitarian workers, UNHCR and the Venezuelan government estimate 200,000 Colombians are seeking protection in Venezuela.
Both Burke-White and Robert Dahl advance the theory that democratic states do not abuse the human rights of their citizens. In citing the situation in Lebanon at the time of his piece, Dahl notes that negative impact of long-term conflict on the development of democratic institutions that protect human rights--an observation as relevant to Colombia and its 40 year conflict as to Lebanon.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Human Rights via the barrel of a gun?
This is not the working title of my paper for the class I am taking "The Politics of Human Rights." In fact, I am still working like mad on the paper as well as trying to think of a catchy title. My focus is on making the case for the US to put ending the recruitment and use of child soldiers in Colombia as a top priority of their foreign policy. Below is an excerpt from the paper (still in progress). If anyone actually reads this, I would love to hear your thoughts.
" If, as Neumayer states, human rights play, at best, “a limited role in the allocation of aggregate bilateral and multilateral aid”, it should then come as no surprise that human rights plays almost no role in the disbursement of military aid. However, just as Neumayer suggests that one expects human rights to play some role in decisions surrounding development aid because of the assertions of donor countries that it does, so too one could also expect military involvement and aid to take into account human rights—if only because countries like the U.S. increasingly use human rights as grounds for engagement.
Historically, human rights has been the stepchild of U.S. foreign policy, and the promotion of human rights abroad seen as secondary--if no outright contrary to--the protection of national security and interests. While the importance of human rights is often discussed in the context of development aid, the amount of aid from most developed nations pales in comparison to their military spending in the developing world. To place the onus of human rights improvement squarely on the shoulders of development aid is both unfair and inefficient. As the U.S. proceeds to engage in military force on the premise of protecting and advancing human rights—as well as its own strategic interests—it should look to its military assistance and spending in the developing world to actually play a strategic role in the advancement of human rights. Without a defined policy on preventing the recruitment and use of child soldiers in states to which it supplies military support, the U.S. is party to the continuation of human rights abuses in countries like Colombia. This paper makes the case for the United States to place human rights at the top of its agenda for Colombia and use its significant military spending to promote the end of the use and recruitment and use of child soldiers for the interest of its, and Colombia's, long-term national security."
Stay tuned for part 2 ;)
" If, as Neumayer states, human rights play, at best, “a limited role in the allocation of aggregate bilateral and multilateral aid”, it should then come as no surprise that human rights plays almost no role in the disbursement of military aid. However, just as Neumayer suggests that one expects human rights to play some role in decisions surrounding development aid because of the assertions of donor countries that it does, so too one could also expect military involvement and aid to take into account human rights—if only because countries like the U.S. increasingly use human rights as grounds for engagement.
Historically, human rights has been the stepchild of U.S. foreign policy, and the promotion of human rights abroad seen as secondary--if no outright contrary to--the protection of national security and interests. While the importance of human rights is often discussed in the context of development aid, the amount of aid from most developed nations pales in comparison to their military spending in the developing world. To place the onus of human rights improvement squarely on the shoulders of development aid is both unfair and inefficient. As the U.S. proceeds to engage in military force on the premise of protecting and advancing human rights—as well as its own strategic interests—it should look to its military assistance and spending in the developing world to actually play a strategic role in the advancement of human rights. Without a defined policy on preventing the recruitment and use of child soldiers in states to which it supplies military support, the U.S. is party to the continuation of human rights abuses in countries like Colombia. This paper makes the case for the United States to place human rights at the top of its agenda for Colombia and use its significant military spending to promote the end of the use and recruitment and use of child soldiers for the interest of its, and Colombia's, long-term national security."
Stay tuned for part 2 ;)
Thursday, June 21, 2007
At what cost economic growth?
Today's NYT features an article on child labor in China, a subject that we've been discussing in the context of human rights in my summer course at Columbia (and you know I'm going to be writing my paper soon, so expect several posts of that as I work out the kinks).
For a while now, the standard response to human rights abuses in China is that human rights need to be sacrificed, at least to some extent, to get the country to a stronger place economically. Governments who trade with China tend to chime in that a stronger economy will lead to a decrease in human rights abuses and will also promote democracy. There are some studies that back that up, and no one can really argue that the standard of living hasn't increased remarkably for many Chinese. The problem is that human rights were never something intended to be put on the table in bargaining.
People are entitled to the full exercise of human rights simply by the fact of being human, not by being American or French but not Pakistani or Chinese. Your human rights are supposed to be protected and respected whether you live in the developed world or the developing one.
Human rights abuses against children are some of the most disturbing. Certainly the most vulnerable members of society, children have little or no influence in upholding their own rights. They depend on the adults of the society they live in to look out for their best interests. And, sometimes, that does mean working.
International standards on child labor have changed in the recent past to accommodate the harsh reality that, in the developing world, if you don't work you simply may not eat. Rules against child labor for those under 18 have been amended to outlaw the worst forms of child labor only. However, the Chinese examples cited in the NYT article, among others, show how the government is trying to side-step laws by making work part of a "school internship." My guess is that by working 15 hour days in factories most of these 12-15 year olds are only going to learn that they might want to emigrate someday.
For a while now, the standard response to human rights abuses in China is that human rights need to be sacrificed, at least to some extent, to get the country to a stronger place economically. Governments who trade with China tend to chime in that a stronger economy will lead to a decrease in human rights abuses and will also promote democracy. There are some studies that back that up, and no one can really argue that the standard of living hasn't increased remarkably for many Chinese. The problem is that human rights were never something intended to be put on the table in bargaining.
People are entitled to the full exercise of human rights simply by the fact of being human, not by being American or French but not Pakistani or Chinese. Your human rights are supposed to be protected and respected whether you live in the developed world or the developing one.
Human rights abuses against children are some of the most disturbing. Certainly the most vulnerable members of society, children have little or no influence in upholding their own rights. They depend on the adults of the society they live in to look out for their best interests. And, sometimes, that does mean working.
International standards on child labor have changed in the recent past to accommodate the harsh reality that, in the developing world, if you don't work you simply may not eat. Rules against child labor for those under 18 have been amended to outlaw the worst forms of child labor only. However, the Chinese examples cited in the NYT article, among others, show how the government is trying to side-step laws by making work part of a "school internship." My guess is that by working 15 hour days in factories most of these 12-15 year olds are only going to learn that they might want to emigrate someday.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Loving my home state
I've been MIA due to school and interview demands. Someday I'll pull it together. In the meantime, a tribute to my home state, pulled off of Feministing:
"I knew I liked NJ for a reason.
New Yorkers (us in the city, anyway) have a certain level of disdain for all things New Jersey. Not quite the same level as for, say, Long Island--but there's an expected amount of mocking of the garden state. Don't ask me why, it's a NY thing.
Well mock no more, my NYC brethren. Cause NJ just took it up a notch.
A pharmacy would be required to fill prescriptions for any drug it stocks such as birth-control pills regardless of a pharmacist's moral beliefs under a bill that cleared the Legislature on Monday.
The bill, approved 56-18 by the Assembly, establishes a pharmacy's duty to fill lawful prescriptions without undue delay and without consideration for a pharmacist's moral, philosophical or religious beliefs.
If a pharmacy doesn't have a prescription in stock, the pharmacy would have to either obtain it under expedited ordering or find a nearby pharmacy to fill the prescription.
NJ, I knew I loved you for a reason."
"I knew I liked NJ for a reason.
New Yorkers (us in the city, anyway) have a certain level of disdain for all things New Jersey. Not quite the same level as for, say, Long Island--but there's an expected amount of mocking of the garden state. Don't ask me why, it's a NY thing.
Well mock no more, my NYC brethren. Cause NJ just took it up a notch.
A pharmacy would be required to fill prescriptions for any drug it stocks such as birth-control pills regardless of a pharmacist's moral beliefs under a bill that cleared the Legislature on Monday.
The bill, approved 56-18 by the Assembly, establishes a pharmacy's duty to fill lawful prescriptions without undue delay and without consideration for a pharmacist's moral, philosophical or religious beliefs.
If a pharmacy doesn't have a prescription in stock, the pharmacy would have to either obtain it under expedited ordering or find a nearby pharmacy to fill the prescription.
NJ, I knew I loved you for a reason."
Sunday, June 3, 2007
The American Dream Project
As a former member of the Brooks Quimby Debate Council at Bates College--as well as a proud Bates Democrat--I can really geek out on these super-early presidential debates. The Democrats are on right now, and Gov. Richardson just came out with something that got my blood boiling a bit.
The Dems were discussing their positions on the newly proposed immigration/amnesty/citizenship/call it what you will plan. And Richardson, defending his support of the bill, said he is against breaking up families. And yet the very bill he supported requires the head of household to return to their home country (and let's all acknowledge this is only going to apply to Mexico and Central America) for up to--get this--13 years.
13 years. Tell me how this isn't going to fundamentally disrupt families.
The Huffington Post recently covered a project that is seeking to draw attention the issue of immigration in this country from the opposite position. It's called the American Dream Project and they are touring this country.
Obama just responded that we would all do well to remember that ours is a country founded by immigrants, built great on the backs of their labor and ambitions. We would all do well to recall that our families were not welcomed into this country either, yet now many of us stand on our pedestals of privilege and proclaim that 'our families came here legally.'
Let me tell you something: no, they didn't. There were no laws in place, or if there were they were based on xenophobia and racism (curbing the number of Chinese, for example). And if it were you, and your family, today, seeking a better life, tell me right now that you wouldn't also break the law for your children.
That's what I thought.
The Dems were discussing their positions on the newly proposed immigration/amnesty/citizenship/call it what you will plan. And Richardson, defending his support of the bill, said he is against breaking up families. And yet the very bill he supported requires the head of household to return to their home country (and let's all acknowledge this is only going to apply to Mexico and Central America) for up to--get this--13 years.
13 years. Tell me how this isn't going to fundamentally disrupt families.
The Huffington Post recently covered a project that is seeking to draw attention the issue of immigration in this country from the opposite position. It's called the American Dream Project and they are touring this country.
Obama just responded that we would all do well to remember that ours is a country founded by immigrants, built great on the backs of their labor and ambitions. We would all do well to recall that our families were not welcomed into this country either, yet now many of us stand on our pedestals of privilege and proclaim that 'our families came here legally.'
Let me tell you something: no, they didn't. There were no laws in place, or if there were they were based on xenophobia and racism (curbing the number of Chinese, for example). And if it were you, and your family, today, seeking a better life, tell me right now that you wouldn't also break the law for your children.
That's what I thought.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Not in our backyard
Four years after the start of the invasion of Iraq, that country is now experiencing a refugee crisis. Refugees International reports that it is the fastest-growing refugee crisis in the world.
At the start of the conflict, many refugee and relief organizations were poised to act, expecting the largely urban population to flee from Baghdad, in particular, into neighboring countries. In the immediate aftermath, that didn't happen and, as the country grew less stable and their mandate remained unclear, many refugee relief organizations pulled out.
Yesterday Frank Rich wrote in the NYT Op-Ed section that an estimated 2 million Iraqis had fled their country and another two million remain displaced within it--totaling 15% of the total population. Relief Net also commented on the the urgency of the issue earlier this month.
We don't often hear about the millions of desperate Iraqis who have packed up their things and moved to escape the chaos around them. And it turns out there is a reason: only 466 Iraqis have been given asylum in the US since the invasion. For comparison, Sweden, which was not part of the invading coalition, has accepted 25,000. And neighboring countries in the region, such as Syria and Egypt, have absorbed tens of thousands more.
The Iraqi people are being blamed for the chaos in their country, while the US has blatantly failed in its obligation to replace Saddam's government with functioning institutions--not to mention ensuring security. It is unconscionable that we as a country would turn away those who are forced to flee due to a security vacuum of our own making. This is about basic accountability. Iraqis are being turned away not because of security because we as a country don't want to face their pain and the results of the war on our doorstep.
Frank Rich, who of course makes his living from eloquent writing, sums it up better:
"While it seems but a dim memory now, once upon a time some Iraqis did greet the Americans as liberators. Today, in fact, it is just such Iraqis--not the local Iraqi insurgents...--who do want to follow us home. That we are slamming the door in their faces tells you all you need to know about the real morality behind Operation Iraqi Freedom."
At the start of the conflict, many refugee and relief organizations were poised to act, expecting the largely urban population to flee from Baghdad, in particular, into neighboring countries. In the immediate aftermath, that didn't happen and, as the country grew less stable and their mandate remained unclear, many refugee relief organizations pulled out.
Yesterday Frank Rich wrote in the NYT Op-Ed section that an estimated 2 million Iraqis had fled their country and another two million remain displaced within it--totaling 15% of the total population. Relief Net also commented on the the urgency of the issue earlier this month.
We don't often hear about the millions of desperate Iraqis who have packed up their things and moved to escape the chaos around them. And it turns out there is a reason: only 466 Iraqis have been given asylum in the US since the invasion. For comparison, Sweden, which was not part of the invading coalition, has accepted 25,000. And neighboring countries in the region, such as Syria and Egypt, have absorbed tens of thousands more.
The Iraqi people are being blamed for the chaos in their country, while the US has blatantly failed in its obligation to replace Saddam's government with functioning institutions--not to mention ensuring security. It is unconscionable that we as a country would turn away those who are forced to flee due to a security vacuum of our own making. This is about basic accountability. Iraqis are being turned away not because of security because we as a country don't want to face their pain and the results of the war on our doorstep.
Frank Rich, who of course makes his living from eloquent writing, sums it up better:
"While it seems but a dim memory now, once upon a time some Iraqis did greet the Americans as liberators. Today, in fact, it is just such Iraqis--not the local Iraqi insurgents...--who do want to follow us home. That we are slamming the door in their faces tells you all you need to know about the real morality behind Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Thursday, May 24, 2007
"P" is for pregnancy, and also for pariah
Quick, what do you think better constitutes a geometry lesson: a) learning how to use a protractor, or b) sewing quilts?
If you answered b) sewing quilts, then you will be sad to hear that the NYC 'pregnancy schools' are closing.
Someone in my human rights class raised this issue tonight to ask if the city's deliberate removal of pregnant teens from their regular schools to these so-called pregnancy schools--which by all indications have, since their inception in the 1960's, set these girls up for academic failure--could be considered an abuse of their human right to education.
The consensus in class--this includes the professor and people smarter than me--was that yes, this would be a clear violation of their human rights. I would probably go an additional step and say not only is it a violation of their human right to education, but also a violation of other charters because it is based clearly on their gender...since the boys who got them pregnant aren't sewing quilts.
The corresponding article in the New York Times doesn't mince many words, either.
The city is--finally--shutting them down, and will hopefully start concentrating on a) preventing teen pregnancy through thorough and accurate sex ed and b) working harder on getting teen parents to finish their diplomas.
If you answered b) sewing quilts, then you will be sad to hear that the NYC 'pregnancy schools' are closing.
Someone in my human rights class raised this issue tonight to ask if the city's deliberate removal of pregnant teens from their regular schools to these so-called pregnancy schools--which by all indications have, since their inception in the 1960's, set these girls up for academic failure--could be considered an abuse of their human right to education.
The consensus in class--this includes the professor and people smarter than me--was that yes, this would be a clear violation of their human rights. I would probably go an additional step and say not only is it a violation of their human right to education, but also a violation of other charters because it is based clearly on their gender...since the boys who got them pregnant aren't sewing quilts.
The corresponding article in the New York Times doesn't mince many words, either.
The city is--finally--shutting them down, and will hopefully start concentrating on a) preventing teen pregnancy through thorough and accurate sex ed and b) working harder on getting teen parents to finish their diplomas.
Role of NGOs in protecting human rights
Tonight is my second class in the politics of human rights at Columbia. The first class went well, although I must admit it is a little unnerving going back into academia, even if this is just one summer graduate course.
In my reading thus far one of the points I took particular notice of regarded the role of NGOs in protecting human rights. In an article from Human Rights Quarterly back in 1995, Rolf Kunnemann writes: "The United Nations is an organization of States. Although these States principally recognize human rights, many of them are not willing to have their own freedom of action restricted by precise obligations. Therefore, the United Nations can only be expected to do something in favor of implementing human rights if nongovernmental organizations do the necessary political preparatory work."
Part of the reason this resonated with me if because it makes very clear how valuable the work of NGOs is in the process of protecting rights. Kunnemann goes on to write that without NGOs there will never be any implementation of human rights.
So human rights depend on the vigilance of the people. But perhaps in my over-idealism I have to think that there is something bigger to our work that being perpetual watch dogs. While documenting abuses, rallying the public, and other public education efforts are all important, and serving your clients is humane and central to your mission, the end goal is to ultimately change the political environment so that, one day, you can go out of business because your work is done.
Maybe that day will never come, maybe you will always have to be vigilant, but the big goal is to no longer have a need for your work because the rights you seek to protect and the wrongs you seek to address are taken care of. I think we often get so caught up in the day to day listing of abuses, the logistics of keeping our heads above water and watching our funding, that it's easy to lose perspective of the ultimate goal of really building a better world.
I don't think that Kunnemann is wrong in stating the role of NGOs. But I also don't think we need to be limited by it.
In my reading thus far one of the points I took particular notice of regarded the role of NGOs in protecting human rights. In an article from Human Rights Quarterly back in 1995, Rolf Kunnemann writes: "The United Nations is an organization of States. Although these States principally recognize human rights, many of them are not willing to have their own freedom of action restricted by precise obligations. Therefore, the United Nations can only be expected to do something in favor of implementing human rights if nongovernmental organizations do the necessary political preparatory work."
Part of the reason this resonated with me if because it makes very clear how valuable the work of NGOs is in the process of protecting rights. Kunnemann goes on to write that without NGOs there will never be any implementation of human rights.
So human rights depend on the vigilance of the people. But perhaps in my over-idealism I have to think that there is something bigger to our work that being perpetual watch dogs. While documenting abuses, rallying the public, and other public education efforts are all important, and serving your clients is humane and central to your mission, the end goal is to ultimately change the political environment so that, one day, you can go out of business because your work is done.
Maybe that day will never come, maybe you will always have to be vigilant, but the big goal is to no longer have a need for your work because the rights you seek to protect and the wrongs you seek to address are taken care of. I think we often get so caught up in the day to day listing of abuses, the logistics of keeping our heads above water and watching our funding, that it's easy to lose perspective of the ultimate goal of really building a better world.
I don't think that Kunnemann is wrong in stating the role of NGOs. But I also don't think we need to be limited by it.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Politics of Human Rights
The boxes are (almost) unpacked, things are planted outside, and I've cooked three meals in the new apartment. It is starting to feel like home.
Tonight kicks off my summer program at Columbia's school of continuing education. I'm taking a 6 week course on the politics of human rights, so expect to hear a lot on that over the coming posts.
I'll post more after my reading assignment later today.
Tonight kicks off my summer program at Columbia's school of continuing education. I'm taking a 6 week course on the politics of human rights, so expect to hear a lot on that over the coming posts.
I'll post more after my reading assignment later today.
Monday, May 14, 2007
A rose by any other name...
I'm moving in 2 days and woefully behind on my packing. This, plus several interviews (yeh!) is going to put a dent in this week's reporting, I'm afraid. However, I just came across something that deserves comment to the non-profit community, and my friends in fundraising in particular.
Last year, the Salvation Army took Greenpeace to court over a bequest--because the deceased donor in question had failed to update his will to reflect Greenpeace's new name. Wait, it gets better: there were 8 charities named in the will, each set to receive $33 million--and the Salvation Army was the only one to let greed cloud their vision. Greenpeace argued that the donor's intent was more important under Washington State law, and a judge appears inclined to agree. As, I imagine, are most reasonable people, some of whom do not appear to work at the Salvation Army.
This kind of behavior is what you expect of the worst of the corporate world, not of those who work to make the world a better place. Don't get me wrong--in fundraising especially you need to be more than an idealist. You need to be driven, professional, and watching the bottom line. But whoever authorized this lawsuit at the Salvation Army--and I imagine it goes all the way up to the executive director--should be hauled in the front of the board, along with the planned giving director and their legal counsel.
I've always enjoyed the collaborative and open nature of the fundraising community. We share ideas, we learn from each other, we recognize we're all out there for the greater good. Apparently some of us forgot that along the way. It's worth remembering.
Last year, the Salvation Army took Greenpeace to court over a bequest--because the deceased donor in question had failed to update his will to reflect Greenpeace's new name. Wait, it gets better: there were 8 charities named in the will, each set to receive $33 million--and the Salvation Army was the only one to let greed cloud their vision. Greenpeace argued that the donor's intent was more important under Washington State law, and a judge appears inclined to agree. As, I imagine, are most reasonable people, some of whom do not appear to work at the Salvation Army.
This kind of behavior is what you expect of the worst of the corporate world, not of those who work to make the world a better place. Don't get me wrong--in fundraising especially you need to be more than an idealist. You need to be driven, professional, and watching the bottom line. But whoever authorized this lawsuit at the Salvation Army--and I imagine it goes all the way up to the executive director--should be hauled in the front of the board, along with the planned giving director and their legal counsel.
I've always enjoyed the collaborative and open nature of the fundraising community. We share ideas, we learn from each other, we recognize we're all out there for the greater good. Apparently some of us forgot that along the way. It's worth remembering.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Public health or the Pope?
The Pope hadn't even set foot in the country yet, but he managed to set off a debate in Brazil over the country's abortion law.
Brazil is the latest country of the Latin and South American nations to consider liberalizing its abortion law to protect women's health. Mexico City recently legalized abortion within its city limits, and last year Columbia's high court found the country's outright ban on abortions unconstitutional.
Brazil's president rightly sees the issue of abortion--and illegal abortion--as a matter of public health. On Monday, Mr. da Silva gave an interview to Roman Catholic radio stations stating that though personally opposed to abortion, as president he believes that “the state cannot abdicate from caring for this as a public health question, because to do so would lead to the death of many young women in this country.”
There are an estimated 1-2 million illegal abortions in Brazil every year.
There was a great quote from the president in the NYT piece: “No one is in favor of abortion,” Mr. da Silva said Tuesday, as the controversy was intensifying. “But the question is: should a woman be imprisoned? Should she die? It’s necessary to look at the woman as a human being.”
And who exactly should be deciding about the woman's health and body, anyway? The woman, or, perhaps, an 80 year old celibate man?
Visit International Planned Parenthood Federation's website on Brazil for more information on reproductive health programs in that country, or to contribute to their work looking out for women's health and lives.
Brazil is the latest country of the Latin and South American nations to consider liberalizing its abortion law to protect women's health. Mexico City recently legalized abortion within its city limits, and last year Columbia's high court found the country's outright ban on abortions unconstitutional.
Brazil's president rightly sees the issue of abortion--and illegal abortion--as a matter of public health. On Monday, Mr. da Silva gave an interview to Roman Catholic radio stations stating that though personally opposed to abortion, as president he believes that “the state cannot abdicate from caring for this as a public health question, because to do so would lead to the death of many young women in this country.”
There are an estimated 1-2 million illegal abortions in Brazil every year.
There was a great quote from the president in the NYT piece: “No one is in favor of abortion,” Mr. da Silva said Tuesday, as the controversy was intensifying. “But the question is: should a woman be imprisoned? Should she die? It’s necessary to look at the woman as a human being.”
And who exactly should be deciding about the woman's health and body, anyway? The woman, or, perhaps, an 80 year old celibate man?
Visit International Planned Parenthood Federation's website on Brazil for more information on reproductive health programs in that country, or to contribute to their work looking out for women's health and lives.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Expanding access, increasing hope
Yesterday the Clinton Foundation announced plans to provide reduced cost second-line anti-retroviral drugs as well as a new, once-a-day pill that is currently cost prohibitive in the developing world but considered the 'gold standard' in developed nations. These agreements lower the prices for 16 formulations of ARVs, which will be available to 66 developing countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean through the Clinton Foundation’s Procurement Consortium.
Last month, the UN reported that an estimated 2 million people around the world were receiving treatment for AIDS, but the number fell short by a third of what the UN had hoped to reach by this year. However, in 2003, only 400,000 people were being treated.
Increased access to anti-retroviral medication is a huge step forward in enabling people and entire communities to be able to return to work, support their families, and live longer and healthier lives. However, the distressing news to come out of all this is that prevention of transmission is still far from where it needs to be.
I'm currently reading Jeffrey Sach's "The End of Poverty" and for someone without a lot (ok, any) economics background I have to say to his credit very complex issues are written in a manner that even I can actually grasp. One of Sach's points is the enormous toll taken on productivity by preventable illnesses such as malaria, TB, and HIV/AIDS--all preventable, and with the exception of AIDS, curable. If the adult population of your already impoverished village is hit with AIDS it condemns the entire village to an almost unending cycle of poverty. Farming can not be done and crops fail. People go hungry and are more susceptible to disease. Income dwindles and no fertilizer can be bought to increase crops. Adult heads of households die and the young are now in charge of raising their siblings--and not able to finish schooling.
All heavy stuff for first thing in the morning, perhaps, but increasing access to medications is good news and certainly a step in the right direction. Kudos to the Clinton Foundation for their continuing efforts.
Last month, the UN reported that an estimated 2 million people around the world were receiving treatment for AIDS, but the number fell short by a third of what the UN had hoped to reach by this year. However, in 2003, only 400,000 people were being treated.
Increased access to anti-retroviral medication is a huge step forward in enabling people and entire communities to be able to return to work, support their families, and live longer and healthier lives. However, the distressing news to come out of all this is that prevention of transmission is still far from where it needs to be.
I'm currently reading Jeffrey Sach's "The End of Poverty" and for someone without a lot (ok, any) economics background I have to say to his credit very complex issues are written in a manner that even I can actually grasp. One of Sach's points is the enormous toll taken on productivity by preventable illnesses such as malaria, TB, and HIV/AIDS--all preventable, and with the exception of AIDS, curable. If the adult population of your already impoverished village is hit with AIDS it condemns the entire village to an almost unending cycle of poverty. Farming can not be done and crops fail. People go hungry and are more susceptible to disease. Income dwindles and no fertilizer can be bought to increase crops. Adult heads of households die and the young are now in charge of raising their siblings--and not able to finish schooling.
All heavy stuff for first thing in the morning, perhaps, but increasing access to medications is good news and certainly a step in the right direction. Kudos to the Clinton Foundation for their continuing efforts.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Divesting in Sudan
Philanthropy News Digest picked up a piece from May 4th LA Times regarding investments held by Berkshire Hathaway in companies that profit from Sudanese oil . Now ordinarily this probably wouldn't have raised so many eyebrows except that Bill Gates is a director at Berkshire--and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is an investor in these same companies.
However, the Gates Foundation's biggest connection to the companies, according to the articles, is through Berkshire Hathaway.
Berkshire holds a $3.3-billion stake in PetroChina Co., a subsidiary of the China National Petroleum Corp., or CNPC, the biggest player in Sudanese oil. Buffet has both previously decried the violence in Sudan but said a divestment in Sudanese oil would not change the situation on the ground.
Since 2004, the Foundation has been giving grants to refugee and relief organizations working to aid the victims of the genocide in Darfur, including CARE and the International Rescue Committee.
This isn't the first time the Gates Foundation has been called out on the carpet for its investments, particularly companies that cause environmental damage in developing countries and large pharmaceutical companies accused of overpricing or withholding life-saving drugs from the world's poor.
One could certainly make the case that by holding such large shares in pharma companies the Foundation is able to exert much more influence on their practices of donating or withholding medication. However, I'm doubtful the same could be said about Sudanese oil.
Divestment to impact social change is nothing new. It worked to help bring the end of the shameful practice of apartheid in South Africa. Other companies withdrew investments surrounding the Vietnam war. And it should be clear that those calling for divestment in Sudanese companies are not looking to hurt ordiniary citizens but rather are targeting their calls for divestment at companies closely involved with the Khartoum government and others with links to the janjaweed.
You can find more information about Sudan divestment on the Sudan Divestment Task Force website.
However, the Gates Foundation's biggest connection to the companies, according to the articles, is through Berkshire Hathaway.
Berkshire holds a $3.3-billion stake in PetroChina Co., a subsidiary of the China National Petroleum Corp., or CNPC, the biggest player in Sudanese oil. Buffet has both previously decried the violence in Sudan but said a divestment in Sudanese oil would not change the situation on the ground.
Since 2004, the Foundation has been giving grants to refugee and relief organizations working to aid the victims of the genocide in Darfur, including CARE and the International Rescue Committee.
This isn't the first time the Gates Foundation has been called out on the carpet for its investments, particularly companies that cause environmental damage in developing countries and large pharmaceutical companies accused of overpricing or withholding life-saving drugs from the world's poor.
One could certainly make the case that by holding such large shares in pharma companies the Foundation is able to exert much more influence on their practices of donating or withholding medication. However, I'm doubtful the same could be said about Sudanese oil.
Divestment to impact social change is nothing new. It worked to help bring the end of the shameful practice of apartheid in South Africa. Other companies withdrew investments surrounding the Vietnam war. And it should be clear that those calling for divestment in Sudanese companies are not looking to hurt ordiniary citizens but rather are targeting their calls for divestment at companies closely involved with the Khartoum government and others with links to the janjaweed.
You can find more information about Sudan divestment on the Sudan Divestment Task Force website.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Medics behind bars can't save lives
Now, if you had a team of qualified international medics trying to save children in your country, one might say it doesn't make sense to blame them for the sickness of the children in your hospital.
This story always gets me so angry I can barely see straight.
The BBC reports that six Bulgarian medics previously convicted by a Libyan court of infecting children in a hospital with HIV are on trial--again--now for supposedly making false claims of torture that they say were used to extort confessions.
The medics have been in prison in Libya since 1999, accused of infecting over 400 children with the virus that causes AIDS. Libyan courts, and the government, have refused to acknowledge that HIV was present in their town prior to the medics' arrival in 1998. They were convicted a second time on appeal late last year. A new trial for the infection allegations is due to open later this month after the accused successfully appealed against their death sentences. More information on the case can be found here.
Experts from the French medical team that first discovered HIV have testified on behalf of the medics that the infections were likely caused by unhygienic conditions in the hospital that predate the arrival of the medics.
These people have been in prison for almost ten years. How many lives could they have saved if they had been free all this time?
This story always gets me so angry I can barely see straight.
The BBC reports that six Bulgarian medics previously convicted by a Libyan court of infecting children in a hospital with HIV are on trial--again--now for supposedly making false claims of torture that they say were used to extort confessions.
The medics have been in prison in Libya since 1999, accused of infecting over 400 children with the virus that causes AIDS. Libyan courts, and the government, have refused to acknowledge that HIV was present in their town prior to the medics' arrival in 1998. They were convicted a second time on appeal late last year. A new trial for the infection allegations is due to open later this month after the accused successfully appealed against their death sentences. More information on the case can be found here.
Experts from the French medical team that first discovered HIV have testified on behalf of the medics that the infections were likely caused by unhygienic conditions in the hospital that predate the arrival of the medics.
These people have been in prison for almost ten years. How many lives could they have saved if they had been free all this time?
Thursday, May 3, 2007
A woman's place is in the house...
...and the senate, and the white house. But in Australia, apparently only if she isn't "willfully barren." Or so says Australian senator Bill Heffernen of Julia Gillard, Labor Party deputy leader. It's so nice that in this day and age women can still be judged not by the content of their character but by the content of their wombs. I can just imagine if she did have a small litter of kids that she'd still be judged unfit to lead because clearly no good mother would spend so much time outside the home. But it's not as if we in the US are immune from such perceptions (see Nancy Pelosi surrounded by a dozen children, or imagine what pummeling Hillary would be getting right now if not for the presence of Chelsea).
France's presidential debates yesterday are garnering a fair share of media attention this morning. Royal was accused by Sarkosky of "losing her cool" in the debate once or twice--oh, those emotional women--but there is a real chance that France could have a woman president after Sunday's election. The BBC has a piece on the "family affair" of the current French presidential campaigns and, thankfully, does not focus only on the fact that yes, Royal has children. At least we know she'd be qualified to lead in Australia ;)
Finally, the NYT has a piece today featuring CARE's rebranding and restructuring of its programs to focus more on helping women. CARE, which spawned the original 'care package' many moons ago, is actually quite blunt about why they changed their approach: "(The old brand) didn’t cause CARE to appeal to any defined audience in the United States, like great brands do,” said Adam Hicks, director of marketing. “We went back and studied our work, and it became pretty clear to us that our most effective investment was in programs like education, micro-enterprise and small-business development aimed at empowering women.”
Their "I am Powerful" campaign targets wealthy women age 35+ to donate to CARE programs helping less fortunate women around the world. This is a notable campaign for a few reasons: 1) it demonstrates to a certain extent how organizations are increasingly tailoring their missions to meet funding needs (and, at times, to meet the needs of funders); 2) it is seeking to engage a relatively young cadre of donors (35+); and 3) they are explicit that they are seeking private money to offset the 45% of their budget that comes from the US government and is therefore unable to be used to, say, provide condoms to prostitutes in Thailand or birth control to a young mother in Bangladesh.
France's presidential debates yesterday are garnering a fair share of media attention this morning. Royal was accused by Sarkosky of "losing her cool" in the debate once or twice--oh, those emotional women--but there is a real chance that France could have a woman president after Sunday's election. The BBC has a piece on the "family affair" of the current French presidential campaigns and, thankfully, does not focus only on the fact that yes, Royal has children. At least we know she'd be qualified to lead in Australia ;)
Finally, the NYT has a piece today featuring CARE's rebranding and restructuring of its programs to focus more on helping women. CARE, which spawned the original 'care package' many moons ago, is actually quite blunt about why they changed their approach: "(The old brand) didn’t cause CARE to appeal to any defined audience in the United States, like great brands do,” said Adam Hicks, director of marketing. “We went back and studied our work, and it became pretty clear to us that our most effective investment was in programs like education, micro-enterprise and small-business development aimed at empowering women.”
Their "I am Powerful" campaign targets wealthy women age 35+ to donate to CARE programs helping less fortunate women around the world. This is a notable campaign for a few reasons: 1) it demonstrates to a certain extent how organizations are increasingly tailoring their missions to meet funding needs (and, at times, to meet the needs of funders); 2) it is seeking to engage a relatively young cadre of donors (35+); and 3) they are explicit that they are seeking private money to offset the 45% of their budget that comes from the US government and is therefore unable to be used to, say, provide condoms to prostitutes in Thailand or birth control to a young mother in Bangladesh.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
A moot court?
The New York Times reports that the International Criminal Court in the Hague has issued warrants for two Sudanese leaders--one in Khartoum and the other a janjaweed leader--suspected of involvement in war crimes in Darfur.
Sudan does not recognize the ICC (like some other countries we know and live in) so it remains to be seen if the warrants will prove anything other than symbolic, or at best a warning to others who may wish to take similar actions in their own countries. The court is only allowed to act on Sudan due to a UN mandate.
The BBC has a good round up of the charges and the suspects here.
Yesterday UNHCR decried the temporary abduction of six of its staff in West Darfur.
Sudan does not recognize the ICC (like some other countries we know and live in) so it remains to be seen if the warrants will prove anything other than symbolic, or at best a warning to others who may wish to take similar actions in their own countries. The court is only allowed to act on Sudan due to a UN mandate.
The BBC has a good round up of the charges and the suspects here.
Yesterday UNHCR decried the temporary abduction of six of its staff in West Darfur.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Monday morning quarterback
My legs may be recovered from yesterday's run but my brain doesn't appear to be so here's a short recap of newsworthy items from the past few days:
Major European cities held protests over the weekend to highlight the fourth anniversary of the conflict in Darfur. Apparently protests were also held in over 200 US cities--but I can't find a shred of coverage. The Christian Science Monitor reports on why it's hard to get a genocide charge to stick in Sudan. My short take on it: should the reason behind the death and displacement of hundreds of thousands of people be cause for inaction? Racially-motivated genocide or crime against humanity--it's not as if one option here is more understandable than the other.
Amnesty International reports that China is taking a step in the wrong direction, cracking down on dissent in the buildup to the 2008 Olympics. Good news: China has been making some progress on its human rights record under the watchful eye of international markets for some time. Bad news: China is worried about the impression of the Olympics to the watchful eye of international markets.
The ASPCA was part of a bust on a dog fighting operation in the south. This country is long overdue in ramping up animal cruelty laws and humane education. Sentences for animal cruelty need to reflect the anti-social behaviors of those who commit the abuses. First it's animals, then it's people. That's not rocket science.
Finally, three progressive organizations consider taking the US Government to court over wasteful spending on ineffective and medically-inaccurate abstinence only programs. Teens who don't get accurate sex ed don't stop having sex--they just don't protect themselves when they do. Ignorance doesn't equal 'innocence' people!
And for an amusing take on abstinence only programs, a clip from Family Guy.
Major European cities held protests over the weekend to highlight the fourth anniversary of the conflict in Darfur. Apparently protests were also held in over 200 US cities--but I can't find a shred of coverage. The Christian Science Monitor reports on why it's hard to get a genocide charge to stick in Sudan. My short take on it: should the reason behind the death and displacement of hundreds of thousands of people be cause for inaction? Racially-motivated genocide or crime against humanity--it's not as if one option here is more understandable than the other.
Amnesty International reports that China is taking a step in the wrong direction, cracking down on dissent in the buildup to the 2008 Olympics. Good news: China has been making some progress on its human rights record under the watchful eye of international markets for some time. Bad news: China is worried about the impression of the Olympics to the watchful eye of international markets.
The ASPCA was part of a bust on a dog fighting operation in the south. This country is long overdue in ramping up animal cruelty laws and humane education. Sentences for animal cruelty need to reflect the anti-social behaviors of those who commit the abuses. First it's animals, then it's people. That's not rocket science.
Finally, three progressive organizations consider taking the US Government to court over wasteful spending on ineffective and medically-inaccurate abstinence only programs. Teens who don't get accurate sex ed don't stop having sex--they just don't protect themselves when they do. Ignorance doesn't equal 'innocence' people!
And for an amusing take on abstinence only programs, a clip from Family Guy.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
"For my entire life, I have lived with war"
If people knew that children were being terrorized and used as weapons of war in conflicts around the world, would they do more to help?
The words above were spoken by a Ugandan girl trying to raise awareness of the impact of conflict on adolescents in her country.
Sadly, she is far from alone. Today's NYT Week in Review featured an article on the troubling prevalence of child soldiers in modern wars. Focusing mostly on conflicts in Africa, Jeffrey Gentleman's piece rightly points out that these children are as much the victims of current conflicts as those they inflict harm upon.
Child soldiers are defined by UNICEF as "any person under 18 years of age who is part of any kind of regular or irregular armed force or armed group in any capacity – including, but not limited to, combatants, cooks, porters, messengers and anyone accompanying such groups, other than family members. The definition includes girls recruited for sexual purposes and for forced marriage." Those too young to fight are often kidnapped for use as porters and messengers; those who survive and grow up in the militias move on to fighting--and killing. It is not unknown for the children to be given copious amounts of drugs, essential for warding off hunger and exhaustion, and the brutal reality of their lives. Girls, forced to serve as cooks and sex slaves, often emerge from conflict with the children of their tormentors.
In Northern Uganda, an area notorious for the use of child soldiers, around 40,000 children, called "night commuters," flee from their homes in villages and into the cities each night to escape kidnapping by the Lords Resistance Army. Their fear is warranted. According the UNICEF, since the mid-80's the LRA has kidnapped almost 25,000 children. Those not forced to fight find their lives and educations disrupted by conflict, diminishing their prospects as adults--and increasing the likelihood of instability for their country in the future.
The Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children rightly points out that displaced youth are a group on the brink: given resources they are the future leaders and peace-builders of their troubled nations. Ignored, and left at the mercy of circumstance, they can too easily fall into violence. You can read about the experience of young people in conflict-affected areas, in their own words, here.
Working with former child soldiers and integrating them back into their homes and villages is a daunting task, but well worth the effort as children and teens removed from battle but not accepted back into society are more likely to turn back to violence. Unfortunately adolescents are an often overlooked target of relief programs. But without addressing their needs, the donor community will find itself right back where it started in only a matter of time.
Some current reading on this topic: Ishmael Beah, a former child soldier in Sierra Leone’s brutal civil war and resettled refugee in NYC, has written A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier. Starbucks is selling his book in its stores.
Now you know.
The words above were spoken by a Ugandan girl trying to raise awareness of the impact of conflict on adolescents in her country.
Sadly, she is far from alone. Today's NYT Week in Review featured an article on the troubling prevalence of child soldiers in modern wars. Focusing mostly on conflicts in Africa, Jeffrey Gentleman's piece rightly points out that these children are as much the victims of current conflicts as those they inflict harm upon.
Child soldiers are defined by UNICEF as "any person under 18 years of age who is part of any kind of regular or irregular armed force or armed group in any capacity – including, but not limited to, combatants, cooks, porters, messengers and anyone accompanying such groups, other than family members. The definition includes girls recruited for sexual purposes and for forced marriage." Those too young to fight are often kidnapped for use as porters and messengers; those who survive and grow up in the militias move on to fighting--and killing. It is not unknown for the children to be given copious amounts of drugs, essential for warding off hunger and exhaustion, and the brutal reality of their lives. Girls, forced to serve as cooks and sex slaves, often emerge from conflict with the children of their tormentors.
In Northern Uganda, an area notorious for the use of child soldiers, around 40,000 children, called "night commuters," flee from their homes in villages and into the cities each night to escape kidnapping by the Lords Resistance Army. Their fear is warranted. According the UNICEF, since the mid-80's the LRA has kidnapped almost 25,000 children. Those not forced to fight find their lives and educations disrupted by conflict, diminishing their prospects as adults--and increasing the likelihood of instability for their country in the future.
The Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children rightly points out that displaced youth are a group on the brink: given resources they are the future leaders and peace-builders of their troubled nations. Ignored, and left at the mercy of circumstance, they can too easily fall into violence. You can read about the experience of young people in conflict-affected areas, in their own words, here.
Working with former child soldiers and integrating them back into their homes and villages is a daunting task, but well worth the effort as children and teens removed from battle but not accepted back into society are more likely to turn back to violence. Unfortunately adolescents are an often overlooked target of relief programs. But without addressing their needs, the donor community will find itself right back where it started in only a matter of time.
Some current reading on this topic: Ishmael Beah, a former child soldier in Sierra Leone’s brutal civil war and resettled refugee in NYC, has written A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier. Starbucks is selling his book in its stores.
Now you know.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Run as One Tomorrow
This time tomorrow I will be found icing my shins and begging for a back rub after running the annual Thomas G. Labrecque's "run as one" event in Central Park. The Foundation raises money for lung cancer treatment and awareness and, having lost my father a long time ago to this illness, I am happy to do my part.
About a month ago I learned of the event and started training and raising money. With only 4 weeks to go I set a modest fundraising goal of $500, but thanks to my wonderful family and friends I actually exceeded my goal. Many thanks again to everyone who gave so generously!!
I picked up my race number yesterday--I'm 7550--and I have to admit, this being only my third race ever, I'm both nervous and inspired by how many other folks are running. Those number bibs are very thin and there were many, many boxes of them. Yikes! I hope the other runners will take pity on me.
If you are up early for some reason tomorrow, stop by Central Park and cheer us on--I think I, at least, will need it! And, if you can't go but still want to help, you can make a donation to the Foundation any time on their website.
About a month ago I learned of the event and started training and raising money. With only 4 weeks to go I set a modest fundraising goal of $500, but thanks to my wonderful family and friends I actually exceeded my goal. Many thanks again to everyone who gave so generously!!
I picked up my race number yesterday--I'm 7550--and I have to admit, this being only my third race ever, I'm both nervous and inspired by how many other folks are running. Those number bibs are very thin and there were many, many boxes of them. Yikes! I hope the other runners will take pity on me.
If you are up early for some reason tomorrow, stop by Central Park and cheer us on--I think I, at least, will need it! And, if you can't go but still want to help, you can make a donation to the Foundation any time on their website.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Somalia didn't go away...
...We just stopped caring about it.
As newspapers and some media cover the continuing unrest in Somalia's capital, John Holmes, the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, warned that Somalia had become the most dangerous place in world for aid workers.
Meanwhile, the Somali prime minister claims victory and declares that Ethiopian and government troops are in control of the Somali capital, Mogadishu, after nine days of battles.
Let's pause for just a moment here. The past nine days have certainly seen as escalation in violence in an already war-ravaged capital (and country) but it's not as if the situation in Somalia hasn't been in a downward spiral for, oh, over fifteen years, while the international community (and by this I mean governments and heads of state) hasn't exactly been working too hard to remedy it.
And what of the people still in Somalia? A recent report from OCHA estimates up to 300,000 people have recently been displaced. Aid relief is estimated to be reaching about 60,000--when it can get to them. Apparently the government 'checks' on aid shipments are necessary to prevent insurgent attacks. Hhhhmmm....right.
BBC Arabic asked for Somali viewpoints on the situation in their country; you can read it here. Also worth noting is an interview on the BBC with Asha Hagi Elmi, a Somali woman who founded her own party, the Sixth Clan, to represent women, in the now-in-exile (again) Somali government.
Want to do something? You can find a list of groups working in Somalia on ReliefWeb here.
As newspapers and some media cover the continuing unrest in Somalia's capital, John Holmes, the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, warned that Somalia had become the most dangerous place in world for aid workers.
Meanwhile, the Somali prime minister claims victory and declares that Ethiopian and government troops are in control of the Somali capital, Mogadishu, after nine days of battles.
Let's pause for just a moment here. The past nine days have certainly seen as escalation in violence in an already war-ravaged capital (and country) but it's not as if the situation in Somalia hasn't been in a downward spiral for, oh, over fifteen years, while the international community (and by this I mean governments and heads of state) hasn't exactly been working too hard to remedy it.
And what of the people still in Somalia? A recent report from OCHA estimates up to 300,000 people have recently been displaced. Aid relief is estimated to be reaching about 60,000--when it can get to them. Apparently the government 'checks' on aid shipments are necessary to prevent insurgent attacks. Hhhhmmm....right.
BBC Arabic asked for Somali viewpoints on the situation in their country; you can read it here. Also worth noting is an interview on the BBC with Asha Hagi Elmi, a Somali woman who founded her own party, the Sixth Clan, to represent women, in the now-in-exile (again) Somali government.
Want to do something? You can find a list of groups working in Somalia on ReliefWeb here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
