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."

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.