Nov 08

Indebted to Debt?

Just over a decade ago, public debt was just under $3 trillion and the US was running a budget surplus. Two wars, two recessions, and eleven years later, the debt has skyrocketed to $14.94 trillion, $10.20 trillion of which is public debt (debt held by investors outside the federal government, the Fed, foreign, state, and local governments). Today, economists wonder how the US government will be able to pay off its debt. David Kestenbaum of NPR recently wrote an article discussing a fear that economists within the Clinton administration had – that the US would eventually pay off all of its debt and would stop issuing US Treasury bonds.

It might be hard to believe now, but this was actually a valid concern during the Clinton administration. The CBO projected that the national debt would be paid off by 2012. Kestenbaum acquired a government report via the Freedom of Information Act Request titled “Life After Debt,” in which economist Jason Selgiman voiced his concern that this reduction in Federal debt and eventual accumulation of Federal asset presents three big issues:

1) Investors could no longer capitalize on risk free and easily attainable US Treasury bonds, and these bonds would no longer serve as a benchmark to compare the returns of other, riskier investments to or set mortgage rates.

2) The Fed would have to change the way it conducts monetary policy. Currently, the Fed’s conducts open market operations to influence bank reserves, short-term interest rates, and money supply by buying and selling Treasury bonds. As the government paid off its debt and the Fed no longer held Treasury bonds, they would have to conduct open market operations buy buying and selling corporate bonds, agency debt, and sovereign debt. Whichever assets the demand for Treasury bonds shifts to will become the new benchmark for interest rates around the world. However, Selgiman discussed his concerns this might be risky, as investors might not be as confident in these new assets as they were in Treasury bonds.

3) After the government pays off its debt, what will they do with their continued surplus? They could buy state and local bonds, but historically these bonds have much lower returns than Treasury bonds. Also, just as foreign countries and investors would no longer be able to invest in Treasury bonds, money for Social Security could no longer be invested in Treasury bonds. Whereas purchasing sovereign debt has guaranteed returns, many other investments do not have this guarantee. With both the US surplus and Social Security funds, the government would have to decide which assets to invest in that would mitigate risk and also have decent returns.

Seligmen and other economists in the Clinton administration assessed the risks and decided in the long run, while paying off some of its debt as quickly as possible would be beneficial and decrease interest expenses, it would not be in America’s best interests to pay off all of its debt. After all, if the government got stuck with a surplus and a lack of risk-free assets to invest in, it may be stuck in a place where it has to cut taxes to an unsustainable level or invest riskily. While tax cuts may be good in the short run, it probably is not a good option because the government will probably have to raise its revenue stream in the future. This will add uncertainty to the market. Because there isn’t necessarily a good place for this surplus to go, the Fed would not have the ability to precisely control monetary policy, and foreign investors, governments, and banks would have no risk-free asset to invest in, it is probably best for the US to have some outstanding debt.

This is not to say that economists in the Clinton administration would advocate the government’s excessive spending over the past decade. Due to business cycles, there are often times (such as the recent Great Recession) where the government has no choice but to increase spending to inject money into and stimulate the economy. Having too large of a debt makes it difficult to incur more and more debt while maintaining Continue reading

Share

Nov 07

Networks and Connections at the IS Conference

It is always fascinating to be in a room full of people focused on changing the issues that plague society. For some it will be improving education, for others it is funding that next great social innovation. For others it may be researching and determining the best way to address a community health crisis. Though their paths may be different, the goal at the end is almost always that we all live in a better world. My takeaway from last week’s Independent Sector (IS) conference is though paths may not always naturally cross, it is expanded connections and networks that will create real social change. Learning from others what works, sharing how collective impact and partnerships can move the needle on social issues, and creating connections across methods in the sector will make a lasting difference.

Though this was not surprising, and is something that we at the SISGI Group see as core to our work, it was interesting to see how often these ideas of connections/collaborations were shared as a best practice throughout the conference. I have stated previously the difficulty that those of us working on social change experience when trying at times to collaborate with others doing similar or related work. I have often felt, and still believe, that it will be up to the funding community to change the way that individual nonprofit organizations view connections within the sector. For as long as there exists a mechanism for increased competition between similarly focused organizations, there will be limited opportunities for collective impact or collaboration. Many of the funders expressed and provided examples of the ways they are changing their giving from that of forced collaboration and as Howard W. Buffet at the Social Good Summit defined “Philanthropic Colonialism” to a strategy where they are encouraging networked action and grassroots partnerships. This was an encouraging change in the philanthropic landscape.

The highlight of the conference is not necessarily the content shared in workshops or sessions, but in the opportunity to bounce ideas, strategize and network with other professionals interested in creating change. With the diversity in professional focus, role and organizations it provided a unique opportunity to learn and connect from within the sector. Unfortunately, given the limited budgets for training and professional development within most organizations, attending may not be an option for many nonprofit professionals from smaller organizations located outside of the geographic location of the conference. There is so much to be learned from all segments and sizes of organizations working for change. This lack of opportunity may create a limited discussion/perspective around social problems within the conference. The nonprofit leaders working tirelessly with a very restricted budget and local partners, may not be represented in a community of professionals working in well funded and connected national organizations. As someone who has worked in and with organizations at both ends of the nonprofit spectrum, I see the importance of having both perspectives in all discussions around social change. However, the group that was in attendance at the NGen pre-conference, including the many local individuals working for organizations in the Chicago area, left me inspired and excited about the ways this “Next Generation” are going to lead the sector. This included listening to Ben Rattray of Change.org discussing his frustration with the current methods of investing/philanthropy in this sector vs. the for-profit/venture capital sector during an evening plenary. It also included an opportunity to connect and learn from Robert Briggs of the GAR Foundation and Chairman of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation during the Ambassador luncheon. The conference was full of opportunities to see and hear different perspectives on social change.

Though this conference is an amazing learning and networking opportunity, it can be a Continue reading

Share

Nov 04

Changing the Formula

Art has power. Those who are moved by it can be motivated to do great things. “We Shall Overcome” served as an anthem for protestors during the Civil Rights Movement. Books have convinced children to pursue education. The photograph of “Tank Man” on Tiananmen Square has taught many, many people just how much one defiant person can accomplish.

Not all artists take this power seriously. And they shouldn’t have to. They should have the freedom of expression. Their primary concern shouldn’t have to be to serve as an inspiration to others.

But it is certainly refreshing when we do see artists who use their power to help others. I stumbled upon such an artist recently. Ben Haggerty, better known by his stage name Macklemore, is a hip hop artist who uses his art to warn listeners of the dangers of substance abuse.

I was not originally drawn to Macklemore because of his music; rather, I just think his music is really good. But after a few listens to “Otherside,” I realized that Macklemore isn’t you typical artist. He uses his past mistakes to help others avoid them. In the song, Macklemore admits that he struggled with drug addiction – mainly with OxyContin. But rather than glorifying this period in his life, he gave reasons for others not to undertake this lifestyle. He discusses how we often view ourselves as invincible and reminds us of the sobering reality that people often die from drug abuse. Even if abusers avoid sudden death, Macklemore warns his listeners that drugs users sometimes lose inspiration and “sell [their] dreams and [their] potential to escape through that buzz,” that drugs can leave them “broke, depressed, and emotionally vacant,” and that addiction can make good people do bad things.

These are messages we need from our mainstream artists. But, as Macklemore sadly admits, “us as rappers underestimate the power and the effects that we have on these kids,” are “trapped in a box to climb record sales” and “follow the formula violence, drugs, and sex sells.” But this begs the question, why is this the formula to success? I often hear complaints that the commercialization of hip hop has killed it. I don’t think this is fair or true. Many artists (such as Macklemore) exist and want to set a positive example. But as they struggle to maintain a large following, other artists who glorify violence and drug use are routinely at the top of the charts.

While I don’t think it is right to censor artists, regardless of message, I think it is time for the media, parents, and hip hop fans to promote artists such as Macklemore. If we all do so, perhaps we can change the formula for mainstream success.

Shaunak Varma is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group. To learn more about the SISGI Group visit www.sisgigroup.org.
Share

Nov 03

Sustainable Urban Development for the Future

A few weeks back I went to a Garmeen Creative Lab Workshop, where Bill Moggridge, the Director of the Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum spoke about the new exhibition: Design With the Other 90% Cities. I was reminded of this exhibit when I was researching for my last piece on the 7 billionth person entering the world. The role of this Cooper-Hewitt event is to bring to the attention the expanding role and necessity of proactive design geared towards improving the lives of the growing number of people.

This brings me back to the fundamental question of how our planet is going to develop to sustain all of these humans. An emerging focus of development now is urban sustainability. Urbanization and the solutions that must follow are going to be a crucial focus for our future. As of 2008, the UN reported that more than half of the world’s population was living in urban cities and towns. In theory this should be a good thing. This puts less strain on governments, making education and health services more efficient and accessible to greater numbers. Similarly, closer proximity lends itself to ease in business and access to goods, while alleviating strain on surrounding natural biodiversity.

However, this is how things operate in theory. Reality shows that a number of cities are migration destinations leading to more rapid expansion rates than others. This is inevitably going to cause developmental constraints, often resulting in the formation of favelas, townships, slums, and informal housing settlements. It is easy to name such cities: Mumbai, Rio De Janeiro, Dhaka, ect. The question for the future is how do we learn from their solutions (failed or otherwise)? After all, these cities will be leading the example of how we approach and avoid such problems into the future.

Through reading and actually having traveled through a number of townships myself, there appears to be a number of different approaches towards appeasing the settlers. However, I must ask if the theory behind each is sustainable.

Small scale, local projects such as the one in Cairo, Egypt have sprung up out of innovation. A pro-poor system of waste management was developed to send individuals door to door to collect and recycle waste. This provides income for both the collectors as well as alleviating the internal need to import certain goods by recycling 80% of the collected waste. A local need was observed and addressed in such an innovative way that the community directly benefits as well as the workers.

Other, more government promoted projects can be observed as well. In Thailand, the government has worked with the motorbike taxi drivers in unionizing the drivers and offering them a uniform. While this legitimizes their businesses, it also stands to serve Continue reading

Share

Nov 03

Trafficking Calls to Action

January is right around the corner. It signifies the beginning of a new year, of new opportunities and resolutions. It is also gives a solemn reminder of the 27 million people who don’t enjoy the freedoms and opportunities we do. In 2010, President Barack Obama designated January as National Slavery and Human Trafficking Awareness month. During this month, people throughout the country will be raising awareness on the fact that enslavement still exists in America.

Since the passing of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 or the federal anti-trafficking law, non-governmental organizations and government agencies have launched several outreach campaigns. These are meant to show the inhumanity of modern-day slavery and engage the public to help identify victims. They also try to prevent others from falling prey to this form of exploitation.

The media has been a useful tool in informing the community and reaching households throughout America. I’ve identified three public service announcements (PSAs) created to convey the message of combating human trafficking. If a local television station in your home town or city were to show one, which one should they choose? Which one do you think captures your attention and in the short allotted time, tells you exactly what human trafficking is and what you can do to stop it? Pick and vote. Then, maybe you can take it a step further and pursue your local community station, radio, or theater to play the short video for January 2012 and the 27 million slaves.

*Please note the following public service announcements present strong material. Viewer discretion is advised.

Department of Homeland Security

United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking PSA 1


United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking PSA 2

So what did you think? Did one call you to act?

Regina Bernadin is a doctoral student at Nova Southeastern University focusing on Conflict Analysis and Resolution.  As a SISGI intern, her primary areas of interest are conflict resolution, human rights and Latin American political, economic and socio-cultural issues. Her interest in the development of human rights abroad has taken her to several Latin American countries, including Colombia, Ecuador and Suriname.
Share

Nov 03

New Hope for Peace in Syria

A few weeks ago I wrote a post about Syria and whether or not the international community should intervene and impose a no fly zone like they did in Egypt.  Well, today, some heartening news came from Syria:  Syria has agreed to end its crackdown on anti-government demonstrations, pull troops from the streets, and release jailed prisoners.  The agreement was reached through negotiations with the Arab League, which was one of the last diplomatic initiatives under way to end the uprising and crackdown.  Of course, many feel that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad only agreed to Arab League mediation to buy time, though this agreement did dispel some of those rumors.

Unfortunately, the announcement followed in the wake of another bout of violence, which left at least 20 people dead in the past 24 hours.  According to UN estimates approximately 3,000 people have been killed since the uprising began in March; clearly, some sort of cease-fire agreement was necessary.  This is not the first time, however, that President al-Assad has assured the UN that the violence against the protestors will stop.  Hopefully the pressure from the Arab League, as well as the international community, will force al-Assad to stick to his word this time, and the violence will truly come to an end in Syria.

President al-Assad’s previous history of broken peace agreements has caused the international reception to the proposal to be understandably tepid.  The United States, for example, reiterated its call for al-Assad’s resignation, despite the announcement.   The White House feels that President al-Assad has lost his legitimacy and must step down, not broker peace deals and submit to Arab League monitoring.  The Arab League opposition council stated that the Syrian regime is simply trying to buy time, and they wanted harsher conditions to be imposed on Syria to make sure al-Assad does not return to violence.  They suggested that Syria be suspended from the Arab League and that international protections for civilians be assured, the same measures that were taken against Libya months earlier.  The rest of the League, however, insists that the Libyan model cannot be repeated in Syria, and in fact al-Assad has told news sources that he will cooperate with the (Syrian) opposition, but if Western powers intervene (like they did in Libya) it would cause an “earthquake.”

So what does this agreement mean for Syria?  If al-Assad follows through—which, clearly, few believe he will—it will hopefully mean an end to the horrific violence of the past few months and an easing of tensions.  The proposal calls on al-Assad and his government to withdraw troops and artillery from the streets, release prisoners, allow the Arab League to send monitors into the country, and to begin negotiations with the opposition.  Exactly which opposition group that would be remains unclear, since there are a wide variety of unorganized opposition groups currently protesting the regime.  International journalists will also be allowed into Syria, and will be given free movement throughout the country so that they can document everything that unfolds.  The opposition groups appear to be happy with the proposal, stating that they will abide by the Arab League agreement as long as al-Assad’s government does, too.  If not, they will resume protesting.

I sincerely hope that al-Assad honors the agreement and the violent crackdown comes to an end; though Libya has received most of the media coverage, Syria has in fact been much more violent in its crackdown against protestors.  But given al-Assad’s history and the highly uncertain state of affairs in Syria, I cannot say with certainty that I think the violence will finally come to an end.  It could be that a cease-fire will not be reached until al-Assad has been taken down or flees the country.  What do you think?  Is this agreement a ray of hope for Syria, or will it be just another one of al-Assad’s broken promises?

Michelle Bovée is a SISGI Group Program and Research Intern focused on international affairs, economic development, and responsible tourism. To learn more about the SISGI Group visit www.sisgigroup.org

Share

Nov 02

A Torturous Past

I was born in Argentina during one of the country’s darkest period. I might have been too small to remember the turbulent times, but I grew up hearing the stories of disappearing youth, tortured protesters and despairing families. It is estimated that during the 1970s and 80s, approximately 20,000 people were killed by the country’s military; many whose bodies were never recovered.

This is not only a shameful part of Argentina’s history, but also of some of its neighbors, including Brazil and Uruguay. During this time, military dictatorships controlled the government, and leftist groups fought against them and their beliefs. Anyone who was suspected of opposing the majority was tortured, killed or disappeared without a trace; this was especially true in Argentina. The repercussions of this period are still felt by many of this area’s residents.

Pedro Sandoval, 33, learned 5 years ago that he was the child of “disappeared” leftists. Many times, captive pregnant mothers were kept alive only until they gave birth and their children could be placed with military families. This was his case. His true identity was only confirmed through a DNA database trying to match the babies stolen during this era.

A new generation of leaders in the Southern Cone are trying to change history, better the image of the nations, and seek justice for the families of those who were persecuted during those decades. We can see this in Uruguay’s President Jose Mujica who was held in solitary confinement for years, and in Brazil’s current President Dilma Rousseff, who was a former guerrilla fighter and a prisoner and was tortured by the dictatorship.

With new presidents and stronger democracies in place, the tides are turning and previous laws protecting the perpetrators are being replaced with newer ones condemning the use of torture and the widespread killings.

Argentina: Last week, a dozen military officers who ran the most infamous detention center in the country’s history were sentenced to life in prison for the disappearances of thousands of leftist protestors. Since the nation’s amnesty law was overturned in 2005, 262 people have been convicted. There are 14 more cases currently being tried, and 10 more are scheduled to begin trial.

Brazil: The Senate voted to create a truth commission to probe crimes committed during the military regime that ruled South America’s largest country from 1964 to 1985.

Uruguay: The nation withdrew their amnesty law, which previously made it impossible to prosecute crimes committed during the military dictatorship that ended a quarter century ago.

As we can see, torture has often been used as a method of political re-education, interrogation, and punishment. In the United States, as many as half-a-million torture survivors reside, seeking refuge from the horrors experienced in their homelands. These individuals were brutalized by oppressive regimes like those in Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina because of what they believed, their affiliations, what they said or did, or what they represented.

What I found interesting during my research is that while these three countries view torture as unacceptable and morally-reprehensible, the U.S has gradually changed its perspective. In the decade since the September 11, 2001 attacks, there have been a debate in the United States about whether torture is justified in some circumstances.

The debates generally consist of two main opposing views. Mostly, figuring on the need for torture to retrieve sensitive information in regards to U.S security. One viewpoint finds that the need for information outweighs the moral and ethical arguments against torture.

A second perspective, opposes torture and finds it completely unecessary.  This opinion, which has been voiced by several high officials in the federal government, has pointed out that despite the former Bush Administration claims that waterboarding has prevented several attacks against the American people, they do not believe that evidence gained by the government through this form of interrogation has disrupted a single attack.

Recent polls show that the divide is clear.  It is shaped by religion, political affiliation and race.  The more conservative, the more likely to want to use methods of torture to wirthdraw information.  Also whites are more likely to want the government to employ these techniques.

While I feel proud of my country of birth for the steps it’s taking to remedy a sad episode in its history, I worry about this country, which is now my home. I wonder if this new debate will lead this country in an unforeseen direction. I ask myself if decisions will be made that will mark the United States’ history with dark periods like those experienced by the Southern Cone nations. Maybe the U.S can learn from its neighbors from the South and learn from their mistakes and avoid decades of unrest, dissastifaction, and hurt suffered by its people.

Regina Bernadin is a doctoral student at Nova Southeastern University focusing on Conflict Analysis and Resolution. As a SISGI intern, her primary areas of interest are conflict resolution, human rights and Latin American political, economic and socio-cultural issues. Her interest in the development of human rights abroad has taken her to several Latin American countries, including Colombia, Ecuador and Suriname.
Share

Nov 02

Screen Shot

More Children Under 8 are Spending Time Looking at Screens

Almost every major human achievement that is discussed in today’s society has something to do with technology and computers.  The iPad, iPhone, Xbox, Wii, and countless other pieces of technology are in the hands of adults and children.  A common thread between all these innovative pieces is the fact that they have a screen that harnesses the attention of any individual using such products.  Children, especially, have become the new generation of young people who are surrounded by TVs, video game systems, computers, and portable tablets.  However, though this exposure to technology at an early age has certain benefits, the drawbacks are even more important to understand.

For years, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that children spend less time in front of screens; recent studies show that more eight year olds are exposed to screens than ever before.  Further studies for younger children show that kids under the age of two watch over two hours of television every day.  This goes against the Academy’s suggestions that children under two not be exposed to any screens at all at such a young age.  The reasoning behind this recommendation revolves around the fact that quality time between parents and young kids is impeded when a TV is on.  Parents tend to be distracted when a program is being watched, and toddlers generally do not play with the same enthusiasm if a TV is blaring somewhere in their vicinity.  Even programs that are meant for younger audiences are unhealthy for children at such a young age.  It is a proven fact that kids learn more from face-to-face interaction, and lead healthier lifestyles, develop stronger vocabularies, and suffer less from speech impediments.

Numerous other reports state that children who spend too much time watching television, playing video games or other screen related activities are likely to suffer from a list of issues.  A few concerns include irregular sleeping patterns, difficulty in school, less time spent outdoors, and behavior problems.  However, another major issue that has come up is the fact that the scope of screens has changed.  Tablet computers, like the iPad, have become quite popular with higher income families because parents can download interactive apps for their young children.  These apps, both educational and game-like, are not always available to lower income families who most likely only have televisions in their homes.  Though the Academy of Pediatrics has said time and time again that screens are unhealthy for young children, parents are eschewing this information due to the fact that phone and tablet apps are both interactive and child friendly.  More often than not, children are learning something from these apps that they are not getting from TV, and parents think they are helping their kids by not letting them sit in front of televisions all day long.

However, studies are showing that specialists and researchers are unsure where the iPad and other tablet computers fit into the screen time health issues. A myriad of specialists are unsure how the iPad affects young children because not enough research has been done on such a new piece of technology.  Furthermore, iPads and other tablets have a whole range of apps made just for young children.  There are apps for handwriting, hand-eye coordination, practicing vocabulary, and any other skill under the sun.  In fact, there are hundreds of lists posted online that rank which apps are best for children within a certain age group.  A lot of them are rather interesting, and look like they promote creativity and valuable skills for children to learn.  Regardless of how much TV and videogames children watch and play, there is something to be said about the innovative nature of tablet computers, and how they have managed to change the way children think and learn.

Share

Nov 01

Happy 7 Billionth Birthday?

Yesterday, October 31st, we saw the earth’s population reach 7 billion people. Oddly enough, I didn’t feel the ground shake or claustrophobia overwhelm me when I went outside. Instead, it was not until my Twitter feed started sharing all sorts of stories about what should/would/has happened and how us humans are going to face the future. I came across doomsayers as well as optimists. From those looking to the past, to cautiously looking towards what we are doing for the future. Essentially everyone is looking at the numbers: 12 years ago the count was 6 billion, while we are predicted to reach 10 billion people by 2100. How bad can all of this really be?

The first sighted doomsayer was Thomas Malthus, who argued that the inevitable population boom would lead to chaos and global unsustainability. This fear comes from recognizing that there are only a finite number of resources available for humans. Already we are not able to figure out food redistribution, resulting in exhausting arable land and stretches of famine. Similarly, we are heavily extracting from below ground while polluting the atmosphere above. With so many disparate groups calling for action and attention, could this 7 billionth birth be a factor to bring awareness towards all of our flaws? Where Jeffery Sachs does a good job explaining the strain we are putting on our future here, no solutions have been proposed.

I believe that all of this hype is a good thing for the general public. While perhaps we can ease off all of the scare tactics (after all we have gone through the “end of the world” predictions before), we can instead look at the progress that must be done to sustain all of these people. Everyone from the UN to the World Food Program to the World Bank are putting out media geared towards raising awareness promoting their ideal solution.

Instead of dreading the future, why don’t we take a second to look back to how much has been done in the past few short centuries that has led humanity to where we are today? Only a few hundred years ago, we were just starting to work with electricity and we have since made exponential strides, from going to space to harnessing the ability to use the internet from our pockets. As we continue to grow exponentially in numbers so does our knowledge and capacity to conquer our surroundings.

This stands to highlight the fundamental flaw in these doomsday arguments. Where resources on our earth are limited, knowledge is not a limited resource. It can be shared and transferred, without risk of running out or loosing it to competition. Unlike finite matters of money and food, knowledge is infinite and innovation will be the key towards humanity’s survival.

I know this sounds idealistic, but I would prefer to look at any bright side of a situation that we cannot control. Realistically, we cannot impose a one-child policy the world over, and we cannot force people to change generational family traditions over the course of the next 20 years. However, what we can do is expand educational opportunities to women and children. Theoretically this delays marriage and conception age. We can also expand agriculture technology and connect cities in an effort to improve food distribution and labor productivity. These steps coupled with medical advancements, and adapting the need for expanding urban spaces (and many other examples) will work towards limiting family size and an improved well being for our future earth.

I do not put forth these examples to suggest that the future depends on strictly helping the poor countries into development. The burden of this expanding populace relies equally on developed nations to curb our consumerism and develop more sustainable practices. Without such changes, our earth will certainly not be able to maintain us. Again, I don’t think that these challenges are impossible. Indeed, many disparate organizations have been advocating different approaches and improvements in our routines for decades. I simply hope that this Birthday event unites these movements in an effort to show how far we still must go in attaining reasonable sustainability.

I don’t believe that famine, death, and the collapse of civilization are necessarily in our immediate future. With so many great minds in existence now, we can invariably start taking steps towards a sustainable future. A future for us, and the next 7 billion to follow.

–Katherine Peterson is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group focused on theories of development, globalization, and political ramifications of development work

 

 

 

Share

Nov 01

Creando paz con el arte

El Teatro de La Libertad

Read this post in English 

Anteriormente he escrito acerca de cómo el arte, y en particular la música, puede ayudar a resolver problemas sociales y económicos (leer artículo). Hace poco me enteré de otro gran ejemplo de cómo el arte puede ser útil para aliviar conflictos sociales.

Asistí a una charla dada por actores palestinos del Teatro de la Libertad. El Teatro de la Libertad es un escuela de dramaturgia y un centro cultural en el campo palestino de refugiados llamado Jenin. Es el único lugar en donde se cultiva el arte y el teatro en el norte de Cisjordania, en Palestina. Es una institución que ofrece por primera vez el arte a niños y jóvenes que viven en el zona de refugio. La escuela crea alumnos pero también crea un público. Educa a este público a través de espectáculos y talleres.

El Teatro de la Libertad es un espacio donde los niños y jóvenes pueden tener un crecimiento sano. Por vivir en un campo de refugiados, están rodeados de los militares, tienen que lidiar con la muerte y la violencia todos los días. Por lo tanto la juventud de Jenin se enfrenta constantemente  al temor, la depresión y el trauma. Estos jóvenes tienen pocas oportunidades de expresar sus miedos y angustias.

El Teatro de la Libertad ofrece a los niños y jóvenes adultos en la zona de Jenin un espacio seguro en el que ellos son libres de expresarse, de explorar su creatividad y las emociones a través de la cultura y las artes. Se les proporciona oportunidades para desarrollar las habilidades, el conocimiento de sí mismo y la confianza, que puede ayudarles a oponerse realidades actuales.

Para darle fin a la guerra, es esencial ser capaz de imaginar alternativas a la guerra, ser capaz de imaginar un mundo mejor. Si los jóvenes crecen en un ambiente donde todo es violencia no es posible que piensen en soluciones que no incluyan la violencia. Es por eso que el Teatro La libertad es tan importante. Da a la gente la imaginación para tratar de encontrar alternativas para la paz. Mediante el fomento de la libertad de expresión y el respeto de los derechos individuales a través de las artes, las actividades culturales que tienen lugar en el Teatro Libertad logra romper tabúes, estimular la cooperación y mejorar la comprensión de los demás. La gente que trabaja en el teatro de la libertad son “activistas creativos”. Ellos son los que están creando un cambio para cambiar la forma de pensar y la forma de cómo se perciben a sí mismos.

Basándose en lo que uno de los actores dijo, se puede ver que el teatro de la libertad es un lugar que libera en más de una forma.

 El Teatro de la Libertad no sólo se refiere a la libertad de nuestra tierra, también se refiere a la libertad de nuestra mente.

Crecer en un campo de refugiados de Palestina significa que la vida y la muerte son intercambiables. Tanques, cañones y el miedo son lo usual. Los niños no tienen la opción de crear alternativas, ya que no hay tiempo para soñar. El Teatro les permite imaginar mundos mejores, les permite ver más allá de la realidad militar. Se les da esperanza, se les enseña a valorar la vida.

Para dar un ejemplo del cambio que el teatro crea, los actores describieron su primera presentación. La primera presentación fue una adaptación de Rebelión en la Granja al conflicto entre Israel y Palestina. El día posterior a la presentación de la obra, la gente quemó el teatro. ¿Qué podría causar una reacción así? Aunque el propósito y los culpables de los incendios son inciertos, el espectáculo creó una fuerte reacción de la gente. La reacción violenta es una buena señal porque representa el inicio de una rebelión en la mente de las personas. Este diálogo era anteriormente una especie de tabú cultural. Para los refugiados palestinos, para las víctimas de la guerra, es difícil hablar abiertamente de una situación cuyas causas están más allá de su poder pero que los afecta en todos los sentidos. Cuestionar su situación es un paso esencial para encontrar la paz. Tiene que desafiar y cuestionar sus concepciones y lo que piensan de la guerra para poder encontrar la paz.

Aunque el teatro tiene un propósito hermoso su historia está llena de drama. Empezó cuando una mujer israelí, Arna, fue al campamento y comenzó la escuela de arte en los años 80. El objetivo era dar a los niños del campamento una esperanza que podrían obtener sólo a través del arte.

Después de la muerte de Arna, su hijo Juliano Mer Khamis, continuó su trabajo. Continuó enseñando las cualidades necesarias para crear actores y artistas. Desafortunadamente, fue asesinado en Jenin, afuera del teatro, en 2011. Mentes tan creativas son vistas como una amenaza para los militares y los fundamentalistas. El teatro-y, en general, el arte, libera la mente de la gente en una manera que la política nunca va a hacer.

Juliano creía que la tercera Intifada (o levantamiento palestino) debe ser cultural, debe ser a través del arte. Decía en tono de broma a sus alumnos “Ustedes no van a ser famosos, no van a estar en Hollywood. Ustedes van a ser los agentes de la paz, y no va a ser un trabajo fácil así que no estén tan orgullosos”.

Desde su muerte, la compañía aún continúa su trabajo, no quieren permitir que la muerte de Juliano destruya su objetivo. Han actuado en Berlín, Nueva York, y el deseo de volver a Palestina, porque allí es donde tienen que trabajar para crear la paz.

 Julia Naime (@julianasah) es Asistente a la Investigación y Programas del SISGI Group. Es estudiante de Economía en New York University. Durante su pasantía en el SISGI Group, investigará sobre Desarollo rural, Problemas ambientales y Economía internacional 
Share