Sep 15

Loss of Innocence: Children in Combat

There are parts of the world, where children don’t worry about how to tell their parents they received a bad grade or convince them to let them go out on a Friday night.  That carefree life is a far reality from the grim existence that many live in throughout the world.  There is a generation of children who haven’t had the luck to attend school or have loving parents.  These young people are instead being used in the frontlines of combat and turf wars at some of the most violent hotspots in the world.

Child soldiers and teen assassins are the foot soldiers of organized crime networks, militant groups and rebel factions who violently try to impose their agenda through bloody means.  According to The Advocates for Human Rights, in over twenty countries across the globe, 200,000 to 300,000 children play active roles in warfare; half of them in Africa.

So what is a child soldier?  Who are these children?

UNICEF defines this term as “any person under age 18 who is part of any kind of regular or irregular armed force or group in any capacity, including but not limited to cooks, porters, messengers and those accompanying such groups, other than purely as family members. The definition includes girls recruited for sexual purposes and for forced marriage. It does not, therefore, only refer to a child who is carrying or has carried arms.”

This phenomenon is not new.  It has been recorded that in the Spanish Civil war, as well as World War II, children served as look outs and support for the armed forces. Today, most children used in war are not used by governments, but by non-state actors.  These are non-political groups who hold lots of influence in their community or region.  Some examples are rebel groups and drug cartels.

Many parts of the world see the use of children as integral players in a long standing fight for control.  According to a report published in a British newspaper, in Afghanistan, young men were recruited, from predominantly Islamic religious schools, to serve as soldiers and suicide bombers for militias and the Taliban.  Similarly, in Colombia, an estimated 11,000 children are involved in the war between left-wing guerrillas, right-wing paramilitaries and the government. Violence, and poverty are too common, making children vulnerable to the insurgency in the area.

So what are the consequences of this phenomenon? Sociologists and anthropologists can look at the political, socio-cultural, and economic costs and implications of each individual who has lost years of education, was separated from the family nucleus, or lost their life in these conflicts.  Looking at the individual; however, we see the cost is even greater.

In some countries in Africa and Asia, former child soldiers are punished, incarcerated, sentenced to death or executed.  These children were never given the opportunity to have a normal childhood.  At their most vulnerable, they were just pawns in a fight over money and control.

However, this story doesn’t need to end on a sad note.  While the challenges are many and the work is daunting, we can find a silver lining.  Demobilizing projects have made headway in rescuing, and retraining these young people. The United Nations and non-governmental organizations, have partnered to offer a culturally-sensitive and holistic approach to reintegration.  Also, for the first time in its history, the United States has addressed the plight of child soldiers, as currently defined.

In the reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2008, the U.S government created the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008.  This Act defines child soldiers, condemns the practice of the use of children in combat, supports international laws, and prohibits the government from providing assistance to governments who support this practice.  This last part is important because the U.S has previously imposed sanctions on non-humanitarian aid to countries who have not complied with the provisions under the TVPA.  The TVPA will be once again be reauthorized in 2011.  It is our duty to these children to voice our recommendations to strengthen the law and provide additional protections for child soldiers around the world.

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

Sep 14

Fumigacion Area en Colombia

En un esfuerzo de reducir el trafico de drogras, muchos paises han recurrido a la erradicacion forzada de cultivos ilegales. Existen dos principales maneras en las que la erradicacion forzada toma lugar: fumigacion aerea o eliminacion por tierra. En teoria, se assume que la erradicacion de estos cultivos permitira y detendra el trafico de drogas. En la practica, no existe ninguna prueba de que la erradicacion forzada haya tenido buenas consecuencias. Ademas, los efectos negativos en los derechos humanos, el medio ambiente y las culturas tradicionales se ha negado.

En Colombia, se hace uso de la fumigacion aerea para eliminar cultivos de droga. Colombia, el productor mas importante de cocaina, a esta enrollado en un conflicto interno armado y en una crisis humanitaria desde la mitad de 1960. Guerrillas se levantaron en armas. Se asume que la mayor parte de los recursos de estas guerillas proviene de las plantaciones de cocaina. Por consiguiente, el gobierno a deseado eliminar sus principal fuente de recursos destruyendo las plantaciones. El “Plan Colombia”, firmado en 2000, es un programa de ayuda ofrecido por los Estados Unidos. Consiste en ofrecer millones de dolares para usarse en gastos militares. Este plan es el que financio las fumigaciones aereos de los consecutivos anos.

Por una parte, la fumigacion involucra a grupos de hombres acompanados por la policia o los militares, que arrancan y infectan plantaciones de coca. Desafortunadamente, estas fumigaciones no son tan buenas. En Colombia, muchos campesinos han reportado casos de robo, destruccion, y abusos sexuales. Por el otro lado, las consecuencias de la fumigacion aerea han sido desastrosas. La presencia de quimicos causaron problemas de salud, degradacion del medio ambiente y de los cultivos. Por consiguiente causaron que mucha gente migrara del campo.

Las personas afectadas por estas fumigaciones aereas son generalmente los campesinos y las comunidades rurales que estan forzadas a vivir cultivando granos ilegales debido a su situacion economica. Los campesinos que no cultivan drogas muy seguido no tienen manera de como sobrevivir, y por consiguiente son mas suceptibles de unirse a una guerilla o cultivar cocaina. Sin embargo, la cocaina puede volver a crecer rapidamente en las areas fumigadas, mientras que la mayor parte de los productos agricolas ya no pueden. Es por esto que para emprender un eficiente y durable fin al trafico y produccion de drogas, es necesario tomar otras medidas y ofrecer otras vias de desarollo a los campesinos.

Los campesinos necesitan tener los correctos incentives y las buenas oportunidades para hacer una transicion de cultivos ilegales a legales. La fumigacion aerea no es una manera efectiva de detener las cultivaciones de droga. Despues de una fumigacion, lo que pasa muy seguido es que los cultivadores de drogas se mudan a otras areas virgenes para cultivar. Esto hace que destruyan una mayor parte de la selva Colombiana y que introduzcan mas quimicos al medio ambiente.

En Colombia, metodos alternatives de desarollo (como un apoyo economico al campesino, educacion y entrenamiento) han sido entorpercidos por la falta de infraestructura. Con el Plan Colombia, el gobierno de los Estados Unidos y el de Colombia han gastado mas de un billon en fumigacion aerea. Estos gastos pudieron haber sido utilizados para organizar programas de apoyo y recursos seguros para los campesinos, y para darles incentivos para que dejen de cultivar granos ilicitos. Esto hubiera tenido un impacto de corto y largo plazo, y hubiera podido re establecer la confianza entre campesinos y gobierno.

Se sabe bien que para que los metodos alternativos de desarrollo sean eficientes, los programas de desarollo tienen que consistir de una buena estrategia. Este no es el caso de las fumigaciones aereas. Mientras a los campesinos les parezca mas facil sobrevivir cultivando cocaine que vendiendo productos legales, el problema de las drogas no se va a eliminar.

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

Sep 13

Post 9/11 Development Aid: A change of focus?

Being a current student in New York City, it been hard to avoid all of the attention being paid to the 10-year anniversary of September 11th this last weekend. While I was not here when the attacks took place, I can’t help but be drawn in to the debates of where the city is now and how far we as a country have come. Listening to President Obama speak at Ground Zero while standing next to former President Bush elicited emotions and memories from New Yorkers and all Americans, and not to mention brings to the forefront the successes and failures that each leader has faced.

While I know it is cliché to state that we must understand the global implications of these attacks, I believe that it has been one of the single most important events in recent history. However, in the context of foreign aid and international development, has 9/11 changed the way we approach our humanitarian goals? Undoubtedly the political ramifications have been felt around the world. However, despite engaging in now multiple wars, have we continued to look towards improving the lives of the world’s poor through the same contrived lenses as before? Has our outlook or philosophy towards international aid been re-shaped at all in the last 10 years?

I do not wish to raise the debate regarding what has, would, and should have been done with regards to threats of security and military intervention; but I believe that the US has missed an invaluable opportunity to shift our focus outwards and towards fostering a global community, as opposed to cloistering ourselves behind walls of security and military might.

History has shown that governments have attempted many strategies since the 1950’s approach to aid work. Starting as far back as World Was II, the US has engaged in reconstruction and rapid industrialization as a platform towards aid. Following this, the Cold War spurned a race to incorporate less developed states into the global community in the attempt to keep them out of communist power. Both of these historic approaches are inexplicably linked to power struggles and realist views of how power politics has shaped our nation’s views of “altruism”.

While yes, this is an admittedly glossed over explanation of foreign aid history for the last 60 years, what has been divergent ever since? Scholars such as Birdsall, Easterly, and Sachs are the new faces of the debate on the best explanations towards solving international poverty; and all of the “best” explanations offer contradictory solutions. With the “Planners and Searchers” vs. “Millennium Development Goals” argument in the forefront of this deliberation, what could have been different had our approach to international aid fundamentally changed 10 years ago?

Well first off, the easy answer is that there would be a lot more funds in the federal budget set aside for humanitarian assistance throughout the rest of the world. With the cost of the War on Terror reaching nearly $1.25 trillion, these funds could have been distributed in any number of ways to promote health, technology, and education the world over. While yes, it is true that an mount like that would never have been earmarked directly for aid, even a small percentage of those funds would significantly increase what the US currently contributes. Also, imagine hypothetically how much further the dollars would have gone towards the rebuilding and reintegrating Iraq and Afghanistan into the global economy had we not been fighting on their soil for years before. And while yes, there are many differences between the current wars the US is fighting, and WWII; the processes, if successful, are eerily reminiscent.

Continuing with the Middle East, if the US had fundamentally moved away from the realist mentality of power politics, perhaps we would find more funds available to divert towards countries more in need both in South East Asia and Africa, over the current big winners of Egypt and Israel who receive $1.5 and $3 billion respectively.

Imagine if we had spent the last 10 years on promoting education, both domestically and abroad. How much further capable would we be in designing the technology to improve the lives of billions? Instead of being consumed with suppressing terror, perhaps we would be more interested in the economics of happiness, a new premise in measuring a countries growth?

While this is clearly all speculative, is it not unrealistic to hope that the goals of bringing one billion people out of poverty will one day be met? While the US has taken a detour with the focus of international attention over the past decade, one must hope that the pendulum will swing back towards humanistic means as opposed to those of deterrence.  Although America and our citizens are not singularly at fault in dragging our feet towards a solution, lets hope that it is not another 10 years before we find the funds and desire necessary to perpetuate focus into the next era of international help.

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

Sep 13

Mexico’s Rural Migrations

In Mexico, it is calculated that a little over 50% of the population is urban. Since the 1940’s, the urban population began to grow exponentially because of the lack of economic support for the rural population. In the last 50 years there have been important political and economic decisions that have given people large incentives to migrate, as they are forced to look for opportunities in the cities.

First of all, the agricultural revolution that started in the 1940’s by president Avila Camacho included a series of reforms that damaged already fragile rural and agricultural communities called “ejidos”. The ejido is a sort of communal land managed and controlled by agricultural workers. Camacho started the expropriation and reallocation of the best ejidos for the purpose of selling it to large landowners. By doing this, he sought to attract agricultural investors and improve Mexico’s agricultural productivity.  Indeed, many investments came. But these policies created profits for the investors only, because most of the money that was gained came back to the international markets (phenomenon that economists call capital flight). Therefore the increase in profits could not be redistributed to the workers.

It is possible that these policies gave some benefits to the Mexican consumer, but they definitely came at a great lost for the agricultural workers. The workers-now with no land and no money- were forced to look for other jobs either in the cities or as employees of the landowners. This gave birth to the first wave of rural migration. Successive governments did nothing to protect small local farmers either; thus, the migrations continued until the 1990’s. There was little aid given to the farmers and large support given to private companies. The hope was that the new investments and new technologies would bring more wealth to the average Mexican, because food production was expected to increase. Food production did increase, but most of the food was meant to be exported so it represented little gain to Mexicans.

In more recent years, the NAFTA agreement -signed in 1994- gave rise to whole new waves of migration. NAFTA is a free trade agreement that allows the free circulation of goods between Mexico, Canada and the US. With the agreement, the tariff that Mexico had set to US agricultural products (such as corn and beans) was canceled and therefore more beans and corns were imported into Mexico. Although this policy was highly beneficial for the already highly subsidized US corn producers, it was devastating for the Mexicans that worked in the fields. Mexican producers often could not compete with US farm technologies. This decreased the opportunities for agricultural employment in Mexico, which consequently increased Mexican illegal migrations to the United States. If they didn’t migrate to the US, many Mexicans ended up immigrating to the border cities and working in “maquiladoras” (assembling plants in the border cities) that are infamous because of their human rights violation, labor abuses, discrimination, etc.

It is my impression that large urban growth and increased rural migrations have brought many unwanted consequences. Internationally, the migrations have brought more tensions at the US border. After NAFTA, more and more unemployed Mexicans wanted to cross the border. NAFTA allows the free trade of commodities, but not of people, in order to protect US jobs; therefore, it is an uncompleted free trade agreement. To decrease the negative impacts of this agreement (in respect to rural migration), it would be necessary to negotiate the free circulation of people too, or the reestablishment of tough taxes and quotas to the US farm producers. Mexican producers need protection and support of the national market to expand.

Domestically, the large rural unemployment of the country made drug trafficking the principal source of revenues for many rural workers. Many workers engaged in illegal activities and they are now part of Mexico’s most pressing social issue. Drug traffickers are not simply evil people that want to make profit; rather, they are also people for which little opportunity of development was offered, and as a consequence ended up engaging in illegal activities to survive and not migrate. Drug trafficking is a complex problem in Mexico and its solution requires careful analysis and smart strategies. But long term stability won’t happen until the rural lifestyle is economically safe.

How can we reverse the negative impacts of rural migration? The negative impacts of NAFTA have to be stopped, either by negotiating the free circulation of people too-so that migrants can have a choice as to where to go-, or the reestablishment of tough taxes and quotas to the US farm producers. Mexican producers need protection and support of the national market to expand. As to drug trafficking, it is a complex problem in Mexico and its solution requires careful analysis and smart strategies. But it is for certain that long term stability won’t happen until there is stability in the rural part of the economy, that is, until the rural lifestyle is economically safe. Neglecting the rural economy brought bad consequences to the country. Getting rid of these consequences will require large scale economic and cultural support of agricultural workers. This means supporting agricultural productivity of legal crops (and not a systematic elimination of drug fields, see Colombia’s case). Those policies are a necessary strategy  to stop illegal drug traffic and massive rural migrations.

Julia Naime is a research intern at the SISGI Group. She is a senior at New York University majoring at Economics. During her internship, she will research on rural and international development, environmental policies. To learn more about the Sisgi Group, please visit www.sisgigroup.org

 

Share

Sep 13

African Lesbian Makes US History Part One

The same-sex lesbian couple are among a group of gay, lesbian, transgender, queer folk in New York making U. S. history by breaking social taboo, vowing to cement their lifelong commitment to each other through marriage, illegal in New York State before then.

Both Renee and Kelebohile, a native of the mountainous southern African country Lesotho, sustained a committed relationship for over 20 years which, Kelebohile admits, had its ups and downs, just like any other relationship. Getting married wasn’t a testament to mutual commitment in the face of uncertainty; it offered their relationship legal opportunities that honor their journey as a couple with a shared history based on twenty-plus years of rock solid, tried and tested love.

A few months following their intimate ceremony, this citizen journalist (Nick Mwaluko) spoke with both newlyweds during a candid interview discussing their decision to marry, its impact on their relationship as a lesbian couple of African extraction, and what marriage might mean to Africans on the continent and in the Diaspora:

Nick Mwaluko: What does marriage mean to you?

Kelebohile: It’s for people who love and are committed to one another. For people who honor one another. People who are ready to share their life together as long as they can. You shouldn’t be with someone if you’re not 100% happy. All the emotional stuff, personal and within the relationship, should pretty much be in place before you decide to marry.

Nick Mwaluko: What does marriage mean to you as an African lesbian?

Kelebohile: It’s one aspect of who I am. It doesn’t mean I will follow the traditional African ways like automatically change my last name or have a child, all of which wouldn’t make sense. We are two women so whose name should I take? Who is the father? What I appreciate about being a lesbian, an African lesbian who is married is that I don’t have

to do what my culture and tradition taught me to do just because I’m an African woman, why? Because I am an African lesbian and so the same rules don’t apply in the exact same way because it’s not the equivalent of what my culture or tradition defines as “marriage”. For one, I am married to a woman so who is the African man in this relationship? Eh, where’s Mr. African Romeo? In my marriage drama it’s Juliet plus Juliet! Number two, my wife Renee is of African descent as an African-American so which African tradition should I honor—mine, hers, or a combination? Third, my lesbian marriage is outlawed in most parts of Africa so which African tradition would work if our marriage is illegal? Even though my grandmother raised me to do certain things once I marry, I don’t have to do them as an African lesbian who is married. I must leave out some things because they don’t serve me or my understanding of what marriage is, of what a relationship is between me and my wife Renee.

Nick Mwaluko: Did marriage solidify your love? Continue reading

Share

Sep 12

Learning, Giving, and Having Fun

As most parents and educators know, children are much more receptive to taking part in educational activities when they are associated with the word “fun.”  Normally, learning new vocabulary words or working on geography and art can all be considered boring in a child’s mind.  However, www.freerice.com, a non-profit website operated by the United Nations World Food Program, is both a fun and charitable way to get children to learn.  It allows children to learn various subjects, while teaching them the importance of giving back to those in need.

Freerice is an educational opportunity to either play for leisure or play to increase knowledge.  People can choose from a plethora of subjects like vocabulary, geography, art, mathematics, etc.  After selecting a subject category, a series of questions are posed to the player.  For every question answered correctly, the player amasses 10 grains of rice, and all proceeds go to feeding hungry people in need.  In 2008, Freerice was able to increase their proceeds to 20 grains of rice per correct answer, but due to the economical downturn, they were forced to lower their quota back to 10 grains of rice.  The rice that is accumulated by those playing on the website is sent to a variety of countries across the world.  Some of the nations that Freerice has sent food to are Bhutan, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Haiti, Uganda, and Nepal.  Rice was distributed to children, victims of earthquakes and cyclones, refugees, and pregnant or nursing women.

The website is particularly useful for parents who want their children to learn through an enjoyable medium, and instill in them the importance of giving back to those in need.  Not only can young children, teenagers, and parents learn more from the various subjects on the website, they also have an opportunity to learn about the countries that have received rice from the World Food Program.  Furthermore, freerice provides ideas and suggestions as to how one person can work towards ending world hunger.  For example, people can sign up to become volunteers with the World Food Program, and take action against world hunger.  Children from kindergarten to high school can start a “Coins 4 Kids” fundraiser in their schools and communities in order to help a school meals program in Nairobi, Kenya.  Students in universities and colleges can also help out with the WFP world hunger mission by joining Universities Fighting World Hunger.  The program wants to make world hunger awareness an important aspect of university life, and hopes to get students working towards finding sustainable solutions to end world hunger.

Though Freerice is an excellent idea to combine learning and charity to help with critical issues like world hunger, it does not exactly provide a sustainable solution to ending world hunger.  Food is simply sent to countries in need, and there is no program dedicated to creating sustainable programs to either teach people how to farm efficiently, help set up effective farming communities, or other long-term successful solutions.  The website is really a wonderful idea to both educate and raise awareness, but it would be nice to see sustainable impacts in the countries that the World Food Program aids.  However, Freerice is truly a wonderful website, and it is a brilliant opportunity to get children involved in learning, giving back, and being aware of social issues across the globe.

Share

Sep 12

Here’s to Silver Linings

I woke up giddy yesterday. My clock read 12:25, and my heart started to pound in anticipation. I felt like a kid on Christmas morning. After nine months of waiting, I’d finally woken up to an onslaught of NFL games. I turned on NFL on Fox theme music as I changed to pump me up, and I could not have been more excited by opening kickoff.

But when I turned on the tv, I saw players holding onto flags the size of the football field as fans, players, and referees belted the national anthem. I felt a wave of guilt and shame hit me in the stomach as I realized yesterday wasn’t just opening Sunday for the NFL. It was also the tenth year anniversary of the September 11th attacks.

As I’m sure many of you did yesterday, I took some time to reflect on the attacks. I recalled vivid memories of finding out what had happened, discussing what it meant with my equally oblivious sixth-grade classmates, watching the news all day when I got home, and following how the attacks affected American foreign policy.

A lot has changed in the past ten years. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq seem to be winding down. Osama bin Laden is finally dead. But as I watched the September 11th tributes before the game today, I remembered that the attacks had a profound effect on America. And tons of people, many of whom were the heroic men and women who saved lives that day, are still bleeding.

With many millions of people’s lives so deeply affected by one instant in time, America had to learn on the fly how to handle large-scale psychological trauma among its citizens. In the months following the terrorist attacks, incidence of PTSD rose to 4.2 %. The trauma was particularly crippling to retired firefighters (22%) and survivors earning less than $25,000 per year (49%). Many citizens also faced depression, anxiety disorders, and other mental disorders following the attacks.

But not all news about the psychological health of 9/11 survivors is quite as bleak as what I just listed. Having observed treatment on veterans and other survivors, researchers have established new strategies to treat people following terrorist attacks. Previous protocol for large-scale trauma has been deemed too brief and inadequate. In fact, researchers have even realized that interventions typically used in the past might be so unhelpful that people decide not to pursue further, more intense help. The new, more accepted approach towards widespread psychological first aid includes a five-step approach:

promoting a sense of safety, promoting calming, promoting a sense of self-efficacy and community efficacy, promoting connectedness and instilling hope

Armed with new knowledge, Americans and people worldwide are more capable of dealing with trauma. For example, many Haitians are receiving the reformed psychological first aid to jump start the rest of their lives. The progress made in this time of tragedy reinforces why I love this country so much. Americans strive under adversity. We come together. We learn. We innovate. Making this progress makes our next case of adversity so much more manageable.

While we can’t bring back the dead, completely heal the injured, or completely repair the damage, we can learn from what happened ten years ago. We cannot allow our obstacles to get in our way of making this world a better place; rather, we should let them inspire us. Whether the trauma happens on a huge level (i.e. 9/11) or a smaller, more personal level (i.e. death of a loved one, mistake you’ve made that you regret), let it drive us forward. By seeing silver linings on our darkest days, we’ll manage to get through tough times and maintain our status as the great country we are today.

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

Sep 09

Country Over Party

As a college senior, Areeba’s latest post really resonated with me. My friends and I, at the cusp of graduation, are about to get thrown to the wolves. Hundreds of thousands of us will be vying for jobs with much fewer available positions. Some of us will hide ourselves in grad schools, some may take offers as unpaid interns in the hopes of it leading to better opportunities, and, as Areeba mentioned, others of us will find unsatisfying and unfulfilling jobs.

This is my fourth year in college, and I feel like prospects for graduates have been dire each year. I remember thinking as a freshman that I was so lucky to still be in school, while seniors searched for jobs in a tanking economy. Surely, when my time came, the economy would have recovered and my friends and I would find jobs.

But it has dawned on me that our economy is still shaky, and that it will still be difficult for my classmates and I to find jobs that we want. Many businesses simply have neither the excess capital, nor demand for goods to justify hiring employees. To make matters worse, after the recent stock market crash, many 401ks have plummeted in value. Since some people have lost so much of their retirement savings, they will end up working longer than originally planned rather than free jobs up for the “waiting generation.”

Our unemployment rate is currently at a staggering 9.1%. This number is actually smaller than it should be, as some people have been so demoralized by the job search that they have stopped looking and others have gone to grad schools only because the job market is so bad. Clearly, our leaders need to come up with a plan to combat unemployment. President Obama unveiled his plan last night, in which he urged Congress to pass his $447 billion proposal that could potentially create jobs.

I don’t know much about the details of his proposal, so I cannot offer my opinions on what I think about it. However, I can offer my frustration with the pre-emptive opposition that he faced. I watched the Republican debates the night before, and I heard Mitt Romney criticize Obama’s plan before he had even heard it. This attitude disgusts me. If this is the attitude that our leaders have, how can we expect to see objective, responsible, and bipartisan legislation?

As the 2008 election was the first that I could vote in, I remember it well. I hadn’t followed politics much in high school and hadn’t really developed my own views on issues. But I couldn’t help but feel a bit galvanized and optimistic by Obama’s rhetoric. I kept hearing about how we weren’t the “red states or the blue states but the United States of America.” I bought into his speeches and believed he was the type of leader who could transcend our differences and help us come together. Three years later, I don’t think I’ve ever seen America so divided. Republicans seem determined to take back the White House, and even seem willing to sabotage Obama’s policies if it means he could save his presidency. I am not naïve enough to think that only Republicans are obstructionists when the other party is in power. I’m sure Democrats did similar things during Bush’s presidency. Politics is an ugly game, in which players would often rather win than help the people they serve. But we must expect more from our leaders. We elected them to represent our best interests, not to witness them bicker and fail to make progress.

There is a phrase soccer fans use that I heard often during last summer’s World Cup: “club over country.” Although fans root for their country throughout the World Cup, many would rather see their favorite club team succeed than their country. Our politicians seem to have developed a similar mentality of “party over country.” Many of our politicians would rather return to power than see our country succeed.

In this time of crisis, this mentality must change. The beautiful thing about America is that we are a democracy, and our voices must be heard. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said last week following the passage of the anti-corruption bill, “Parliament has spoken. Parliament’s will is the will of the people.” The same will eventually be true of American Congress. Sooner or later, the American people will voice their frustrations, and our political leaders will have to listen. Either our elected officials will realize that this isn’t the time to put personal career goals over the welfare of the masses, or our electorate needs to change who we vote for. One way or another, we need a return to thinking “country over party.”

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

Sep 08

All About Greenwashing

I’ve written a few posts now where I’ve mentioned “greenwashing” (my post about Sandals, for example), but I realized I’ve never discussed what greenwashing is.  So, I’ve attached a helpful video that describes greenwashing and gives some tips on how to avoid falling for greenwashing traps when searching for sustainable products.  The video deals mainly with consumer goods like soda and lightbulbs, but the same principles can be applied to tourism.  Hotels, like manufacturers, are feeling the pressure to “go green,” and so apply labels like “eco-friendly” and “sustainable” to their amenities—whether or not they actually are.  Hotel chains know that they will get more business if they jump on the green bandwagon, and that people will pay more for something they think is environmentally responsible.

The video gets a bit harsh towards the end, but overall the message is good: take green products with a grain of salt, and remember that there is often a trade-off—if a product is changed to be environmentally friendly in one way, it is often harmful in a different way.  For hotels, that trade-off is often between being environmentally friendly and leaving a positive economic impact on the community.  For example, it is environmentally friendly and sustainable for a hotel to grow its own garden to provide food for the guests, but that means that the hotel is not buying food from local markets, and hence not benefiting the local community.  Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a video that deals with the narrow topic of greenwashing in hotels and its effect on both the environment and the local community, so this video will have to do.  But, like I said, the same principles apply to greenwashing in hotels: be wary of green claims, and look for the trade-off.

Enjoy

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

Sep 08

Changing Elite Education

I noted in my last post that educating some people can create a ripple effect that promotes growth in an economy. Thus, spending in education should be seen as investment in the future. If we can increase the amount of human capital in America, we can significantly increase our ability to compete in an increasingly global economy.

I recently had an idea that might help us maximize this ripple effect. In London, they have recently started the New College of the Humanities. Esteemed academics such as Richard Dawkins helped start and will teach at the university. The university follows the for-profit model of many of the elite, private school universities in the US, charging students  £18,000 to attend each year. Students will learn from some of the best and smartest professors in the world.

I like the idea of Nobel laureates and leaders in academic fields coming together to start a new school to teach a country’s brightest students. While we have several private, for-profit universities throughout the country, I think it would be a good idea to start a national public university that is free of charge. While it is unfeasible to have many schools like this around the country, I think having one such university with nearly unlimited resources for our most talented students would be a worthwhile investment.

For a school like this to work, the government would need to have a huge budget so that it could compete with elite Ivy League schools. Admission would have to be strictly based on academic merit, as it would be unfair to taxpayers to accept students just because their family donated money to the school or because they excel in sports. The school should be in a metropolitan area. Imagine a school like this in Washington, DC, where Ben Bernanke could occasionally visit and lecture economics students and President Obama could occasionally lecture politics and policy students. Or if the school was in New York, finance students could occasionally learn from prominent Wall Street bankers, and famous Broadway actors could teach aspiring actors.

While a national university is certainly ambitious, the benefits could be enormous. America’s greatest minds could all be educated at the best possible school, free of charge. While many elite private schools now offer great financial aid packages, many students are stuck with having to pay off student loans long after graduation. Thus, graduates would be free to pursue careers that they are most passionate about and can enact the most change in without wondering how they would pay off their massive debt. Finally, currently college students and graduates have massive allegiance to their alma maters. Because of this loyalty, they often donate a bulk of their wealth to the university later on in life. Imagine a legion of talented graduates from a national university. Knowing that they received their education from American taxpayers, many would feel fierce loyalty towards America. In my opinion, this loyalty could be more beneficial because it is dedicated towards more people as opposed to just elite institutions such as Harvard or Stanford. Because of their loyalty, many of them may find determination work hard to help make this country better.

The concept of a free and superior education for the best students is not a novel concept. For example, in 1980, North Carolinan Governor James Hunt helped establish the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics. NCSSM is a residential high school for 660 of the smartest juniors and seniors in the state. It is completely free of charge, and it was designed to help prepare good students for life and keep many of these students in the state after graduation. The school was so successful that 18 other states followed its model and created their own schools of science and mathematics.

Considering the success of schools such as NCSSM, it would be interesting to see what a national university could do with its significantly larger budget and bigger pool of students. I do not know how much a school like this would cost. However, if I had to guess, I’d imagine it would be pretty miniscule in comparison to the current deficit. And, as I said earlier, investing in education has a huge ripple effect that is usually profitable in the long run.

I understand that my plan is bold and controversial. Some may argue that the plan Continue reading

Share