Jul 29

A Plan for Dadaab Refugee Camp, Part II

On Tuesday, my colleague Ryan wrote the first installment of a blog series he and I are working on about the Dadaab Refugee Camp in Kenya. It is the largest refugee camp in the world, built to accommodate about 90,000 people. However, due to the current drought crisis in the Horn of Africa, there are currently almost 400,000 refugees staying in Dadaab – and that number is growing by the hundreds everyday. Unsurprisingly, this makes for an extremely overcrowded camp with very limited resources.

As Ryan mentioned, Dadaab is run by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which means that many U.N. agencies are also involved in the relief efforts. Donations are distributed among these partner agencies – like the U.N. World Food Program, for example – which are then able to supply emergency aid like food, water, and medical supplies. The UNHCR itself is responsible for emergency assistance, like nutrition evaluation, sanitation, and protection. The problem? The U.N. hasn’t received nearly enough money to bring adequate aid and supplies to the refugees in Dadaab.

So far, the United States has provided over $450 million in aid and donations to help refugees in the Horn of Africa. Canada has provided over $70 million, and the U.K. has given almost $150 million – and these are just a few of the international governments that have stepped up and donated to the crisis. However, there are several wealthy European countries – such as Italy, Denmark, and France – who have failed to provide sufficient financial assistance. France, specifically, has pledged to donate but has failed to actually deliver the money. Germany was also criticized for only giving $5 million, which is only a fraction of what other rich nations have donated. They responded by giving an additional $7 million and more than doubling their total donation. Why has it taken so long for certain countries to respond to this crisis and donate? There have been warning signs of drought, famine, and a major food crisis for months – but these nations did not step up in time to prevent tens of thousands of lives from being lost, and they’re still slow to respond. Oxfam International even claims that these countries are guilty of willful neglect because they’ve failed to provide aid that they’re very capable of giving.

Continue reading

Share

Jul 28

A Lesson Taught by Anders Breivik

In the midst of many differing, passionate opinions on Breivik’s attack, there is one lesson that we should be able to agree on universally

On July 22, two terrorist attacks shook Norway to its core. Anders Behring Breivik, the man who has admitted to carrying out both attacks, is responsible for the worst peacetime massacre in Norway’s modern history. If you’re unfamiliar with the details of the attack or are looking for a series of analysis, I suggest you check out the BBC’s page on the attacks.

What I’m interested in extends beyond the event and its inevitable international response. By sifting through a multitude of opinions and responses to the attack, I want to see if there’s any clear, objective lesson that can be learned from this atrocity. What can we take away from the vicious back and forth that ensued in the US, Europe and the Middle East over the religious, political and social implications of the attacks?

First, a quick overview of what this back and forth commentary entailed. When news first spread around the globe of the attacks, Fox News and The Washington Post each released early reports that the attacks followed a jihadist theme and therefore could be traced back to al-Qaeda. As soon as the headline hit that Breivik identified himself as a Christian fundamentalist, they mostly recanted their statements. Then Bill O’Reilly declared that Breivik was not in any manner a Christian, regardless of his self-declaration, and flamed the media for saying that he was one. The day after the attacks, Glenn Beck foolishly compared the slain children of the attack at the youth camp to the Hitler Youth (though in his defense, he did scold the media for claiming the attacks were carried out by Muslim extremists).

On the flip side, liberal commentators fired up their rebuttals. Juan Cole pointed out that O’Reilly and others like him are now on the defensive because non-Christians may start to associate senseless terrorist acts with Christianity in general, similar to what happened to Muslims after 9/11. In his reliably fresh and entertaining style, Stephen Colbert mocked the newscasters who apparently refused to believe that Breivik had nothing to do with al-Qaeda.

Reports in the Middle East were of equal give and take. Many publications were quick to point out the alleged role of the radical right wing in the development of Breivik’s plan. They argue that his hatred of multiculturalism (seemingly a main reason for his decision to attack civilians) is indicative of right wing, Islamophobic ideology. The Jerusalem Post countered by stating that the actions of fringe extremists should not take away from the “abject failure of multiculturalism”. According to their argument, multiculturalism has indeed failed; Breivik’s destruction was just a poor way of demonstrating that.

You get the point. Heinous attacks such as those of July 22nd tend to galvanize opinions on all sides. I’ve been reading these editorials and arguments since the attacks happened last week, all the while wondering if there was an objective lesson that could be learned from them. It wasn’t until I stumbled upon Murat Yetkin’s summary of the attack that I found what I was looking for:

“It is once more understood in a very tragic way that terrorism has no color, no religion, nor nationality and it can hurt people in their most unexpected moment, most unexpected place…” Source

This, I believe is the universal message that we can take away from these attacks. As made clear by the mess of opinions I discussed above, a consensus on the details and ramifications of a terrorist attack can never be reached, not on a global scale at least (and there’s nothing wrong with that). But the one point that I believe should be agreed upon is that terrorism does not stem from a single culture or belief. Taking into account the terrorist attacks of the last ten years, this should be clear.  Terrorism can arise from any extremist, fringe movement that grows out of a number of backgrounds. The son of a wealthy businessman (bin Laden), the citizen of a country known for its civil and political liberties (Breivik) or a multitude of other examples.

I’m not arguing against the right of commentators and scholars to debate the reasons for Breivik’s attack; I think that this is a necessary measure in the aftermath of such a tragedy. I’m saying that while we look deeper into the causes of the attacks, we should keep in mind the words of Mr. Yetkin. A bit less finger pointing amongst groups, however idealistic one may imagine that to be, could lead to less misguided hatred. Consequently, this could decrease the chances of lunatics like Breivik from unleashing their hostility on innocent civilians.

Ryan Pavel is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group focusing on foreign military involvement, policy and strategy into conflicts and motivations behind and impact of foreign aid. To learn more about the SISGI Group visit www.sisgigroup.org

 

 

Share

Jul 28

El nuevo FMI

El Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI)- la organización internacional que supervisa el sistema financiero global- eligió recientemente a un nuevo Director Administrativo (DA), debido a que Dominique Strauss Kahn (antiguo DA) resignó. Los dos candidatos al puesto eran la ministra de ecnonomía de Francia, Christine Lagarde, y el director del Banco Central de México, Agustín Carstens. Ambos candidatos tenían curriculums excelentes y parecían ser altamente competentes para el puesto en el FMI. Lagarde fue elegida.

Quienquiera Lagarde (una mujer) o Cartens (originario de un pais en via de desarollo) darían un nuevo giro a la institutición, ya que desde su fundación, el Director Administrativo del IMF ha sido un hombre Europeo. Pero para entender que es lo que la elección de uno de los dos representa, debemos primero entender la institutición en la que trabajarán.

Para empezar, todos los miembros del FMI son países, no indivudos o partidos. Para ser un país miembro, debes de contribuir al FMI con una cierta cuota monetaria. La cuota es una cantidad de dinero con el cual el país contribuye a la totalidad de los recursos del fondo. De esta manera, el FMI puede ser pensado como una gran unión creditaria internacional que tiene como miembros a todos los países del mundo. En efecto, 187 paises son miembros, lo que incluye prácticamente al mundo entero. La cuota representa el poder de voto en el FMI. Entre más grande es la cuota de un país, más votos le son asignados.

Originalmente, el papel principal del FMI es promover la cooperación monetaria internacional, facilitar el crecimiento del intercambio internacional y mantener estables a las tasas de cambio.

Sin embargo, su papel rápidamente evolucionó para también ofrecer asistencia a los miembros que sufrían dificultades monetarias y de crecimiento económico. Por eso, el FMI también ofrece asistencia financiera y monetaria junto con el Banco Mundial.

El tamaño de la cuota de un país se define en función de la fuerza económica de este mismo. Actualmente, la cuota más grande es la de los Estados Unidos (16.8%). La siguiente más grande es de Japón, luego Alemania, Francia, y El Reino Unido (ver aqui). Controlando 16.8% del los votos, los EEUU es el único país en poseer un poder de veto en la institución. Por cosiguiente EEUU gozan de mayor autoridad. Puede usar el veto cuando hay decisiones (sobretodo las más importantes) que requieren el 85% de aprobación. Por ejemplo, cambiar las cuotas, es decir, el poder en la institución, requiere una mayoría de 85%, (por ende la aprobción de EEUU).

Todo el poder del FMI viene del Mesa de Gobernadores, compuesta generalmente de los ministros de finanzas y directores de banco central de los países miembros. Como este grupo sólo se reúne una vez al año, la gran parte del poder es delegada a un consejo mas pequeño, la Mesa Ejecutiva. Esta consiste de 24 directores. Los cinco miembros del FMI con la cuota más larga automáticamente escogen al director de la Mesa Ejecutiva. Como hay mas países miembros que directores en la mesa ejecutiva, muchos directores acaban respresentan mas de un país.

La Mesa ejecutiva trabaja en conjunto con el Director Administrativo (DA). La mesa ejecutiva es la que tiene que asignar al nuevo DA, por consiguiente es el consejo que ambos Carstens y Lagarde buscaron persuadir. Como dicho antes, los países con más importancia para persuadir son EEUU, Francia, Alemania, Japón y Reino Unido, ya que son los países que tienen la proporción más grande (ya que tienen las cuotas más grandes) del voto total. El marco legal en el que la votación tomo lugar hizo poco posible la selección del candidato basado únicamente en términos meritocráticos o hasta democráticos. En efecto, en el FMI dinero es poder, y el ganador será el candidato que represente mejor los intereses de los países con mayor poder de voto.

EEUU y Europa apoyaron a Lagarde por dos razones principales. Una es que actualmente los prestámos más largos del FMI están en Europa (Grecia, Irlanda y Portugal). Por otro lado históricamente ha habido un acuerdo tácito entre EEUU y Europa para que el director del FMI sea  siempre Europeo y el director del Banco Mundial siempre Americano. Carstens se enfrentó en una competencia díficil, aun más porque los países en vía de desarollo (Brazil, Argentina, China, India), que lo podrían apoyar con mayor razon, se mantuvieron indecisos y no declararon prematuramente al candidato apoyarían.

De cualquier manera, que es lo que el puesto de AD representa? Por la manera en que el FMI esta estructurado, el AD tiene poco poder. El o Ella se reunirá con la Mesa Ejecutiva y la aconsejará, pero cada decisión ejecutiva seguirá estando en manos de la Mesa. Como los grandes inversionistas son los Estados Unidos y Europa, el fondo sigue siendo controlado por áquellos a los que ahora tiene que monitorear más cerca (Europeos). Entonces si el representante de un país como Estados Unidos, o Europa es negligente a las conclusiones y recomendaciones de una investigación del FMI, el AD (Cartens o Largade) no puede más que suspirar en frustación.

El mal funcionamiento de la institución tiene como causa también sus raíces históricas. El FMI se fundó en Bretton Woods, despúes de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Como explicado previamente, es controlado por los países con las cuotas más largas. Sin embargo, el poder económico global ahora esta cambiando y las reglas del juego y de la institución deberían de ser cambiadas también. Los países en vía de desarollo necesitan tener una mejor representación y más poder en la toma de decisiones. Hasta ahora la tentativas para reformar son muy escasas (ver aqui).

Una cosa es segura. Mientras el IMF siga siendo manejado como un banco comercial, en donde el dinero es poder, solo representará los intereses de los países mas ricos. Esto ha causado la falla de muchos programas y ha hecho que el FMI no cumpla completamente con su papel original. Debido a que es una institución financiera global con una función necesario para el buen funcionamiento de la enconomía global de hoy, su renovación es necesaria.

Julia Naime is a research intern at the Sisgi group. She focuses in International Economics, Rural Development and Environmental Policies. She is a rising senior at New York University, majoring in Economics.
Share

Jul 27

Understanding Buyers of Sex

Eliminating Commercial Sexual Exploitation

In order to eliminate the problem of commercial sexual exploitation, we must look at the demand side of the problem.  After all, without buyers of sex, there would be no sex industry.  By understanding the who, what, where, when, and how of sex buyers, strategies can be implemented to decrease the demand for commercial sex.  One way of analyzing sex buyers is to compare them to non-sex buyers.  What unique characteristics do buyers of sex embody versus non-buyers of sex?  What strategies can be implemented to decrease the demand based on these characteristics?

A new study was released comparing sex buyers with non-sex buyers, highlighting several significant differences.  Statistics regarding sex buyers, also known as johns, varies and is far and few between—ranging from 16-80% of the male population.  In the recent study released by Farley and her colleagues, it was revealed that they had a hard time finding men who do not buy sex in some shape or form (i.e. whether it is through prostitution, strip clubs, pornography, etc.) on a fairly regular basis and had to rework their definition to get a representative sample of buyers and non-buyers.  They learned that buyers and non-buyers had similar perspectives of women and sex, but there were many clear distinctions.  Here are some of the key findings:

1)      Sex buyers committed crimes more often than non-sex buyers.  Crimes included felonies and misdemeanors related to violence against women, substance abuse, assaults with and without weapons, and defiance against authority.  None of the non-sex buyers reported crimes against women.

2)      Sex buyers engaged in aggressive and coercive sexual behavior much more often than non-sex buyers.  Falling under this category is rape—many more sex buyers reported the likelihood of committing rape than non-sex buyers if they could get away with it.

3)      Sex buyers showed less empathy towards prostituted women and demonstrated less acknowledgement of the harm imposed on prostituted women and the community as a whole.  Non-buyers of sex were more aware of the harmful effects to sexually exploited women and the community.  Deterrents for non-sex buyers included respect for women, the perception of their masculinity as being in jeopardy if they had to pay for sex, paying for sex as emotionally empty and unsatisfying, and personal experiences of abuse.

4)      Sex buyers masturbated to pornography more often and reported their overall sex Continue reading

Share

Jul 27

Make It Last Forever

Many of us working for social change have used the analogy of trying to teach a man to fish rather than giving him a fish, to explain the work that we are doing. We know and understand that creating long term impact rather than a band-aid solution is the ideal model. So in our efforts for change we look to make a considerable difference for a lifetime. But what about the next lifetime? Are we working for sustainable solutions to the social problems we are trying to address or instead are we creating sustainable solutions for our organization. For if we truly solve the problem, what will we be the need for our existence?

Over the last few years we have seen an incredible increase in the number of new nonprofit organizations ;from less than 170,000 new organizations in each decade before 1980 to almost 400,000 since 2000. Most nonprofits face the challenge to take on Mission Impossible – a social problem so large and serious that it easily tugs on the heart and purse strings of the general and giving population. There are several ways that we seek to address these problems. We might propose to take on this issue by creating a simple solution like building a well or collecting books, or become highly visible advocates by speaking about these issues around the globe, or maybe start another new program or raise money for a new strategy. And we may slowly begin to impact these social problems. But often the solutions that are created take on only the issues on the surface, the things that are readily visible and important, but may not be sustainable for the long run. These solutions get buzz in media, they get organizations thousands of supporters and every year organizations take in donations to address their mission. And year after year you show outcomes from the work that you have done and how strong your organization is in taking on this impossible mission. And every year the problem continues…

At the SISGI Group we believe that to create real social change requires a focus on Sustainable Impacts© rather than Sustainable Organizations. A sustainable impact is the positive and cohesive outcome from the work of a charitable organization, social innovation or venture that can be maintained, upheld and defended until no longer necessary. In the nonprofit world, we often use sustainability as a buzzword for creating a stable organization or program that can last beyond a funding cycle. Even when focused on outcomes, organizations may show change but tend to fall short of finding the solution that creates a lasting impact. When solutions are devised organizations are seldom asked, will this end the social problem? Will your work no longer be needed once you implement your program to address this need? Because to answer this would be to essentially write ourselves out of a job.

If a man is hungry we know not to just give him fish because it only solves the problem today. So instead our strategy is to teach him how to fish. But this idea is based on one Continue reading

Share

Jul 26

A Plan for Dadaab Refugee Camp – Foundations

The overcrowded Dadaab camp in Kenya is struggling to provide for the continual stream of starving Somali refugees

Much has been written on this blog and others about the dire situation currently being faced in the Horn of Africa. The countries in this region are facing their worst drought in 60 years. A famine has been declared in some of the worst hit areas as crops and water sources dry up. To get an idea as to what this means, keep in mind the criteria for declaring a famine: acute malnutrition rates among children exceed 30%, more than 2 children per 10,000 die per day and people are not able to access 2,100 calories per day. Hundreds of thousands of starving people have fled Somalia, the hardest hit country, and are heading to UN refugee camps in neighboring countries.

One of the most popular destinations for these refugees is the Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya, run by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).  Dadaab is actually three refugee camps put together: Hagadera, Ifo and Dagahaley. Dadaab is the world’s largest refugee camp – it has over 380,000 people currently staying there, which is over 4 times its intended capacity. Some predictions say that the camp will house over 450,000 people by the end of this year. This camp is receiving approximately 1,500 Somali refugees per day and has taken in over 60,000 this year alone. UN officials at the camp say that they have seen an increase in the amount of deaths resulting from acute malnutrition. Compared to last year, there has been a 4.5-fold increase in deaths of Somali children aged 5 or less in Kenyan and Ethiopian camps. Families arriving from Somalia who are waiting to get into the camps wait in temperatures of 120 degrees for up to 12 days for food rations.

On a positive note, Dadaab is expanding. The Kenyan government recently announced that they would be opening a fourth camp to add to the Dadaab complex: Ifo II. This will certainly be a welcome addition to the cramped camp, which on average has five families living on plots intended for a single family.

So how did things get so bad and what would it take to make the situation better? As with so many other aspects of aid and international relations, the answer is tied to money. Nothing short-term could prevent a drought from happening, but something could certainly have been done in terms of preparation. One publication reported, “Despite warnings forecasting the crisis since November, 2010, by March, 2011, the World Food Programme (WFP) was 60% under-funded, and had to cut back its feeding programmes in Somalia and Ethiopia. The shortfall is now down to about 30%.” And then there is the issue of funding the recovery effort. Appeals for emergency funding after the drought began have only returned half of what they were asking for, hardly enough to adequately bolster aid and quell the famine.

The common, sensible assumption with famine is that it results from a lack of food. Interestingly, some have pointed out that the main issue is not actually the lack of food; rather it is the skyrocketing prices of the food already available. So to an extent, the food is there, but a poor family cannot afford to buy it. Preemptive investment of aid money into the development of a robust agricultural and distribution sector could have helped this crisis from turning into a true famine. It is not enough to grow food, it must be able to reach hungry/starving areas while maintaining a low price tag. (The importance of agricultural advancement was also a key point of my webinar on South Sudan. This principle applies to many countries in the region.)

One of the interesting aspects of the problems in places such as Dadaab is that it’s not as simple as a single organization addressing the issues of the refugees, it’s a network of individual aid groups. At times, the multitude of organizations leads to cracks in the relief effort. For a very basic example, suppose there are three organizations, one providing food, another water and a third medicine. If, in the hectic life of the strained camp, 50,000 of the 380,000 refugees received only food and water, their chances of survival without medicine would drastically diminish. Rebecca, one of my colleagues on this blog, wrote a series of posts concerning this issue – how do you close this nonprofit gap and ensure that organizations are working together to the maximum benefit of the people they are trying to help? And how do ensure that you are helping the camp residents build a sustainable future, rather than only addressing immediate survival needs?

Over the next couple of weeks, Rebecca and I are going to delve deeper into the Dadaab camp. We’re going to get a more exact picture of the organizations working in the camp and see if we can find any aspects of refugee care that aren’t currently being handled there. Then we will apply the theoretical strategies Rebecca has proposed in closing the non-profit disconnect to the very real, current plight of the Dadaab camp. In the end, we will see how this strategy could maximize the resources available to help the hundreds of thousands of Somali refugees get back on their feet. Stay tuned for the next post in the series.

Ryan Pavel is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group focusing on foreign military involvement, policy and strategy into conflicts and motivations behind and impact of foreign aid. To learn more about the SISGI Group visit www.sisgigroup.org
Share

Jul 25

Giving Hope

In a few of my prior posts, I have discussed people who were unable to overcome mental illnesses such as depression or drug addiction. In today’s post, I’d like to share a more optimistic story. I will tell you about Dr. Marsha Linehan, an inspirational woman who overcame borderline personality disorder (BPD) and eventually developed an innovative system of therapy to help other supersuicidal, BPD patients.

At 17, Marsha Linehan was a patient at the Institute of Living. She “attacked herself habitually, burning her wrists with cigarettes, slashing her arms, her legs, her midsection, using any sharp object she could get her hands on.” Linehan, considered to be a threat to herself, was placed in a seclusion room, where she had no weapons to inflict bodily harm. Determined to kill herself and escape life, Linehan repeatedly beat her head against the wall and floor. Needless to say, Linehan went through a very difficult time, and few people believed she would survive outside the confines of the hospital.

But the skeptics were wrong. More than just avoiding committing suicide over the 48 years since being discharged from the hospital, Linehan has been wildly successful. She has received a doctorate in psychology, worked with patients at suicide clinics, become a professor at the University of Washington, and performed valuable academic research. Her research yielded the development of Dialetical Behavior Therapy (DBT) – a type of psychotherapy that effectively treats BPD patients. Perhaps even more impressive than her long list of career accomplishments, she has transformed from someone who used to bang her head against the wall to cause herself pain to someone who considers herself to be “a very happy person now.”

Up until recently, Linehan was just another talented and accomplished clinician, professor, and researcher. Her patients, students, and colleagues were unaware of her dark past. Worried that critics would use her life story to try to debase the integrity of her research, Linehan kept quiet about her past for decades. But as results from her research about DBT became more conclusive and indisputable, she gained the confidence to reveal her past. Just over a month ago, she went back to the Institute of Living where she was first hospitalized and told her story to the public.

The reason that Linehan decided to reveal her past to the public is very indicative as to why it is so valuable for successful people with mental illnesses to come forward. According to Benedict Carey’s article about Linehan in the New York Times, a suicidal patient asked Linehan whether she had also been chronically suicidal at some point in her past. The patient declared that if Linehan had gone through a similar phase in her life, the patient would find hope, as he/she could then use Linehan as an example of someone who persevered and prevailed through terrible times.

As Carey discussed in her article, resources needed to overcome mental illness include medication, therapy, and, most importantly, “inner strength to manage one’s demons, if not banish them.” This inner strength can be hard to come by, especially if someone is under the hopeless impression that things will never get better. Many people who successfully manage their mental illnesses are often silent about their stories, whereas tragic stories about people who were unable to overcome mental illness are often well publicized. How can people with mental illnesses find the strength to fight if they are unaware of people who managed to beat the illness and live successful lives?

One of the main principles of Linehan’s DBT is that people must accept their life and their emotions if they want to be able to change them. How can we expect people to maintain this degree of self-honesty if they think the truth is damning? After all, people don’t want to believe that their attempts at recovery will definitely be futile. As such, they may end up denying that they have any problems. And Linehan’s research suggests that this lack of acceptance can be a big impediment to people changing their lives for the better.

People with borderline personality disorder need hope and acceptance to prevail over their illness. If you have managed or beaten an illness, you may have the power to help some of them. I understand that some of you might not be ready to talk about your experiences. Such a decision should only be made if you are confident that talking about your past won’t be harmful to you. However, to those of you who are ready to talk, I encourage you to follow in Dr. Linehan’s footsteps. Come forward and prove that being chronically suicidal is beatable. You might serve as a source of courage and beacon of hope that people need to properly accept and fight their illness.

 

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

Jul 25

Peace and Climate Change

When I think about climate change, what typically comes to mind is the weather: hot days, droughts, and other severe weather events – but all too often there are other effects of climate change that are greatly underestimated. In fact, some consequences of climate change may not have anything to do with the weather at all. The overcrowding in the Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya, for example, is a result of the East African drought, which is a consequence of climate change. It’s just the beginning of a long chain of events, and when examining the potential domino effect from climate change, it can be pretty terrifying. The latest claim? According to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations, climate change is a threat to international peace and security.

At first glance, climate change and international peace and security may seem unrelated. However, they really aren’t – climate change can lead to environmental problems and consequently a lack of resources, like food and water. Changing and unpredictable rainfall patterns, for example, can cause food shortages and production instability. When people start to fight over the limited resources, it can undoubtedly become an international security conflict. With climate change comes instability, and with instability comes stress and tension. At a global level, this tension can become extremely dangerous and destructive. And before we know it, we could have a global conflict at our hands, and it all started with increasing temperatures.

The most terrifying part? Climate change is a global threat itself, and it isn’t a typical threat to international security. It can’t be combated with training and army and winning a war, nor can the effects be reversed with nonviolent negotiation and a peace treaty. It will take a force that hasn’t yet been created – or even conceptualized – to fight this on a global level. It will take pure strategy, innovation, willingness to change, and commitment. No threat to global security has ever been so great – there is truly no alternative to reversing climate change, because if we continue on this path, it will be catastrophic.

I write a lot about the need to combat, slow, and ultimately reverse climate change. Sometimes I feel like I’m beating a dead horse, but then I remember just how important this is. Actually, it’s essential – and I’m glad that the United Nations have made fighting climate change a priority. The establishment of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been a step forward in creating plans and policies to combat climate change. However, I sometimes wonder if this is enough. Can the United Nations handle a global crisis of this magnitude? Is organizing conferences enough? Is climate change being fought on a multidimensional level so that each effect down the chain of events can be stopped?

Perhaps more needs to be done. There are so many nonprofit organizations that are working toward climate change, for example. There are also government initiatives and social movements that aim to reduce carbon emissions. Basically, climate change is being attacked in many different ways, without an overarching strategy to make them all work together. What if there was a central organization created that used the strategy of the individual organizations to form a global strategy that attacked the various – and numerous – effects of climate change, no matter how immediately related they are? This goes back to the nonprofit disconnect and the need to link smaller organizations to create a much bigger change. After all, when it comes to climate change, there certainly needs to be a big change.

I think there needs to be an organization created that’s separate from the U.N. and focuses solely on climate change and its effects. While the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) does exist, it’s not big enough to take into account all of the effects of climate change. The U.N. itself handles many of them, like global peacekeeping and protecting refugees, so the individual program strategies should certainly be a part of the overall strategy of the climate change organization, but there needs to be an innovative, organized, and focused coalition to make this all work. I really think a new, global approach is our best shot to fighting this war.

Rebecca Birnbaum is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group focusing on nonviolent conflict resolution, nonprofit management, and sustainable development. She is a senior at the University of Michigan, where she studies Anthropology, Political Science, and Peace and Social Justice. To learn more about the SISGI Group, visit www.sisgigroup.org.

Share

Jul 25

Ramadan: New Hope or New Obstacle?

August 1st will mark the start of the fasting month of Ramadan, as well as a new obstacle for the countries involved in the Arab Spring.  Ramadan, for those of you not on top of Muslim practices, is a month-long fast during which devout Muslims cannot eat or drink during the daylight.  The fast is supposed to teach patience, humility, and spirituality, as well as self-disciple, self-control, and sacrifice.  Extra prayers and readings of the Qur’an are encouraged, with especially devoted Muslims going to nightly special prayers in mosques instead of just the weekly prayers held every Friday.  Acts of charity are also encouraged, particularly feeding the poor (after sundown).  Ramadan, being one of the five tenants of Islamic belief, is an extremely important month for Muslims, and while I have presented a simplification of the traditions associated with the fast, hopefully it has been enough to make you realize that it is going to have a massive impact on the Arab Spring movement.

What no one is quite sure of at this point, though, is which direction things will go.  Will everything grind to a halt, or will Islamic groups grow even stronger?  On one hand, Ramadan is a time for cooking, social gatherings, and contemplation, which means that the protests could cease as people focus on their faith and their families.  On the other hand, mosques already often serve the hubs for the protests, and the special nightly prayers during Ramadan will give people extra time to talk and plan.  The rebels won’t be able to fight during the day, since going without food and water during the hottest month of the year is not conducive to active rebellion, but the nightly meetings could help the movement regain momentum.  Also, prices typically rise during Ramadan, and that added economic burden could give people another reason to demonstrate.  Arab governments, however, often offer pardons or commute sentences for political prisoners during Ramadan, which to some suggests that the regimes might be able to finally reach a truce with the opposition.

As if the effect of Ramadan was not already difficult enough to predict, we must also consider the possible actions of non-Muslim forces like NATO and the UN.  NATO stated that it would stop bombing Libya during Ramdan if Gadhafi also agreed to a cease-fire, at least for the duration of the holy month—though NATO would prefer it if he agreed to a permanent cease-fire and to step down.  If Gadhafi does not agree to stop fighting NATO will be in a difficult position.  The potential damage caused by European/North American countries bombing an Islamic state during the holy month could be massive—but on the other hand so to could the damage caused by stopping air strikes entirely.  Rebel forces and Gadhafi have asked the UN to un-freeze assets to fund Libya through Ramadan, and though the UN still has not responded one way or the other, Turkey has agreed to give aid to the eastern rebels.  The fear here is that the added burden of Ramadan on top of food, fuel, and cash shortages will cause the public to lose faith in the rebel governments and abandon the cause.

With just one week left till Ramadan there’s still no telling what could happen.  It could be a black hole that undermines the entire cause, or a catalyst that unites the rebels, or prompt a truce between the rebels and the Arab regimes, or none or all of the above.  The effect will be different for each country depending on the relative secularity/non-secularity of the population and the rebels, as well as the nature of the revolution.  In Yemen, for example, there was general agreement that a slow transition away from the old regime would be better than a radical regime change that could result in Islamists taking control of the country.  But during Ramadan that feeling could change, since Muslims will be staying awake every night for prayers and social gatherings, which could rekindle their fighting spirit.

Overall, there’s just no telling what’s going to happen in August.  There are too many players and too much uncertainty for anyone to make any definitive prediction.  Every argument has its valid points.  Something will happen, be it stalemate, truce, rebellion, or cease-fire, but what?  All we can do is wait and see.  Whatever happens, the US is going to have to make some decisions about whether or not to give aid, and what form that aid will take: troops, money, bombers?

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

Jul 22

Facebook’s New System

In 1964, journalist Martin Gansberg published an article in the New York Times that revealed some less-than-flattering human traits and sparked a revolution in social psychology. According to the article, Kitty Genovese, a 29 year-old woman from Queens, was stabbed to death outside over a 35-minute period, after which just 1 of the 38 spectators called the police. The police arrived 2 minutes after they had been called, but by the time they got to the scene of the crime, it was too late. Genovese died on the way to the hospital.

Although the article was a bit sensationalist (only a dozen of the people in the neighborhood heard or observed the attack, and nobody saw the entire incident), there was clearly some negligence in the case. In fact, one man discussed his reasoning for not calling the police promptly when he initially saw the attack, explaining “I was tired. I went back to bed.” The police had a very quick response time, so had they been called sooner, they could have probably prevented the murder. How could so many typically law-abiding citizens allow such a horrible thing to happen right under their noses?

Following Genovese’s murder, social psychologists explored the concept of the bystander effect. Their research suggests that when many individuals are present to witness a crisis, people are unlikely to intervene and help the victim. Social psychologists have explained this phenomenon, stating that with many other people present, individuals can feel a diffusion of responsibility. Another problem is that, since others are not intervening, individuals assume that what is happening is normal, and that it would be wrong to intervene.

A modern day version of the Genovese case occurred last Christmas. Simone Black posted a Facebook status update that she had taken sleeping pills and said goodbye to her friends. Although she explicitly stated her intent to commit suicide, none of her 1,062 Facebook friends alerted authorities. Instead, a few people commented on her status and bickered on whether or not the claim was legitimate.

Black’s suicide was not the only one in which people left suicide notes or hinted at severe depression on Facebook. Having noticed this, Facebook is taking measures to make it easier for people living in the United Kingdom to anonymously report suspicious behavior. Facebook now has members on its staff who look at these suicide alerts, and after assessing the situation, they will contact the proper authorities.

As social networking becomes more and more ingrained in our daily lives, these sites gain access to private information that is often unknown even by the people closest to us. Although such access could be excessive and exploitable, people working for these sites also have the ability to do a lot of good. If someone reveals a plan to inflict bodily harm on herself/himself on Facebook, they can be stopped.

Being stopped requires cooperation between other Facebook users and the Facebook staff. The alert system should be implemented everywhere (it is currently available only in the United Kingdom). Facebook users need to know about this new alert system and how to use it. They also need to overcome the bystander effect and act. They should know that although someone has many other Facebook friends who could report a potentially serious threat, they cannot rely on other people to do so. If we get Facebook to implement this system everywhere it is important to raise awareness about how to effectively use the alert system.  We must all be aware of the bystander effect and when we see signs of suicide, severe depression or updates and statuses on social media that indicate a person may harm themselves, we need to act. Perhaps we can prevent suicides such as the one Simone Black committed last Christmas.

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