Jun 17

The Right to Die

In my previous post I talked about the conflict between a women’s rights to choose abortion, and the ethical danger of normalizing the practice of abortion in order to eradicate disability. Medical professionals and parents-to-be may argue that, due to environmental barriers, cultural stigmas, or the lack of available medical options, the quality of life would be insufficient for babies with certain congenital disorders. These barriers may be considered a reasonable justification for abortion, which is problematic because, rather than working towards creating more sensitive and accommodating environments, aborting fetuses with disabilities aims to eliminate disability altogether.

While it’s clearly important to be informed about the rights of persons with disabilities (PWDs), a trickier issue is the practice of euthanasia. While environmental barriers such as physical accessibility can be removed over time, and societal perceptions can improve in the long-run with increased awareness, we simply can’t ignore the very real physical suffering that is associated with certain serious or terminal disabilities. I don’t have the authority to choose which conditions are more or less applicable for this list, because pain and trauma are experienced in different ways by different people. But in those instances when living becomes unbearable, is ending life a more humane option? It has been debated back and forth many times, but it’s still a relevant question. At the end of the day, do people have the right to die?

Disability rights movements generally don’t support euthanasia, since the practice sustains ableist thinking, placing abled bodies as the norm in society. By providing ways to euthanize, the movement believes society will maintain the view that PWDs are suffering individuals, or charity cases. The fear is that if euthanasia is supported, the right will be abused and PWDs will be killed for the wrong reasons, including Continue reading

Share

Jun 17

LGBT Rights in America

“Every generation of Americans has brought our Nation closer to fulfilling its promise of equality. While progress has taken time, our achievements in advancing the rights of LGBT Americans remind us that history is on our side, and that the American people will never stop striving toward liberty and justice for all.”

-President Barack Obama

It probably comes as no surprise to most, that the United States is far from reaching total equality for all Americans.  The Obama Administration has been slowly, and often times quietly, taking actions and transforming legislation to grant and protect the rights of the LGBT community since his term began two years ago.  While Obama has been criticized by LGBT rights activists in the past, it appears that equality seekers are now building trust in the President’s promises.  An example of this comes from the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC), the largest LGBT civil rights organization, early endorsement of Obama in the 2012 Presidential Election.

As many of you may know, Obama declared the month of June as “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month” in 2009 and continues this proclamation into the future.  With this, I’d like to highlight some of the progress in federal legislation, but not without recognizing the courageous fight for equality by activists, regarding the advancement of equal rights for the LGBT community:

  • Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act—expands federal hate crime law to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”
  • “It Gets Better”—videos recorded by the Administration addressing the issues of suicide and bullying among LGBT teens
  • Same-sex couples can apply for domestic partnerships allowing for some of the same rights as heterosexual couples including hospital visitation and medical decision rights to LGBT patients
  • Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) ensures LGBT employees can obtain leave from work to care for a sick child or family member
  • Violence Against Women Act enforces criminal provisions to include gay and lesbian relationships
  • Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) launches first-ever study of discrimination against LGBT individuals in obtaining housing & enforces regulations to ensure housing programs are open to all regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity
  • Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act signed, the largest federally funded medical treatment program for individuals living with HIV/AIDS
  • Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 allowing LGBT individuals to serve openly in the military
  • Call for Congressional repeal of Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which currently grants states the right not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states (this is still pending resolution)

While the advancements are many, so are the shortfalls.  Most of the rights listed above are not all-inclusive.  Not all hospitals are mandated to allow visitation and medical decision-making rights for LGBT patients—only those who accept Medicaid and Medicare.  Although far and few between, hospitals that only accept private insurance are not required by law to uphold the same protection rights.  This may seem minute to some but the fact that there is opposition from some states to grant these privileges, and that it is not mandated as a basic human right across the board, is a violation against humanity in my eyes.  I don’t see how allowing same-sex partners to visit ill loved ones is a threat to heterosexual couples or the community at large.  It is not right for any individual to suffer alone in a hospital, particularly when it is due to discriminatory factors.

Since federal law does not recognize same-sex relationships, the Family and Medical Leave Act has shortcomings.  While the legislation was extended to include unpaid work leave up to 12 weeks for LGBT individuals, it is only recognized for the care of children and other family members, not same-sex partners.  Fortunately, several workplaces make strides to grant LGBT individuals the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts when it comes to employee leave to care for their sick partners.  Unfortunately, like hospital visitation and decision-making rights, it is not applied across the board.  The HRC suggests an extension of the FMLA to formally include employee leave to care for same-sex partners.  I think that this is a fair request.  Inclusion is not only an expression of humanity, but is also important for workplace retention; employee satisfaction and morale.

Sometimes I ponder how injustice and inequality came to be.  Where does it have its roots?  The answer is not an easy one.  However, what I do know is that justice and equality must prevail without exception.  I understand that change does not happen overnight, but it does happen.  History shows equal human rights can be achieved.  But it is not without the courageous dedication of supporters and activists.  To find out more about federal and individual state laws affecting the LGBT community and how you can get involved in encouraging positive change, check this out.  Whether it is at the local, state, national, or international level, let’s all do our part—whatever it may be—to push for equality for all.

Cynthia Castaldo-Walsh is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group focused on gender-based conflict, non-violence and peacebuilding for conflict transformation, and sustainability for conflict resolution.
Share

Jun 17

Be Aware. Be Kind. Save Lives.

I started this past Monday afternoon just like any other. I headed to the library to study for my upcoming midterm, put my stuff down at my favorite study spot, and, in spite of my best intentions, opened espn.com on my laptop. In the midst of a sea of headlines persecuting LeBron James for failing to bring a championship to Miami, something caught my eye: “Ex-Duke Basketball Captain Emma Found Dead.” I clicked on the link, expecting to find that he had heart complications or finally lost a long battle with cancer, but I was wrong. Emma committed suicide on June 9th by jumping from the 12th floor of the New York Athletic Club in Manhattan.

As a Cameron Crazie and student with strong interest in mental health, this story really hit home with me. Emma was only 49 years old. I imagined how strange and sad it would be for me to go to espn.com 30 years from now and find out that someone I had spent four years of my undergraduate career cheering on, and to some extent even idolizing, had just committed suicide. Intrigued by the story, I sought to find out more about Emma’s life and perhaps understand why he had taken up such drastic measures.

The article I was reading directed me to a eulogy by Jay Bilas. Bilas and Emma were teammates under Coach K in the 1982-1983 season. In the eulogy, Bilas gave us insight on Emma’s character. When Emma and Bilas were teammates, Emma was a senior and Bilas was a freshman. Bilas portrayed Emma as a practical jokester, an unselfish teammate, and a leader. Such traits clearly helped Emma throughout his life. He went on to be drafted by the Chicago Bulls, received his Masters from Columbia, worked on Wall Street, became the president of a company, and even wrote six books.

By any objective view from an outsider, Emma had an immensely successful life. He got to play basketball for arguably the best coach in college basketball history. He got to captain a team of Duke legends such as Johnny Dawkins, Mark Alarie, and Jay Bilas. He held degrees from two of the most esteemed universities in the country. He was able to use the skills he gained playing basketball and going to school to have a successful professional career. Such success is thought to bring about inner-peace and happiness. But this was clearly not the case for Emma.

Relatives revealed to the police that Emma had been depressed prior to committing Continue reading

Share

Jun 16

The Little Know Details of Trafficking Men

Ever since I was 13 and went on a family vacation to Phuket, Thailand, I have been obsessed with making plans to one day return.  As I grew older and read more about Thailand, however, I was starting to learn that not everything about this country was beautiful.  Human trafficking has been a huge problem within Thailand for many years, and I’ve devoted much time to educating myself on the issue.  The other day while I was reading some personal accounts of trafficking, I came to a startling realization: While numerous education campaigns exist for the dangers of sex trafficking of women and child laborers, little awareness is raised on how little protection exploited men receive.  I think part of the problem with this lack of legislation protecting men is linked to public perception.  People believe that men are more capable of protecting themselves and don’t require progressive laws and organizations to speak on their behalf.  Even in browsing statistics from official anti-trafficking projects, little data exists on the trafficking of men.

With the economic crisis affecting people worldwide, it has made men more desperate to find work, and thus more susceptible to falling into the traps of trafficking rings.  The seafood industry in Southeast Asia is booming and so the main sector for forced labor for men, is at sea.  Company owners take advantage of the lack of labor rights and weak law enforcement to exploit these men that work on boats.  Migrants are lured to Thailand with false promises of steady pay and legal paperwork that will entitle them to reside in Thailand.  Upon arrival though, the men are stripped of all paperwork and identification, and then promptly herded onto boats.  They are then forced to work long hours for no pay and are constantly beaten during the years they spend at sea.  Fishing owners even coordinate pickups in the middle of the ocean to transfer the men to another boat while the original returns with the seafood.  This way, the men have no chance to escape other than jumping into the water, guaranteeing a certain death.  So once at sea, there is little that can be done for these poor men.   That’s why I am surprised that even in the fishing industry, where male workers are most prevalent, still more protections exist for women and children.  Why is there this disparity?  I don’t have a straight answer to this difficult question and like I mentioned before, there is sadly very little studies focused on the exploitation of men.  What I can gather from the little information that is given is that:

  • Gender and social stereotypes have prevented government officials from categorizing men as victims of trafficking.
  • Unlike women and children, men tend to work in sectors that are difficult to track and regulate.  Women as sex workers are easily identified and rarely hidden from public view in order to lure buyers.  For men, it seems to be a different story.
  • All this is exacerbated by the general disposition of men, for men are less likely than women to report and speak publicly about personal experiences with trafficking.

Only in 2008 were men finally included in anti-trafficking legislation in Thailand.  Before this, they were treated merely as illegal immigrants hiding out on boats – rather than victims of trafficking and abuse – and deported to Cambodia, Myanmar, Vietnam, or whichever neighboring country officials assumed they originated.  Even though I would love to consider this new anti-trafficking law as groundbreaking, the sad truth is that there’s a huge disconnect between creating laws and what is actually done in terms of prosecution and protection.  Men are still rarely protected and hundreds (but probably even more are undocumented) have still been wrongly deported since 2008.  Lack of sufficient legislation to protect Continue reading

Share

Jun 16

The Nonprofit Disconnect

Earlier this week, Ryan wrote about the difference between providing technical assistance to a one-dimensional problem and making a change that has a more sustainable impact. Digging a well in an area without access to clean water, for example, is a great solution to the simple problem of not having clean water. However, that one problem is rarely independent of other deep-rooted issues, such as poverty, malnutrition, and poor education. So when the issue has so many factors, how can a nonprofit be sure they’re really addressing the right problem?

I’ve written a lot of praise for charity: water on their truly impressive progress. However, charity: water is a prime example of a nonprofit that combats one particular issue (lack of safe drinking water) and perhaps disregards many other issues present in communities. Additionally, these problems may in fact be a contributing cause to the lack of clean water. Is drilling a well, then, simply a band-aid approach? Does it even address the root cause? If not, how is it sustainable?

This is not to knock charity: water or any other organization with a similar simple strategy – they’re obviously extremely good at what they do. In fact, I don’t think the answer to this very complex problem is to widen the focus of individual nonprofits to address bigger and more challenging root issues. I think individual nonprofits should remain focused on one particular goal – like drilling a well – but they should partner with other nonprofits that have an equally specific focus.

For example, lets say there’s a small village in Africa that is without clean water, enough nutritious food, and a thriving economy. Simply put, this community suffers from many aspects of poverty. If charity: water built a well, only one “symptom” of the greater problem would be addressed – the community would still struggle to prosper afterward. What if, instead of a single nonprofit addressing a single problem, a team of organizations, each with a specific strategy for a particular aspect of the problem, came to the village? Each nonprofit would have specialization in an area of the community that needs to be addressed. One could drill a water well, another could teach the local community how to utilize that water (plumbing, irrigation, sanitation, etc.), and another could teach them how to use an irrigation system to specifically grow food. With all areas working together, the economy could improve and the community could thrive.

Among thousands of nonprofit organizations, there lies a disconnect that can prevent sustainable change. Personally, I think the solution is to connect them. Many times, the issue is never simple, so the solution shouldn’t be either. For a multi-dimensional problem, there needs to be a group of specialized organizations to address each part. Then, perhaps there can be real – and sustainable – change.

Rebecca Birnbaum is a Program and Research Intern for 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

Jun 16

2 Steps Forward, 2 Steps Back

The Palestinians seem to be right back where they started 2 months ago

Early last month, Fatah and Hamas, the two major Palestinian political parties, signaled that they were working towards forming a unity government. In my commentary on the talks, I assumed that the deal was, well, a done deal. Reporting at the time led me to believe that the documents being signed in Cairo were those of the actual unity agreement, but it turns out they were nothing of the sort.

Six weeks after the meeting, Hamas and Fatah are no closer to signing anything that would actually allow them to work together, having missed every deadline for further talks and decisions on the matter. The causes of this are many. Hamas fears what will happen to its militaristic, Islamist cause in the Gaza Strip if Fatah, a more secular party, has a say in it. Many Hamas leaders were blindsided by the unity talks and claim that Khaled Meshal, a senior figure in Hamas, didn’t ask their opinion before sitting down with Fatah leaders. And it seems that no one can agree on who should be the joint Prime Minister – a rather important detail. Regardless, the point is that no unity government will be formed in the near future.

A few weeks after these talks began, Egypt announced it would open the Rafah border crossing into Gaza. This, I argued, was a necessary measure that would allow in foodstuffs and medicine badly needed in the strip. For care that couldn’t be provided in Gaza’s lacking medical facilities, the opening of the crossing meant that Palestinians could travel freely outside Gaza and seek out higher quality care.

Alas, this too has failed to happen as it was supposed to. Less than one week after the crossing was opened, Egypt slapped a 400 passenger a day limit on it. They also brought back a blacklist of 5,000 Gazans who are not to be allowed to cross for security reasons. The second point is sensible, provided the list is properly vetted and utilized. But the limit of 400 passengers essentially brings the limit on Gazan mobility right back to where it was before.

I wonder what those responsible for these policies are attempting to accomplish. I’m sure that in both cases, the unity deal and the crossing opening, progress was halted by some party that had enough influence to keep things as they were before. But why even bother teasing Gazans with the opportunity to travel freely when you plan on revoking it so soon afterwards? And why did Hamas and Fatah even pretend like they could get along well enough to actually work in unison – were they naïve, manipulative or simply optimistic?

Going back and forth on these types of issues does little but stoke old frustrations. This frustration either carries over into action, at times violent, or leads to a resigned apathy. What’s the point in choosing one side or another if no real progress is ever to be made? If you claim you’ll completely open the crossing, you had better leave it as open as you said you would. And if you are attempting to form a unity government, then at least show up to the talks and make some tangible progress. That way, even if the unification crumbles, your constituents would know to take it off the table.

Going forward, the leaders in the region need to take into account the negative effects indecisiveness can have on their populations. They should be encouraged to stick to agreements that they have made and follow policies they have created. Perhaps then they can end the dance of taking two steps forward only to take two back and ending up right where they began.

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

Jun 15

Empowerment through Microsavings

Putting Innovative Thinking into Action

Last night I had an experience that is sure to be a memorable one—I got to see President Barack Obama speak to an intimately filled room of supporters.  I must say that his speech left quite an impression on me.  Sure he focused on the usual topics of increasing jobs, healthcare reform, and bettering our education system, but it was much more than that.  Obama pointed out some of the changes and reforms implemented by his administration and noted some of the hindrances.  All of this led to one powerful inclination in my mind that is useful beyond politics and is necessary in addressing any social and/or economic issue currently seeking attention around the world—the need for innovation. 

There are so many issues and initiatives that can be discussed in terms of innovative thinking, but for today I would like to highlight that of microsavings programs to increase financial opportunities for those affected by poverty.  CARE, an international humanitarian organization, has been a leader in creating sustainable microsavings programs in Africa called Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLA) that have provided women with empowerment to take control of their futures by helping themselves, their families, and their communities change the perverse cycle of economic disadvantage to a prosperous cycle of growing income, greater health, and better education.  I should also mention that it gives women a voice, strength in societies where gender oppression is prevalent.  Women who live in these communities and participate in VSLAs are taught a system of collectively pooling and managing money that can be used for savings and loans to meet household needs, finance income-generating businesses, pay for emergency expenses, and ultimately pull their communities out of poverty.

CARE trains the women in how to manage and start a microsavings program over the course of a year intensive and then the women themselves sustain it.  The women collectively contribute money to a “savings box” on a weekly basis, building it up over time.  Then they are able to provide small loans (with interest) to the women who need it for household, educational, and business expenses.  CARE reports a 99% pay-back rate to the savings accounts—so it is reliable.  Furthermore, men have begun modeling the systems led by the women to create similar programs.  You can read more about the programs and effectiveness here.  To date, CARE has launched over 54,000 VSLAs where they have helped women accumulate over $14 million in savings—that is what I call innovation!

A smart investment for the United States government to make would be in programs such as VSLA and taking notice of the great work CARE is doing to create sustainable economic opportunities through the empowerment of women for the greater good of the larger communities.  Sure, we have “our own problems to worry about,” but investing wisely in foreign assistance will not only help us to build allies and save lives, but also to save money in the long-run.  Is it better to invest in such programs now or wait until chaos erupts to send in the money…and troops…to attempt to diffuse life-threatening situations?  I vote for the former.  By the way, I just learned that only 1% of the total U.S. budget is allotted to foreign aid assistance—is that really taking away from monies allotted to the needs within our own country?  I do not think it is.

I also think it would be useful to explore and create similar microsavings programs for other groups of individuals heavily affected by the conditions of economic instability.  A focus on youth could assist in reducing school dropout rates and developing a new generation of role models and leaders for communities to pull themselves out of poverty.  Innovation for Poverty Action (IPA) is currently in the process of researching the effectiveness of microsavings programs for Ugandan youth, as well as evaluating the effectiveness of youth financial literacy education on savings.  These research projects will hopefully shed light into what might work and not work in youth empowerment programs aimed at obtaining financial stability for the greater good of their communities.  All in all, microsavings programs are a creative and innovative way to reduce global poverty around the world through sustainable actions.

 

Cynthia Castaldo-Walsh is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group focused on gender-based conflict, non-violence and peacebuilding for conflict transformation, and sustainability for conflict resolution.
Share

Jun 15

Inside the coal industry, part 2

Coal and the future of energy

In a recent post I commented about the problems that communities in Kentucky face against coal industries and mountain top removal procedures (see here). People concerned about mining’s environmental impact propose a return to “deep mining. Deep mining is not as damaging as mountain top removal, and it also requires more people and therefore means more jobs.

But the willingness of current miners to work with “older” mining methods, such as deep mining, is improbable because of two reasons.  First, deep mining is more risky for miners, if safety conditions are not well enforced. And there is an inherent risk of getting lung problems. It is also an unlikely and unfavorable choice because deep mining would mean a decrease in current wages (as companies are forced to increase employees, they cut wages).

What needs to occur is a demand for more jobs, with safe working conditions and strong wages. But with no miner union or other type of social organizing occurring, there is no strong coalition to demand all of these things simultanously. The mining companies are therefore benefitting from the community’s division, as they create a systematic opposition between the “environment” and the “jobs”.

A possible way out would be to make sure that coal companies are doing their work in both a social and environmentally responsible way. It may mean fewer profits, but there would be more social benefits. And for this to happen, the community has to understand that they do have common goals, there should be an end to fighting on opposite sides of the conversation as either “environment” or “jobs”.

In the current economic context, politicians won’t change the industry’s behavior if there is no alternative proposal. In a recent documentary about Appalachia’s mountain top removal “The last mountain”, they suggest wind energy as an alternative to coal (and Bobby Kennedy Jr. largely supports it).

America's Main Sources of Energy - Energy Information Administration

Although it looks like a great solution for the community in Appalachia, it would present a major problem for the rest of America. Wind energy produces less power than coal and it is more difficult to transport the type of  energy that it produces. In that sense, coal companies have another great argument in their favor, as they supply between 1/3 and 1/2 of America’s energy (for more stats go here). If we prohibit coal industry in Appalachia, there won’t be enough power to light up New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, or even Detroit.

What could be another possible solution? Many say: end the coal and oil subsidies and lets promote greener, renewable energies! This does sound ideal, and it should be done. But it will not come without other costs.  The transition to green jobs requires education, training, and  other inputs that need large funding. Cleaner energies are still not as effective as oil or coal, so it is hard to obtain the appropiate funding.

This transition to “cleaner energies” would also represent other sacrifices. While we make the transition, America’s strong energy demand we’ll force us to either: increase energy imports from developing countries (Colombian or Chinese coal,see here for example) or we’ll extract it from other regions of America (Natural Gas of Philadelphia). Extractive industries in developing countries have large records of human rights and environmental abuses; natural gas involves Continue reading

Share

Jun 15

California: An Eco-Friendly Photo Essay, part 2

For part one of my photo-essay, click here.

When doing my research for my trip to California, as you may recall, I found a very short list of organic vineyards in Napa Valley; however, once we arrived, signs such as this one were discretely posted at the majority of the vineyards we visited.  I was pleased to find that my trip was going to be even more eco-friendly than I had anticipated, since I had assumed the majority of the vineyards would not grow organic grapes.  Vineyards are large and difficult to maintain as it is, after all, so I had expected organic farming to be a rarity.

However, the more of these signs I saw, the more I began to wonder about their true meaning.  What does “Napa Green Certified Land” actually mean?  Often, things are labeled as “green” or “eco-friendly” or “organic” despite being none of those things, though standards and certification for organic products are becoming more rigorous.  So, I decided to do some research to find out if wineries had to go through a legitimate process to become “Napa Green Certified Land,” or if any old vineyard could order that sticker and put it up in their window.

I found that Napa Green is a voluntary program that vintners can join and is intended to surpass the standards of state and federal “best practices.”  Vineyards and others who join are certified by a third party, which guarantees objectivity, though I could not find out who that third party was, and that third party ensures that the vintners use practices that protect the ecological quality of the valley.  Since Napa Green is a public-private partnership, it not only promotes higher environmental standards but is beneficial to the community.  I was pleasantly surprised to find that several of the vineyards I visited were listed as Napa Green Certified Land and/or Napa Green Certified Vineyards, even though I only saw the sticker in the window of one winery.

In fact, many of the vineyards we visited were very secretive about their growing practices.  That last paragraph, which comes from a plaque in St. Supery winery, was the only indication I found that the growers practiced sustainable farming.  At Domaine Carneros, I would have had no idea that they used organic grapes if our pourer hadn’t chanced to tell us that Domaine Carneros was the first sparkling winery in the US to have all of its estate vineyards receive organic certification, and I would not have known about their large solar collection system if I hadn’t looked on their website to verify the organic certification.  Other vineyards were even more secretive; Sterling Vineyards, Robert Mondavi Winery, Cakebread Cellars, and Beringer Vineyards were all on the Napa Green certified list, and yet while I was tasting at those wineries I had no idea that they were committed to organic and sustainable farming.  I suppose I should have asked the Continue reading

Share

Jun 14

Water for Sudan – Spotlight

Last week, I wrote a couple of posts about the security situation and aid organizations in Sudan. One element that factors heavily into both of these issues is water – that most essential of resources. Now that we’re less than a month away from southern Sudan’s secession from Sudan proper, it’s becoming obvious that resources like oil and water are going to define the prosperity of each nation. But what happens when such resources are squandered and poorly managed?

80% of people living in Sudan rely on agriculture for their livelihood. Obviously, this implies a massive reliance on water that is both plentiful and easily accessed. Sudan’s irrigation system is larger than that of any other country in Sub-Saharan Africa, but this doesn’t mean that it is well put together. The system wastes an incredible amount of water through poorly implemented methods of irrigation. In spite of vast water resources, such as access to the Nile River and massive swamplands, much of Sudan has extremely limited access to clean water.

Agriculture isn’t the only concern. Most aid organizations focus on the more immediate issue of providing clean drinking water. To date, Water for Sudan has drilled 104 wells in Southern Sudan. This organization was started by one of the Lost Boys of Sudan, who were displaced during Sudan’s second civil war and who have intimate knowledge of the plight people in southern Sudan are currently facing. The organization follows the principle that “the ethical and moral way to create lasting change is to respect and empower people’s capacity to transform their own lives.” This sure sounds like the mission statement of an organization that is working towards a sustainable initiative.

But I wonder if its board of directors has ever considered expanding their operation beyond simply drilling wells. After all, it doesn’t seem like the Sudanese government in Khartoum has much interest in fixing the mismanaged irrigation systems of the south, which will soon officially have to fend for itself. Water for Sudan’s yearly income hovers around $570,000 and relies on private donors. By the time you factor in operating expenses, this number seems significantly smaller. My plane ticket from Chicago to Kenya, a southeast neighbor of Sudan, just cost me nearly $2,000 – imagine funding that and other expenses for every member travelling to and from Sudan to help drill and you begin to understand the cost of doing business in such a region.

I’m not proposing that this single relatively small organization tackle the irrigation problems of an entire nation, nor am I saying that there’s anything bad or wrong about the current mission of Water for Sudan. Rather, I’m wondering what 104 well’s worth of resources and labor could do in the way of properly irrigating a small, target region and what that could do for the Sudanese living there. If people near a swamp, for example, could be provided the technical assistance to capture water from the swamp drainage and funnel that into their crops, that may allow them to access the full potential of the arid portion of their lands.

Access to water and an ample supply of crops would alleviate many of the issues that have brought Sudanese factions to war in the past and present. Considering the small budget of most of the aid organizations working in southern Sudan, it’s important to question whether or not their methods are creating the most sustainable of impacts. It might be a hard decision to redirect funds from a project that provides immediate, necessary results (drilling wells in remote villages) to a project that takes time and has a smaller guarantee of success (building/fixing irrigation), but this is still something worth considering.

Regardless, these organizations should be commended for venturing into areas where larger organizations fear to tread. Because of the dedication of groups such as Water for Sudan, thousands of Sudanese have reliable access to clean drinking water, which is certainly a step in the right direction.

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