May 23

The Most Forgotten Aspect of Ecotourism

In my last blog post I wrote about The International Ecotourism Society’s list of 10 energy saving tips for travelers, and today I will cover another aspect of sustainable tourism promoted by TIES: economic impact.  It isn’t enough to reduce your carbon footprint while traveling; you must also increase your economic footprint, otherwise it isn’t really “sustainable” tourism, as the local communities cannot continue to support tourism if they don’t have a consistent infusion of tourist dollars.  TIES provides travelers with a list of ways they can increase their economic impact on the localcommunity, as it does with ways to save energy and reduce carbon emissions, but unfortunately this list is not nearly as comprehensive.  The list of 10 do’s and don’ts contains only 4 tips related to economics, and while these are helpful, they aren’t enough.

Some of these tips seem pretty intuitive; buying local (tip 9), for instance, is, in my opinion, one of the main reasons to travel.  I want to eat local foods and visit local markets when I’m staying somewhere new, and if there’s a local festival going on I want to see it.  Also, it’s important to note that this applies everywhere, whether you’re staying in a tropical jungle or a cosmopolitan city.  You can still eat locally (or regionally) grown foods as opposed to imported foods.  Choosing locally-owned lodges or hotels can be a bit more difficult depending on where you’re headed, though, and local airlines can be hit-or-miss.  Hiring local guides (tip 10) is likewise intuitive: if I’m visiting a foreign city or town, who better to show me around than a local guide?  They will likely know a lot more than anyone brought in by the hotel or travel agency, and can show you things you might otherwise have missed.

Paying the fair price (tip 8) is something to keep in mind if you’re going to an area where haggling is common.  Personally, I have never visited a country where haggling is expected, but based on the accounts of friends who have been to such places, it’s easy to get caught up in a very aggressive frame of mind.  Being charged the “American” or “Western” price is often seen as a personal affront, and the ultimate goal for travelers is to bargain their way down to the elusive “local” price.  However, one reason tourists are charged such high prices is because tourism is not just about sharing sites with visitors, it is tied directly to the economic growth plans of many countries and used to support the economic sustainability of the local population. Tourism is designed to increase the infusion of foreign dollars into the local economy, so paying a fair price can provide huge economic benefits to support the local economy and increase the economic livelihood of a destination’s residents. This is especially true for those working in the informal sectors (street vendors and informal guides) that interact with tourists as a key portion of their business. For those in high poverty but high tourism destinations, these economic transactions within tourism, support and maintain entire households. You don’t have to take the first price offered by a vendor, as, if bargaining is common, they most likely expect you to haggle a little, but you shouldn’t bring the price down too low, either.

Asking the hotel staff about hotel practices and working conditions (tip 1) is not something I had considered before, but it’s a good tip—even if TIES doesn’t include one of the most important elements.  TIES suggests that travelers ask about environmental policies and practices, working conditions, and whether or not the hotel supports community projects, but does not include asking if the hotel employs local labor.  It is important to stay at a hotel that follows sound environmental practices and treats their workers well, but employing local workers is one of the best ways to improve the well-being of local people (which is part of the TIES definition of ecotourism).  Interestingly, the large and often wasteful resorts are the ones that employ a large number of local workers, while ecotourism companies frequently bring in a majority of foreign workers. These high levels of employment within large resorts, however, may be in the lowest tiers of employment, offering little to no growth opportunities or management experience. The positions with the most control and power may be limited to foreigners, once again decreasing the effectiveness of tourism as a development strategy for the local economy.

All of these do’s and don’ts are things to remember while traveling, but TIES really could go further to emphasize the importance of maximizing your economic impact while traveling and to provide instruction on how to do so, as it’s the more frequently forgotten aspect of ecotourism.   Economics gets only 4 tips out of 10, whereas the environment got a list of its own and 3 tips on the do’s and don’ts list.  If you want more information TIES suggests going to their Ecotourism Explorer to find organizations and businesses dedicated to giving back to the community, but it’s a somewhat difficult-to-use application and if there are no organizations listed for your desired destination your only recourse is to stick to the 4 tips mentioned earlier.  They’re good tips, but they don’t get enough emphasis and there’s a lot more that can be done.

Michelle Bovee 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

May 23

Spotlight On charity: water

Charity: water is an nonprofit organization that brings clean water to developing areas by building wells and water sanitation projects. In just four years, charity: water hasraised over $20 million, which is clearly an enormous accomplishment. One of the most impressive things about the organization, and one of the major factors in its success thus far, is its use of social media. In fact, the charity: water doesn’t simply use social media – it has completely mastered it.

To start, the website is easy to navigate, full of pictures and graphics, and loaded with information. Most importantly, though, it is extremely engaging to anyone browsing it, making it a social media tool in itself by truly connecting the user to every aspect of the organization. Between using videos, pictures, personal stories, the blog, and creative ways of displaying success, it’s easy to find yourself simply clicking around the website to find out more interesting and creatively presented information about the organization. With each click, the viewer is connected to another part of charity: water – making it near impossible to not care about the cause.

Charity: water also uses social media as a way to connect donors with the projects that were completed using their donation. By using Google Maps, the donor can actually see exactly where the water project was built. In other words, charity: water is able to show donors that their contributions are more than just a check – they have tangible outcomes and an actual impact. Not only does this decrease the distance between the donor and the project they funded, but it also makes a donation seem less about money and more about what it can do. It empowers the donor to think not “I donated $10,” but instead “I helped fund a well in a village in Bolivia and I can show you a picture of it.” This makes the donation process much more personal, appealing, and effective.

Charity: water is also active on Twitter and uses the platform to spread information about the organization, connect with followers, and fundraise. In February of 2009, charity: water even hosted a Twestival to raise money for the organization. An astonishing $250,000 was raised – through Twitter alone – and charity: water spread awareness about its cause around the globe. It’s crazy to think that a simple social media platform like Twitter could generate this kind of effect, but charity: water proves that social media, when used creatively and effectively, can be an enormously successful tool for nonprofits.

Social media gives nonprofits an opportunity to multiply their impact. Whether it is to increase fundraising, spread awareness about the cause, or connect with related organizations, social media can be extremely valuable in engaging people in the cause – whatever it may be. Best of all, social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook are absolutely free to use, which actually gives nonprofits no reason not to take advantage of them. Bottom line: social media is all about connecting people, and nonprofits can use it to connect people around the world to the organization, the cause, and each other.

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

May 20

Invisible Warriors

In my last post I discussed the general global issue of child soldier exploitation.  When child militarism is discussed, the spotlight is usually directed at the experiences of boys.  However, out of the estimated 300,000 children exploited in armedgovernmental and rebel forces, about 30% are female.  Due to social, cultural, political, and religious factors in various regions of the world, females are especially prone to military recruitment and often face harsher roles and conditions than their male counterparts.  Their service far exceeds the physical fighting we most often hear about, as females are often exposed to gender-based violence and abuse.  Some of the imposed roles female child soldiers face includes:

  • Front-line, active, physical fighting
  • Suicide missions; mine sweeps
  • Looting
  • Intelligence, spying & portering
  • Medical support
  • Cleaning & cooking; domestic servitude
  • Sexual slavery for military forces
  • Forced marriages to military commanders and troops

Female child soldiers are a sub-group that needs specialized attention, particularly in developing effective plans and programs to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate them back into society.  Girls are exposed to gender-specific conditions and hardships in their military roles such as rape, unwanted/forced pregnancies and marriages, high risk of sexually-transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS, and other forms of discrimination and human rights violations.  Unfortunately, the very conditions that they experience in the military are the very same vulnerabilities they often face in general society.  Therefore, there is an even greater challenge in rehabilitating and reintegrating female child soldiers back into their communities since they face an overall high level of injustice and devaluation in everyday living.

Reintegration back into society is a major difficulty for female child soldiers due to their general lack of social status.  The social stigmatization and marginalization of girls is rampant in many areas of the world.  Females are often shunned from their families and communities due to the misperception of their sexual experiences as shameful regardless of whether force and coercion was used or not.  Rape and sexual abuse is viewed as disgraceful—for the victims, not perpetrators.  One component of assisting in the rehabilitation and reintegration of female child soldiers lies in educating the societies in which they are returning to.  Communities need to be educated about the basic human rights of all individuals, females included.  Traditional gender roles and expectations need to be challenged; however, respect for cultural practices and beliefs must be respected insofar that they do not break international humanitarian law.  The combined support of international, governmental, and non-profit entities are essential in redefining gender roles, restructuring legislation and policy, reorganizing and recreating rehabilitation/reintegration programs that take gender into account, and empowering the disempowered.  This is not a short-term commitment.

Two of the identified weaknesses of current rehabilitation/reintegration programs for child soldiers include their “Band-aid” interventions and general exclusion of girls from receiving services.  Most of the programs that assist in the disarmament and rehabilitation of child soldiers receive short-term funding of 1-2 years, only addressing immediate needs of the exploited children.  While short-term funding is better than no Continue reading

Share

May 20

The CRPD: What’s missing?

In my earlier post I offered some background information about the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), including its history and purpose. I wrote the piece in recognition of the 100th ratification of the treaty last week, but it’s important to understand that ratifying is simply the first step. The hard work begins after ratification, when countries have to demonstrate to the international community a genuine commitment to the goals of the treaty. In order for a treaty to be effective, countries must show sustained progress in implementing and monitoring the core principles of the CRPD, which include:

1) Respect for Inherent Dignity

2)  Non-discrimination

3) Full inclusion in society

4) Respect for difference, and the acceptance of Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) as part of human diversity

5) Equality of Opportunity

6) Accessibility

7) Equality between men and women

8) Respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities, and their right to preserve their identities.

The twelve-member Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is charged with the task of monitoring each country’s performance with respect to the principles above. The committee works within the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which oversees all “human rights”-related treaties and activities throughout the UN system, and has the power to address on-going, widespread human rights abuses. Every four years countries that have ratified the CRPD are required to submit progress reports, detailing steps they’ve taken to support legislative, judicial, and policy changes in accordance with the CRPD’s objectives.  Examples might include increasing political participation by establishing a quota for the number of PWDs working in the government, or redesigning federal income support programs so that they take the financial needs of PWDs into account.

Although country reports are extremely helpful for monitoring purposes, the Committee can do nothing more than offer recommendations – it has no power to enforce the CRPD. Enforcement is left entirely up to national governments, and, as we have seen among notorious human rights violators like China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Russia, and Pakistan, membership to a human rights treaty does not guarantee that a country will live up to its promise.  Of course, NGOs, grassroots organizations, and Disabled Persons Organizations (DPOs) can play a very important role in disseminating information to educate the population and lobby for disability rights. But if societal attitudes towards disabilities are so prevalent and rigid that PWDs are physically prevented from organizing, DPOs and NGOs are out of the question.

So, then, we come to my main question: How far can the CRPD reach, when governments put token policies and laws in place, but fail to enforce them or change negligent attitudes towards PWDs? As a recent example from Human Rights Watch shows, women with disabilities in northern Uganda are more vulnerable to poverty and sexual violence. This isn’t because the appropriate laws aren’t in place; Ugandan laws prohibit discrimination against PWDs. Instead the violence is exacerbated by local and regional attitudes towards PWDs, especially women. Not only are women with disabilities more likely to be shunned by communities, but in this case their perceived vulnerability is exploited by men for sex.

Some might say that without adequate law enforcement, violence and exploitation are bound to go unchecked in any society. But I disagree.  If it takes a policeman on every corner to prevent the acceptable abuse and marginalization of PWDs, then there is something inherently missing in the ethical code of the culture. I used northern Uganda as an example, but this applies to every society on some level. If all members of a population can’t incorporate the rights of PWDs into their norms, what hope do we have that they will police their own actions when the policeman is no longer there?  It’s not enough to make laws, quotas, provisions, accessibility requirements, etc, if people aren’t expected to uphold the principles of inclusion in their own daily actions and activities. It’s not enough to put aside special accommodations, when a majority of the population isn’t educated about the humanity and value of PWDs. The CRPD, like all conventions, is an excellent document that standardizes ideas about inclusion, equality, and human rights. But there is still a logistical gap between the distant, idealistic principles put forth by the UN, and the realities of local attitudes and misunderstandings – which only education can fix.  This can be in the form of formal education that includes children with disabilities, or national campaigns to raise awareness about PWDs. Whichever the method, without educating the public to change discriminatory attitudes, laws will carry no weight.

Sarah Amin is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group’s Research Division focusing on Human Rights Advocacy, International Disability Rights and Gender Equality/Gender Mainstreaming. To learn more about the SISGI Group visit www.sisgigroup.org.
Share

May 20

Growing Up Too Fast

The Over Sexual Image of Young Girls

Growing up is difficult enough without having to see images depicting young women in provocative or sexualized positions.  However, young girls across America are immersed in a media culture in which wearing skimpy outfits make them beautiful, and looking like a size two model is the epitome of beauty.  Everything from magazines to television shows portray an image of females who are edgier and sexier, a message that becomes embedded in the minds of millions of young girls who watch TV or even pick up a Barbie doll.  Unfortunately, this message is dangerous for the mental and physical health of young women who are told what being beautiful is supposed to look like in today’s society.

According to the American Psychological Association (APA), society, parents, and even fellow girls aid in the sexualization of young women.  For example, girls’ toys are often dressed in miniskirts and fishnet stockings with their faces painted with makeup, making it seem as though this is acceptable everyday attire.  Though the clothing or marketing of the dolls may not affect the girls immediately, the idea of mimicking the dress and mannerisms of the dolls can manifest as girls get older.  For example, they may begin to think that wearing makeup is preferable to being naturally pretty or wearing shorter shorts or dresses is the only way to attract attention.  Studies have shown that girls between the ages of 8 and 12 spend over $40 million a month on cosmetics alone. Recent polls have shown that 25% of teenage girls post nude or scantily clad pictures of themselves on the web.  The over sexualized image of girls throughout the media can easily affect the way girls think of their bodies and themselves as they grow older.

Unfortunately, the media is not the only player in influencing the behavior or decision making of young girls.  When young girls ask their parents to buy them products, toys or clothes that amplify their sexuality, the adults are inadvertently supporting the overly sexual image these items project.  Any girl who is not dressed in the same sexualized clothes as her female peers or playing with the same dolls and toys is usually treated as an outsider or black sheep by other girls.  The pressure to fit in and be like everyone else can be incredibly overwhelming, and can cause young girls to pick up toys and begin to dress like their friends merely to feel “normal.”  This becomes a vicious cycle that young girls have difficulty escaping when the media and their peers all make them feel as though being different is strange.

The dangers of the over-sexualization of females translate into all aspects of a young girl’s life.  Lyn Mikel Brown, a professor and co-founder of the non-profit organization Hardy Girls Healthy Women, states that society’s sexualized image of girls causes them to think that the road to becoming an adult requires them to look more sensual and seductive.  Many girls, who idolize celebrities like Miley Cyrus and Lindsay Lohan, see a transformation to adulthood that starts off sweet and ends up sultry.  Young girls begin to think that the only way to be viewed as a grown up is to put on sexy clothing and pounds of makeup.  Furthermore, a majority of the images young girls are exposed to are of tall and toothpick thin women, a narrow physical body type that can be difficult to attain.  When girls feel like they cannot achieve the body type or sexual perfection that media dictates, they usually fall down a slippery slope of body and confidence issues.  Research from the APA’s Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls connects the over sexualization of young girls with problems like eating disorders, depression, and lower self-esteem.  All in all, the sexualized representations of girls in magazines, movies, and shows force them to think of themselves in demeaning ways.

Fortunately, there are a plethora of organizations that have become involved in spreading the message of the over sexualization of young girls today.  Organizations like the Respect Institute and Sexualization Protest: Action, Resistance Knowledge (SPARK) have come up with several ways to combat the image of over sexual girls.  Both organizations offer tips to boost the self-esteem of girls, promote healthy images, and gain confidence in order to reject the media’s picture of one size sexualized girls.  By becoming involved and learning more about how we can empower young girls to feel comfortable in their own skins, we can all take part in making an important difference.

Areeba Hasan is a SISGI Group Intern working with the Alliance for Positive Youth Development, a SISGI Group initiative. She is currently a senior at Rutgers University New Brunswick, with a major in history. To learn more about the SISGI Group’s Youth Initiative please visit sisgigroup.org
Share

May 19

Sanctioning Syria – And Now We Wait

It took Syria a few weeks longer than other Arab nations to catch the fever of the Arab spring. Now that over 800 Syrians have died in protests for freedom and basic rights at

Bashar al-Assad

the hand of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the international community has decided that it’s time to step in.

Yesterday, President Obama announced that the US was joining the European Union (EU) in imposing sanctions on President al-Assad and other elite members of the Syrian government. The first round of EU sanctions took effect on May 10th but have yet to demonstrate any real results. Regardless, these sanctions are a positive measure if they are able to keep international involvement in Syrian affairs from spilling over into violent conflict as has happened in Libya.

When it comes to sanctions, some use the Iranian case to exhibit the potential negative repercussions. For years, various members of the international community have imposed sanctions on Iran in an effort to pressure them into foregoing their nuclear program. Most of these sanctions, the argument goes, have harmed the middle class more than the elites who are actually making the decisions to pursue a nuclear program. In some of the cases of Iranian sanctions, this is blatantly true. Sanctions in the 90’s on Iraq are also an excellent example of this potential peril.

In response to such an argument, it’s important to highlight a certain aspect of the current sanctions being imposed against Syria: they’re going after the elites. The US sanctions, in particular, are against the Syrian President, Vice President, Prime Minister, and Minister of Defense. They’re also targeting the assets of one of Syria’s richest men, Rami Makhlouf, in an effort to dry up financial support for President al-Assad’s violent crackdown, as well as Qasem Soleimani, a member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who is allegedly assisting al-Assad.

The important thing is to actually stick to the goal of targeting elites rather than saying one thing while doing another. Back to the Iranian case, Secretary of State Clinton has stated previously that sanctions in Iran should target the elite rather than the general population. Unfortunately, the execution of the sanctions did not match this sensible mentality. In the end, the Iranian public has suffered more than their despotic leadership because the sanction imposers lack the patience to see the results through. Sanctions are not meant to work at such a quick pace. When one measure doesn’t work immediately, the international community tends to press for greater results through wider economic sanctions – a measure which ultimately punishes the public and does little against the elite.

Thus, the influence of the international community in Syria is currently resting on a precarious ledge. On one hand, it must be patient with its decision to freeze assets of the Syrian elite and resist the temptation to magnify the sanctions to a level that would harm the quality of life of the common Syrian. At the same time, this sanctioning community bears a responsibility to be vigilant in their pursuit of these assets. The decision has been made to target the elites; we now owe it to the Syrian public to see this method through.

The imposition of sanctions encourages an overall increase of involvement in the affairs of Syrian politics, something any active member of NATO should be cautious of.  Recent successes in Libya should not be used as justification to launch NATO forces into an engagement in Syria. In spite of recent developments with the United Nations Security Council and the International Criminal Court that technically allowed involvement in Libya, it is not the job of any of these parties to secure the rights of all people in the Middle East.

The international community has made the right decision to pressure the Syrian elite into reconsidering their crackdown on citizens. Only time will tell if the community has the right measure of patience and diligence necessary to truly help the Syrian people.

Share

May 19

Preventing Disaster in India

Despite Japan’s current nuclear crisis resulting from the earthquake in March, there are plans to build another nuclear power plant in Jaitapur, an earthquake-prone area on the west coast of India. This isn’t just your average nuclear plant, either – the proposed 9900-megawatt plant will cover 968 hectares of land (that’s more than two thousand football fields!) and it will be considered the largest nuclear power plant in the world.

There has been growing resistance to the plant’s development (both in India and worldwide) concerning the potential of an earthquake striking the region and causing a nuclear meltdown. It really comes down to whether or not a nuclear plant should be built in a disaster-prone area in general. Earthquakes – along with other natural disasters and severe weather events – are uncontrollable, unpredictable, and potentially destructive to any area. If a severe earthquake hit India, a nuclear meltdown in addition to any structural damage could be completely devastating.

Although we certainly can’t control earthquakes, we can control the type of development in these earthquake-prone areas. By not allowing the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant to be built, we can prevent a potential natural disaster from becoming utterly catastrophic. Any damage to infrastructure can be rebuilt, but a nuclear meltdown can be destructive for decades.

This relates to the very core of sustainable development: using available resources to meet current needs without compromising the well-being of those in future generations. As we make plans for the present, we have to consider the potential long-term effects. It may be the case that a severe earthquake will never strike this part of India and a nuclear meltdown would therefore not happen. However, is it really worth the risk? Providing inexpensive electricity cannot be a priority over people’s safety. Besides, there alternative sources of energy that can be utilized  – such as wind and solar energy – that wouldn’t bring the risk of a nuclear meltdown. There may be a far more sustainable approach.

For those who think the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant should be constructed, I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts. Is there a way this project could be developed sustainably? Or, when it comes to sustainable development, should we just disregard potential risks and hope for the best?

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.com.
Share

May 18

Reducing Energy Consumption – Its Not Just For Hippies

Ecotourism has become something of a buzzword lately, but how many people can honestly say they know what it is or how to be a responsible tourist?  The International Ecotourism Society is a good place to start learning about sustainable tourism andhow anyone can green their next vacation.  Founded in 1989, TIES has long set the standards for sustainable development and conservationism.  The TIES mission and definition of ecotourism—“Responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people”—have been adopted around the world as the hallmarks of responsible tourism.  Their website hosts a wide variety of information on ecotourism companies, where to find sustainable lodging, and how to make the most out of your vacation while reducing your carbon footprint.

One of their most beneficial resources is a list of 10 simple things travelers can do to reduce their energy consumption while traveling (they also have a list of things travelers can do to avoid leaving a negative impact on the local culture, economy, and environment, which I’ll talk about in a later post).  The list is pretty comprehensive and has some good tips that pretty much anyone can follow, making the list a must-read.  For example, number 2 on the list is to “Travel Light” and pack only what you need, as reducing the weight of luggage reduces green house gas emissions.  I know I have trouble packing light for trips—I am one of those people who sits in front of my suitcase asking, “What if it gets chilly at night and I need long pants?  What if I see someone wearing the same swimsuit? Oh I have to bring my new dress!”—but it’s not difficult to remove some things you know you won’t wear and to remove anything that might become waste.  The list also suggests unplugging household appliances and turning off lights before you leave your house, and turning off the lights, ac/heat, and appliances when you leave your hotel room, two-minute activities that can greatly reduce energy consumption.  Eating locally is on the list, and that is a good way to experience the local culture while you reduce your energy footprint.  After all, isn’t sampling local favorites and eating unique, locally grown fruits and vegetables half the fun of traveling?

Some of the items on the list are difficult for the average traveler, however.  Minimizing air travel can be hard to do, especially if you’re traveling a long distance that requires several layovers.  To reduce air travel they suggest staying longer in one location instead of making many shorter trips, but if you don’t have a lot of vacation time you might need the shorter trips to see everything you want to see.  And while it’s always beneficial to save water by reusing sheets and towels, I can understand not wanting to reuse your sheets if you’re spending a lot of money for your room—though you can still take short showers and turn off the water while brushing your teeth and save some water that way.  But even if you can’t do everything on the list, even if there are no hotels with good sustainability practices where you are going or you can’t afford to donate to a credible carbon offsetting program to offset your unavoidable footprint (list items 3 and 10, respectively), looking it over and seeing what you can do is a great start.  You don’t have to be a hippie backpacker willing to go days without showering and spend your vacation volunteering, to minimize your carbon footprint.  Responsible tourism can take place on every trip every time.

Michelle Bovee 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

May 18

Too Young For War

Stopping the Use of Child Soldiers

When we think of the lives of children we often do not think of them as training in military camps and fighting in wars.  Yet, there are thousands of child soldiers involved in armed conflicts around the globe—some as young as 8 or 9.  Universally, the use of child soldiers is generally viewed negatively and international law has been implemented to protect children from involvement in armed conflict.  For instance, the United Nations enforced the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which bans the use of children under 18 for direct armed services and hostilities.  Between 16 and 18 years of age, however, children can be recruited for governmental military use as long as it is deemed “voluntary” and they are not put in a direct position of fighting.  The United States enacted the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008, a sub-legislation of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008, citing provisions consistent with U.N. law on the protection of child soldiers.  The protection of children from governmental armed conflict recruitment is quintessential; however, are we doing enough to safeguard children from harm?

Last week, I discussed issues surrounding child sex tourism and sex trafficking around military bases, as well as federal anti-trafficking legislation addressing the aforementioned global problems.  U.S. child soldier prevention legislation made its debut in the TVPRA of 2008 for the first time.  You may be wondering what the connection between human trafficking and the use of child soldiers may be.  The answer is simple, yet complex.  Children do not genuinely have the physical or psychological maturity to consent to involvement in war.  Children involved in armed conflict are often coerced, forced, or abducted and then exploited for labor or sexual slavery in conflict regions.  In cases where children become involved “voluntarily” in armed conflict, it is often as a result of the need for food and shelter security if they have been displaced from their families.  UNICEF estimates that there are 300,000 child soldiers spread across 30 armed conflict regions.  The number is not decreasing despite international and federal laws and regulations.  As a global society, we are not doing enough to ensure children are protected from harm on multiple levels, including recruitment into armed services.

We must advance current initiatives to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate/rehabilitate child soldiers.  For one thing, children are not fully developed before at least age 18 and there should not be any exceptions to military enlistment under 18 years of age across the globe.  While I understand that there are cultural and regional differences in regards to child rearing, development and the legal age of adulthood, it is important to have a universal minimum age to serve in any military capacity.  Regardless of external conditions, children are not fully developed physically or social-emotionally.  They are not yet able to logically-reason or rationalize consequences; therefore, are more prone to injury, abuse, trauma, and death in armed conflict.

I think that a key to positive transformation lies in international, governmental and non-governmental integration and relationships.  Each sector has powerful connections and resources to prevent the use of child soldiers in their own right.  Governments need to enforce stricter regulation of their own military standards, as well as create a tier and sanction system for other governmental bodies that are not abiding by human rights law.  The U.S. can start by ratifying the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child, the first legally binding international instrument to protect the rights of children across all human rights categories.  The U.S. and Somalia are the only two countries in the world who have not yet ratified the agreement.  Without making this commitment, the U.S. is not accepting responsibility for protecting the rights of children to the fullest extent.  The United States has provided on-going funding to Somalia’s military, which is notorious for utilizing children as soldiers; thus, the U.S. has indirectly supported the use of children in the military.  I call for the U.S. to set up a system where funding is more strictly regulated to see to it that our tax dollars are not supporting human rights violations against innocent children.

International and governmental agencies must continue to partner with NGO’s to provide funding and support for grassroots initiatives and research.  NGO’s have the ability to connect with local communities, advocate on the behalf of innocent children, and educate individuals and organizations about the reality and dangers of child soldiers.  Furthermore, non-profit groups play a significant role in the reintegration process of child soldiers back into the community (i.e. through reunification with family, working with cultural norms, providing education/school, counseling, and vocational training).  Children are resilient and I believe that with the combined and forceful effort of international, governmental, and non-profit agencies, the use of child soldiers around the world can diminish over time.

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

May 17

The Importance of US Military Withdrawal from Iraq

Until recently, there was little reason to doubt that the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the US and Iraq would be honored and all US forces would be out of Iraq by December 31st, 2011. As the deadline nears, the agreement is being called into question. This is a mistake. Withdrawing US forces from Iraq is the right and necessary course of action. An extension of the presence of US forces would undermine the legitimacy of the Iraqi government and has the potential to lead to prolonged instability, something we can all live without.

Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s Shi’ite Prime Minister since 2006, was, until recently, an ardent supporter of complete US withdrawal.  In late December of 2010, al-Maliki stated that

Nouri al-Maliki

the Iraqi security forces were capable of handling the affairs of Iraq and that an extension of the SOFA was out of the question. But just this week, al-Maliki announced that he would consider extending the presence of US forces if enough Iraqi leaders agreed it was the right course of action. He said that a decision would be reached by the end of the month, but considering it took a year to sign the first SOFA, the outlook of ratifying a new plan by the end of the year is quite grim.

Even if al-Maliki was able to pull off some sort of accelerated drafting and negotiation process, chances are the currently elected Iraqi government would collapse as a result of an extension. In the 2010 elections, al-Maliki relied heavily on support from Muqtada al-Sadr, a pseudo Shi’ite cleric who commands the Mahdi Army. As al-Maliki started voicing concerns over the US withdrawal, al-Sadr made clear his intent to destabilize the country through violent attacks if US forces stay any longer than the current SOFA allows. Al-Sadr holds stifling sway with poverty stricken Shi’ites in Baghdad – if he turns on the sovereign Iraqi government, many will follow.

Another point to consider is what all goes into a military withdrawal. As it stands, the US has 47,000 troops and some 70 military bases constructed in Iraq. Altering the plan to deploy or redeploy tens of thousands of troops requires a staggering amount of preparation and planning.

Until now, the outline of the agreement has been followed and most has gone according to plan. There was no massive resurgence of violent attacks when US combat forces withdrew from Iraqi cities in the second half of 2009 as some predicted. By 2012, the Iraqi security forces should be savvy enough to maintain their own country, something the US was counting on when it designed the SOFA. The US shouldn’t waver in its belief that the training we’ve offered the Iraqis will be adequate for them to fend for themselves.

On the US side, politicians and commanders have been careful to not outright advocate an extension of the SOFA. Instead, they have continually urged the Iraqis to make their own decision. Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently explained that there is currently neither a plan nor a request from the Iraqi government to extend the presence of US troops.

This is a positive point, as the last thing the US needs to do right now is pressure the Iraqi government into making a decision the Iraqis will resent. Honoring the 2008 SOFA and withdrawing on the current timetable is the best way to keep Iraq from falling once again into the dark abyss of instability.

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