May 16

Facebook Revolution

It’s rare to read a news article on the Tunisian revolt without also reading about Facebook; it was the “Facebook revolution,” the “social media revolt,” sparked by WikiLeaks and organized by Twitter users.  But how much of the credit can really be given to social media?

The revolution began in December 2010, sparked by the actions of a young fruit-and-vegetable peddler named Mohamed Bouazizi who set himself on fire in front of a government building as a protest for the confiscation of his wares and the humiliation he suffered at the hands of a municipal official.  Images and videos of this small event, and the protest staged by Bouazizi’s friends and family that followed shortly after, were uploaded onto Facebook, and from there the revolutionary spirit spread like wildfire.  Soon Facebook became a tool for activists and everyday people, as it allowed them to follow minute-by-minute developments and to organize more protests.  The Tunisian media, tightly controlled by the government, wasn’t reporting what was happening on the ground, so people turned to Facebook and Twitter.

Facebook let Tunisians get an alternative, uncensored picture of what was going on in their country, a picture painted by their compatriots rather than the government.  The videos and images uploaded online to sites like Facebook and Twitter allowed one small protest to have a much larger impact, as a blogger could put something online that reached 50 people, and then those 50 people could reach another 50, and so on.  The use of social media sites created a ripple effect, with the protests spreading outward until the entire country was engulfed in revolution.   In response to this social media activity the government stepped up its censorship, harvesting passwords and usernames and using that information to delete the Facebook accounts and emails of bloggers, reporters, and activists.  The government was clearly scared and knew that social media sites were the main channel of communication, and so attempted to cut them off.

But does this really add up to a Facebook revolution?  Facebook and other social media sites certainly played a key role in the dissemination of information about the protests, as the revolution spread from city to city and people were encouraged to mobilize as they saw what was going on in other parts of the country.  But to call it “indispensable,” to credit such movement to any one factor, seems rash.  Tunisians have struggled with unrest for decades, and it is that unrest that sparked the revolution.  Unemployment was at about 13% when the protests began (and that rate was even higher for college graduates), and the available jobs were often menial.  Wealth was unevenly distributed throughout the country, with the coastal areas holding most of the wealth while the interior was poverty-stricken.  Political freedoms had been slowly stripped away since the last revolution, 23 years ago, while government corruption increased.  This corruption, as well as government censorship, prevented the growing educated class from airing their grievances through normal channels, and so it was really only a matter of time before another coup occurred.

To pigeonhole the revolution as a Facebook/Twitter/WikiLeaks revolution is to ignore all of these social, economic, and political factors, and that cheapens the movement.  It shouldn’t be about the channels of communication (and in this day and age, is it really surprising that social media sites were the main channels of communication?), it should be about the collection of dissatisfied people who rose up to overthrow an ineffective government.  About the hardship they endured for decades, and about how they took matters into their own hands to rectify it.

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 16

UN Enable: Celebrating the 100th Ratification of the CRPD!

On May 10, 2011 Columbia became the 100th country to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The event is a majormilestone for the treaty, as it demonstrates how quickly progress was made in spreading its message across the international community after it entered into force in 2008. To commemorate this achievement, this post will be the first in a two-part series which will examine the history, goals, and finally, the implementation and effectiveness of the CRPD.

Although the CRPD made its official debut in the 2000s, disability-based discrimination was recognized as a global issue by the United Nations as far back as the 1970s. In 1976, the UN General Assembly declared 1981 to be the International Year of Disabled Persons (IYDP), in order to urge the development of strategies to promote the full inclusion of persons with disabilities (PWDs) on regional, national, and international levels.  This ambitious goal led to the adoption of the landmark document, the World Program of Action Concerning Disabled Persons (WPA) by the UN General Assembly in December of 1982. The WPA further solidified and framed the goals of the IYDP as a human rights issue.  As a global strategy, it continued to promote disability prevention, the expansion of opportunities, actions against discrimination, the right to independent living, and the participation of PWDs in public life. The General Assembly set aside a timeline for the implementation of these policies by its member states, which came to be known as the United Nations Decade of Disabled Persons, from 1983 to 1992.

During this decade member states, including Sweden and Italy, attempted to put together drafts of a treaty that would address disability rights; however, they were unsuccessful due to a lack of consensus. The disagreements arose because representatives and political leaders believed that existing human rights documents already guaranteed equality among all citizens, and that a specific focus on PWDs would be superfluous. This impasse prevented the adoption of a treaty at the time, but in 1993 it did allow for a less binding international document, the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities. This document presented guidelines to national governments on the best ways to take action and translate the principles of the WPA into national policies. It addressed everything from awareness-raising, culture, religion, and family life, to support services, accessibility, rehabilitation, and social security. More importantly, however, the Standard Rules marked a shift in the way international documents viewed disability. The UN adopted the social model of disability, which views PWDs as individuals experiencing stigma as a result of their environment, instead of invalids who need protection and charity. Hence, the goal of preventing disabilities lost some of its support.

During an NGO summit on disability in 2000, participating organizations produced the Beijing Declaration on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which renewed the call for an official UN treaty (i.e. convention) that would address disability rights.   Advocates claimed that despite the inclusive language of other human rights documents, PWDs continued to be marginalized and denied basic rights. A convention with a focus on disability would list legal obligations on states that are geared specifically towards protecting and promoting the rights of PWDs. In response to this pressure from advocates, Mexico proposed negotiations for such a convention in December 2001, and just 5 years later a draft convention was unanimously adopted by the General Assembly, making this the fastest negotiation of any human rights treaty.

The CRPD and its Optional Protocol entered into force on May 3, 2008, after garnering a sufficient number of signatures and ratifications.  It emphasizes non-discrimination, individual autonomy, respect for PWDs as part of human diversity, accessibility, evolving capacities and the right to maintain a disabled identity, and the right to social, cultural, and political participation . Uniquely, it’s a powerful instrument for human rights as well as a guideline for international development. As I mentioned in an earlier post, disability rights are essential for alleviating poverty and improving health, although disability had been missing from development strategies until very recently.

The Convention is still new relative to others, and there is plenty to do in terms of evaluating its effects on member states, monitoring human rights protections for PWDs, and finding strategies that can be extended to non-signatories.  I will explore some of these issues in my next post- so stay tuned!

Share

May 16

Reading Comprehension and People Comprehension

In the education system in the U.S., so many resources are utilized in order to teach children how to read. Starting in our early elementary years, various skills and tools are drilled into our heads to enable literacy. From memorizing the alphabet to understanding grammar rules to practicing reading comprehension skills, the education system ensures that children are equipped with the necessary tools to read. It makes sense, then, that the literacy rate in the U.S. is 99% – an extremely successful number that proves the effectiveness of teaching young children necessary reading skills.

However, out of all the skills drilled into our heads as children, far too many are focused on relationships with words, numbers, and tests. What about the skills that are needed to build our relationships with people? We may be taught some of the basics – like how to share or converse, for example – but we’re not taught how to understand another person’s perspective. It’s like teaching children how to read words without telling them what they mean. They’re missing the most important part.

As a nation – and as a world – we’re lacking certain “people comprehension skills.” Just like there’s a difference between reading and reading comprehension skills, there’s a difference between people skills – like casually engaging in a conversation – and people comprehension skills – actually understanding where they’re coming from. We simply don’t understand each other, and we’re not equipped with the skills to do so. We can listen to someone with a different opinion, but do we really understand what they mean?

It’s no wonder that we can’t all simply get along. From Democrats versus Republicans to Arabs versus Israelis, isn’t all conflict just a big misunderstanding? A gap in perspective? A difference in opinion?

It sounds simple, but we’re all different and there will always be clashing perspectives. In order to solve any type of problem, people have to learn how to understand each other. Imagine what kind of effects learning these skills can have on a national – or even global – level. Instead of thinking “I’m right” and “You’re wrong,” we can try to understand how and why someone else has a certain opinion. Teaching children these tools to do this doesn’t have to be complex – people comprehension exercises can be as simple as an elementary student explaining why he prefers the color blue while his friend prefers the color red. The skill itself is simply opening up the dialogue between them so there can be an understanding of the reasons behind each opinion.

Implementing these skills and practicing these exercises at a young age – just like practicing analytical reading – can enable children to grow into open-minded adults. As a society, we can become far more understanding and learn how to think more objectively when resolving both internal and international conflict. Perhaps the U.S. wouldn’t be so polarized. Perhaps war wouldn’t always be occurring in some part of the world. Perhaps we could all – quite simply – get along.

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.
Share

May 13

Breaking the Culture of Individualism

In my previous post, “Labeled Disabled”, I highlighted the divisions among isolatedinterest groups in American society. Continuing along this vein, I will explore an alternative approach that could potentially break the stigmas attached to disability in our society.

American society has always nurtured its “rugged individualism” and its proudly independent character.  We take pride in productivity, innovation, and the ability to clear our own pathways to the “American Dream.” As a particularly capitalistic society, we also welcome aggressive competition. The emphasis on competition and individual success are manifested in American culture through sports, education, private enterprise, and the culture of consumerism.

Unfortunately, these values deemphasize the merits of collective interests, community, and interdependence. When it’s “every man for himself,” those with the fewest opportunities are more likely to be devalued as individuals, in addition to being left behind.  Persons with disabilities (PWDs) living within this frame of expectations face the double challenge of a) social exclusion for not being able to perform at “normal” ability levels, and b) internalizing the pressure of competition.

The Special Olympics is an organization that provides persons with disabilities the opportunity to participate and excel in sports without facing discrimination. Although this empowering program builds confidence and sportsmanship among PWDs with varying levels of disability, in the long-run it’s still an outgrowth of the culture of competition. Instead of starting from ground up within the disability community, it models itself after the Olympics – just the “Special” version of it. Rather than questioning mainstream standards of achievement, the Special Olympics borrows the ideology that competitive sports (once the playing field is leveled) are still the key to “empowerment, competence, acceptance and joy.”

Instead, imagine an integrated society in which PWDs can contribute within a set of expectations that incorporate and neutralize disability. A society in which disability is not perceived as a hindrance to personal achievement, but as a characteristic that only partially shapes an individual’s experience. A system in which independence is encouraged, but within the greater context of collaboration. Seems a bit utopian? Maybe not!

Matthew Rodieck, an aid worker in Afghanistan offers his observations of disability in Afghanistan, Disability, and the West’s Limiting Labels.  He presents a pragmatic cultural approach to disability.  Disabilities, while acknowledged in Afghanistan, are not necessarily singled out as debilitating features among Afghans, especially in rural areas. Rather, all members are expected to contribute labor in whichever ways they can manage, regardless of their level of ability. In this type of environment, labeling a disability serves little practical purpose. Instead, it unnecessarily draws attention to immaterial physical/mental differences, which seems more like “imposing romanticized Western values.” In the U.S. we can apply this by changing the attitudes of employers. Since many people still hold onto the myth that persons with intellectual or physical disabilities are either incapable or invaluable as workers, there is a great amount of discrimination against PWDs, which results in higher rates of unemployment. Employers should realize that investing in accommodations for disabled employees is an investment for society as a whole, and that employees with disabilities are more likely to be able to assist customers or clients with disabilities. As noted by UN Enable, the inclusion of PWDs in employment will not only boost a company’s reputation and diversify the workforce, but it will improve the way it develops solutions to challenges that require different perspectives.

By downplaying the disability identity, I don’t mean to imply that societies shouldn’t continue to move forward with inclusive legislation, establishing health care facilities, and instituting programs that focus on raising awareness about disability issues. This isn’t the one and only solution. I also don’t wish to minimize the disadvantages and discrimination, including barriers to education, health care, and employment that can be solved only by recognizing disability. What I am suggesting is that we rethink the labels and individualistic attitudes that needlessly magnify disability. Minimizing the degree of “difference” in our perceptions of disability, and focusing instead on the interdependence of individuals and the value of each contributor, is an attitude that mainstream America has yet to explore.

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 13

Serve, Honor, Protect, and Abuse?

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) prohibits all forms of human rights violations, including human trafficking, slavery, torture, and other means of inhumane treatment.  Yet, there is a correlation between the deployment of United States military, peacekeepers, and humanitarian aid workers to post-conflict regions and an increase in the trafficking of women and children.  By trafficking, I am referring to forced prostitution, labor, slavery, and other forms of exploitation that defy humanity.  The U.S. has played a key role in advancing the sex trade industry throughout history, most notably in South Korea where brothels still thrive around military bases.  Serve, honor, protect, and abuse?  It seems quite hypocritical to me.

Early this week, I discussed the first reauthorization of TVPRA (2003) and its impact on child sex tourism. For the first time in federal legislation history, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2005, an amendment made to the original TVPA of 2000, acknowledged the issue of service people and human trafficking.  Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, service people can now be legally prosecuted for engaging in paid sex acts.  Some of the consequences include dishonorable discharge, a forfeit of monies, and prison time.  Taking it a step further, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008 enforced human trafficking training and education for all service members.  Accountability and expectations of all Federal departments and agencies increased—pushing to observe, track, and take immediate action against officials who violate human trafficking law.  The U.S. is doing an exemplary job at advancing anti-trafficking policy with each passing TVPA reauthorization.  Nevertheless, I question the effectiveness of the legislation as studies have shown continued military and federal contractor involvement in the sex trafficking industry with no serious consequences.

The demand for prostitution has not decreased, as evidenced by the prominence of brothels around U.S. military bases.  Therefore, it leads me to believe that sanctions are not being carried out properly.  I wonder if officials are afraid of repercussions for identifying or turning in fellow service members for possible termination and prosecution—afraid of backlash, demotion, losing their jobs.

The United States implemented the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 to protect federal employees who file complaints regarding violations, mismanagement, abuse, and other sorts of misconduct.  Furthermore, the Office of Inspector General maintains a Defense Hotline for federal employees to call and file violation complaints.  However, intimidation and a lack of protection and regulation of the law, may deter officials from reporting malfeasance.

Just take the case of a DynCorp whistleblower, Ben Johnston, who was fired after filing a complaint about fellow servicemen buying sex from children and bragging about their experiences, in addition to other criminal acts such as purchasing illegal weapons and forging passports.  Kathryn Bolkovac was another whistleblower who was terminated from DynCorp for similar complaints.  To this day, DynCorp, continues to operate as a federal contractor with 96% of its revenue coming from the U.S. federal government.

Even if federal employees knew in their hearts or mind that inhumane treatment was being carried out by associates and wanted to file a report, it is unlikely they will want to jeopardize their own sense of security.  I suggest implementing stronger whistleblower protection policies, federally and corporately.  It is necessary to create a fair and ethical environment.  It is necessary to protect the innocent and victimized women and children who are targeted by those who have sworn to serve, honor, and protect.  With stricter policy reform, a decrease in sex trafficking is likely—at least around U.S. military bases.  It would also improve the United States’ image, credibility, and international relationships in regards to carrying out post-conflict missions.  How can the U.S. be at the forefront of the anti-trafficking movement when its own personnel are a driving force behind the sex trade industry across the globe?

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

May 12

Aid to Iraq – USAID and Power

On Tuesday, I wrote about the basics of Iraq Aid, pointing out a few of the key issues that are being addressed by international aid organizations. One of the most influential of these organizations is the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which has provided over $7.4 billion in aid to Iraq since 2003. But has that money gone to the best use?

USAID has provided assistance in various ways. Initially, it dealt with infrastructure, health care, education and helping Iraqis form a new government. Starting in 2006, USAID championed a new program, the National Capacity Development Program. The program is also known by the Arabic word for development, Tatweer. The programfocuses on technical assistance to Iraqi ministries, training of personnel and procurement of equipment. To date, the program has helped train over 100,000 civil servants in classes that are now mostly taught by Iraqi graduates of an earlier course. These classes seek to “restore the Iraqi government’s ability to conduct its own capacity building activities. Tatweer also boasts that it has led to “significant improvements to procurement, project, and budget management procedures across ministries and provinces.”

Most recently, Tatweer has turned its attention to assisting the Iraqi government in the development of the National Development Program (NDP), which is how the government plans to improve Iraq’s social, economic and environmental conditions over a five-year period. This program hopes to fuel partnerships between the public and private sectors, the later of which it hopes to increase dramatically by encouraging foreign investment. In keeping with its anti-corruption mantra, Tatweer recently developed a framework for monitoring the NDP through a series of checkpoints meant to ensure the program is on track.

All of these programs are worthwhile because they have the broad goal of helping the Iraqi people run their own country in a sustainable fashion. But an issue arises when one considers the environment in which these programs are being released. As I mentioned on Tuesday, the electricity situation in Iraq is abysmal. Despite the doubling of power generation since 2003, demand for electricity has risen sharply, leaving most cities to repeatedly deal with rolling blackouts. Power generation and distribution is shared across Iraq’s provinces, so when one province suffers, so do the others. When the constituents of a northern province complained about a lack of electricity earlier this year, that province cut its supply to Baghdad. Generally speaking, there is a greater supply of power in Kurdistan, the northern portion of Iraq, than anywhere else in the country.

Without reliable electricity, Iraqis will hardly be able to make full use of the programs USAID is offering. USAID prides itself on helping Iraqis in every province of the country. Considering the unequal distribution of power generation, USAID could focus on designing a system where the sharing of electricity between provinces is mutually beneficial. The Kurds of the north have been fighting for greater political representation in recent years, something Baghdad has been reluctant to offer. By modifying the training already in place under the Tatweer program, couldn’t USAID help the Iraqis iron out a plan that would help satisfy the reasonable demands of each side?

This would allow USAID to further their initial efforts of rebuilding infrastructure with the developmental programs they are currently focusing on. Because of its comparatively large budget, USAID stands to make a bigger impact than any of its peers in the NGO field. How it decides to wield this influence could make a massive difference in the future of Iraq.

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

May 11

Seeking to Combat Child Sex Tourism

A Focus on Federal Legislation

Human trafficking is a persistent international and domestic problem and crime, which is bound in violations of human rights, labor, and public health standards.  The definition of human trafficking varies from source to source; however, there are common entities to its overall meaning—victims of trafficking include those who are recruited, hauled, and concealed against their will by traffickers who utilize force and coercion to exploit victims in the commercial sex industry, labor force, and/or for other inhumane purposes such as servitude and slavery.  The majority of trafficked individuals are women and children, most of whom are vulnerable and targeted due to such factors as economic crises, lack of education, discrimination, war, and other forms of conflict.  While there are international, federal and state laws and statutes that prohibit human trafficking, prevalence persists.  What may be shocking to most people is that there are more slaves today than there have been in all of human history!

The United States implemented a federal anti-trafficking policy on October 28, 2000—Public Law 106-386, Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA).  The TVPA was reauthorized in 2003, 2005 and 2008.  With each reauthorization there were additions and subtractions to the legislation; however, the “3P” paradigm, or main goals, remained the same:

1) PROTECT victims of trafficking

2) PROSECUTE traffickers

3) PREVENT trafficking globally

It is commendable that the U.S. government implemented and continues to amend federal legislation to fight modern day slavery, which was long overdue.  With each passing reauthorization, weaknesses have been identified and statutes have become stronger.  Without being proactive in the identification of inadequacies and the pursuit of more innovative and practical strategies, positive social change cannot occur.

The TVPRA of 2003 created a new focus on eliminating child sex tourism for the first time.  This was an addition to the original TVPA of 2000 that only mentioned sex tourism twice and with no specific strategy for elimination.  The provision required airlines to provide passengers traveling abroad with information surrounding the illegality and dangers of child sex tourism.  While this is a step in the right direction, I cannot help to wonder how effective this practice actually is in reducing the problem.

It has been a surprise to me that American sex offenders are allowed to obtain passports and travel overseas—especially due to the fact that over 25% of child sex tourists are American, with the number rising in certain locations (i.e. Costa Rica where it is 80%).  Child sex tourism thrives off of a demand for it and by allowing potential child sex tourists to travel to locations where the business is prominent poses a great risk to the children enslaved.  It is not only bad practice in reducing child sex tourism, but is directly damaging to the involved children who become susceptible to sexual, physical, and emotional hardships that will last a lifetime.

In order for prevention to be more effective, I propose stricter provisions to combat the child sex industry such as restricted travel of sex offenders, more explicit and diversified information provided to travelers, and formal training of airline personnel on spotting sex tourists and reporting potential threats.  Some European airlines have adopted campaigns against child sex tourism in the forms of in-flight videos and brochures—something that is necessary for American airlines as well.

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

May 10

Labeled Disabled

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which was signed in 1990, protected the rights of persons with disabilities (PWDs), prohibited discrimination in employment, and mandated access to public services and facilities in the United States. It seemed that all the years of hard work and lobbying by activists and the disabled community to gain recognition by the federal government had finally paid off.

This historic event would not have been possible without solidarity among members of the disabled community. Evidence from the civil rights movement in the United States showed that the development of distinct political identities was crucial when advocating for the legal rights of women and all races. The disability rights movement adopted this model, which propelled the movement through the 1980s, during the UN Decade of Disabled Persons. In order to demonstrate that discrimination occurred against persons with disabilities, disability itself had to be categorized, defined, and made more visible as part of a political platform. It was necessary to prove that PWDs were a disadvantaged minority group, by calling attention to the labels (some more derogatory than others) that denote differences in ability – blind, deaf, handicapped, mentally retarded, etc.  Similarly, medical professionals realized that without proper categorization and diagnosis, patients would not receive adequate treatment and services.

This need to pull apart and examine difference, is part of a broader trend in American culture to celebrate diversity, and embrace the “salad bowl” philosophy. The disability “community” has become a sub-culture underrepresented by the media, with its own language, needs, aspirations, and shared identities. The therapeutic, psychological, and social benefits of belonging to a community are undeniable. However, we need to think about disability on a broader scale. Since the passing of the ADA, how much progress has America really made in terms of culturally mainstreaming disability issues? How much attention is given to disability in mainstream news, films, books, magazines, and advertising?  In other words, have we as a society gone so far in creating niches for our individual interests that we are now working counter-productively? After the ADA, disability fell off our public radar, in much the same way that racism as a hot-button issue disappeared since the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

While labels are useful for political purposes, I think they also inherently leave society socially fragmented when interest groups don’t see the benefit of sharing their lifestyles in mainstream fora. Take, for example, feminists who believe that men should not be included in the feminist movement because women would lose a vital forum where they can express themselves independently of men. This argument has lost its popularity, as both men and women came to realize how impractical and counter-intuitive separatism really is. Excluding men may temporarily empower women, but it’s not sustainable and it certainly wouldn’t fundamentally change the experience of women. Along similar lines, the disability community needs to forcefully (and, if necessary, radically) engage the wider community of non-disabled persons and challenge the divisions between disabled and non-disabled interests. One way to do this is to navigate the initial social uneasiness by confronting the “differences.” I recall a line from a popular poem by African American feminist Pat Parker– “The first thing you do is to forget that I’m Black. Second, you must never forget that I’m Black.” This is type of confrontation is lacking when it comes to discussing disability. As a society we still have a long way to go in bringing disability out of the rehab centers, hospitals, workshops, classrooms, disability-focused clubs and organizations, and private homes, and into mainstream dialogues. And, as with the feminist movement, the responsibility to reach out lies first with those who are part of the disability community.

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 10

Aid to Iraq – The Basics

A few years ago, Iraq was a hot topic of discussion. In the US, it seemed everyone had a friend or family member in some stage of deployment there. The news headlines flashed stories of Iraqi elections, sectarian struggles and attacks on Coalition Forces. Even if US citizens weren’t completely informed on the events taking place there, they were at least aware of them.

When the troop surge helped reduce the prospect of civil war between Iraqi communities, many people assumed our job in the country was finished. We turned our eyes to Afghanistan and began calculating what it would take to achieve a similar goal there. We continued to draw down our level of troop support for Iraq, following the Status of Forces Agreement signed in 2008, which stated that all US combat forces would be withdrawn from Iraq by mid 2009, followed by a complete withdrawal by the end of 2011. Though it wasn’t until September of 2010 that the US halted combat operations, it appears the Obama administration intends to stick to the timetable for complete withdrawal.

The removal of US military support does not mean that Iraq should now be left to fend completely for itself. Now is the time when governmental aid organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) must rise to the occasion by identifying and addressing issues that pertain to the Iraqi people. The NGO Coordination Committee for Iraq is an organization that, as could be assumed by the name, aims to improve the coordination of NGOs working in Iraq. Their compiled list of humanitarian issues in the nation include the following:

  • Inadequate Electrical Supply
  • Water Insecurity
  • Collapsed Public Education System
  • Unstable Security
  • Refugees / Internally Displaced People

This is just to name a few of the issues the Iraqi people are currently facing. While some are understandable, it’s hard to believe that basic infrastructure needs have yet to be met, considering the amount spent by Iraqi and foreign governments to bring roads, electricity and clean water to Iraqis. Numerous stories have surfaced over the past year about power outages in places like Baghdad, the capital city of Iraq, and Kirkuk, a northern provincial capital where residents are reportedly only receiving three hours of power a day.

It’s important to keep in mind that offering a continuation of support, albeit in a much different form than was previously offered, should in no way eclipse the role of the Iraqi people in rebuilding the nation. Since the halting of US combat operations, Iraqi civilians and governmental personnel alike have played an increasingly significant role in the direction their country is heading. The support of both governmental organizations and NGOs need to reinforce the efforts of Iraqis, not supplant them.

Organizations like the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the US agency responsible for administering foreign aid, often have the best of intentions but don’t always achieve full results. In the case of Iraq, USAID’s first stage of aid included the restoration of infrastructure. After 2005, aid was shifted to other projects within the country. Perhaps, if aid had not been shifted so early on, Baghdad would be able to keep its lights on all night long.

Over the course of the next two weeks, I will be analyzing actions taken by these organizations, individually and collectively. Iraqis needs our support, but if we provide it, it is our obligation to ensure that the aid we offer is actually helping solve problems rather than simply providing temporary fixes. Check back in soon 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

May 06

A Vicious Cycle

Poverty, Disability, and Exclusion from Development Strategies

A World Bank estimate suggests that 25% of the 1.3 billion most impoverished people in the world experience some form of disability, and according to the UN Development Program, 80% of persons with disabilities (PWDs) live in developing countries. These numbers are steadily increasing due to a number of factors related to poverty, including increasing numbers of children who develop disabilities as a result of malnutrition, disease, child labor, or armed conflict and violence, and the rise of alcohol and drug abuse linked to stress. Poverty and disability establish a vicious cycle. Those in poverty have a higher risk of acquiring disabilities, as they are more likely to be exposed to hazardous working and living conditions, and they are also the group with little access to health care and vital nutrition. The unfortunate flip side is that those who are disabled are then often physically barred from employment, accessible health facilities, social programs, and social networks, leading them on a downward spiral of prolonged poverty and worsening health conditions.  This is especially true in developing countries that struggle to provide these very resources to even the larger non-disabled population. Therefore, the disabled poor are among the most in need of strategies to level the playing field, but are the most likely to be excluded from them.

Disability is not the enemy. The problem is not the experience of physical impairment or the state of being disabled, but the stigma, exclusion, and the lack of economic and social opportunities which ultimately prevent PWDs from fully integrating into society. Disability rights advocates today have embraced the social model of disability, which shifts away from medicine, rehabilitation, and finding cures, to examining the physical environments and cultural perceptions that artificially create differences among disabled and non-disabled individuals. The rights-based approach asks policy makers and societies to remove these barriers in order to level the playing field.

Social and cultural stigmatization in itself is enough to bar individuals from certain levels of opportunity. But add to that another unjust, institutionalized form of exclusion: development strategies that overlook disability while claiming to alleviate poverty. To start with, the language in documents that address poverty reduction often vaguely imply disability with phrases like “vulnerable” or “disadvantaged groups.”  Those could mean anything! When targeted groups aren’t specifically identified, there is no impetus to actively include their needs in policies. Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has noted that even the Millennium Development Goals only indirectly address disability, by focusing instead on poverty, education, and health care provision. Without a specific focus on the issue of disability, it is unlikely that these goals will be achieved.

Grameen Bank, which oversees Bangladesh’s widely-celebrated micro-credit program, is a successful example of an institution that empowers poorer women in rural areas.  However, a 2007 study of Chuadanga, a rural Bangladeshi village, revealed that despite the efforts by development organizations to extend micro-credit programs to PWDs, the negative attitudes of the community prevented these schemes from working. Since obtaining a loan requires mutual trust among self-selected peer groups, stigmatized individuals who are perceived to be unreliable were excluded. The research thus revealed that only 8% of women with disabilities were members of credit-lending programs, as opposed to 90% of able-bodied women. This is an especially dismal statistic for one village, if one considers the World Bank estimate that up to 8.8% of the Bangladeshi population, or 9 million people, have disabilities. What does this mean for an entire nation? Despite the adoption of the Persons with Disability Welfare Act of 2001 and the establishment of a 10% employment quota for PWDs, there have been few, if any, governmental efforts to raise awareness to change social perspectives on disability. The solution? The government should adopt an aggressive national program that will measurably elevate the socio-cultural status of PWDs, in much the same way that it has elevated the status and contributions of women.

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