Apr 22

Celebrating Earth Day and A Billion Acts of Green

Today, April 22nd, is celebrated as Earth Day. The idea is to inspire awareness and appreciation for the Earth’s natural environment and was first celebrated on April 22, 1970. The idea for Earth Day is credited to Gaylord Nelson, a former U.S. Senator, after he witnessed some of the side effects of the 1969 massive oil spill in California.

The first Earth Day led to the creation of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and in 2009, the United Nations joined in the celebration by designating April 22, “International Mother Earth Day.” I recently came across a video of the first Earth Day which I thought was interesting to share because it captured how the movement for the protection of the environment all got started.

Here is the link to the video: http://www.hulu.com/watch/67649/earth-day-first-earth-day-april-22-1970

For this year, I decided to research to see how various organizations and individuals will celebrate Earth Day when I came across “A Billion Acts of Green.”

A Billion Acts of Green is a people empowered campaign aimed at generating a billion acts of environmental service and advocacy by June 2012. June 2012 is significant because the U.N. intends to hold a conference (Rio+20) in celebration of 20 years of its involvement with green energy and technology.

The Billion Acts of Green campaign allows individuals and organizations from different works of life to make pledges to the environment, by clicking here, in order to participate in sustainable development. At the time I wrote this post, the number of pledges was 102,011,229. I think it is wonderful to see how many people are getting involved in making pledges towards sustainable development, although no one can predict how many people out of that number will fulfill their pledges. But whichever way one looks at it, the awareness and responses are certainly impressive.

Some writers have suggested several acts which people can do in celebration of the Earth (everyday) and some of them include:

  • Teach solar cooking
  • Eat more local food
  • Eat a sustainable pure vegan or pure vegetarian diet.
  • Call or write legislators about going green (ways to recycle, clothes, shoes)
  • Change light bulbs
  • Circulate anti-coal petition
  • Eliminate pesticides and toxic products
  • Get a home energy audit and stick to new energy routine
  • Organize an Earth Day event
  • Plant a garden at home or at school.

How are you celebrating Earth Day?

Ufuoma Barbara Akpotaire is a Program and Research intern with the SISGI Group’s Research Division. To learn more about the SISGI Group please visit www.sisgigroup.org

Share

Apr 22

The Viral Education

“Hi I am Sal Khan. I am the founder and faculty of the Khan Academy and we are trying to educate the world.”

These were the first words I heard Salmaan Khan speak when I watched my first video on the Khan Academy. I was instantly impressed. A single article would never be able to do enough justice to what Khan has accomplished in his life so far. A graduate from MIT and Harvard, Khan had a simple plan that could potentially change the lives of millions of people – Free Online Education.

The idea started when Salmaan was tutoring his nephews. It sky rocketed from there. What is this idea? Khan has put up over 2100 videos on algebra, biology, history, math and a variety of other subjects that students can access from across the globe absolutely free. As of December 2009, Khan’s You Tube-hosted tutorials receive a total of more than 35,000 views per day. All the children need is a computer and an Internet connection. While Khan’s project is still in its initial stages, it already is receiving funding from investors and donors. As of September 2010 Google decided to provide the academy with 2 million dollars to expand its courses and enable the academy to translate their core library into the world’s most widely spoken languages. Khan’s aim is to create the ‘world’s first free, world-class virtual school where anyone can learn anything.’

Such a simple idea can potentially change the way we educate future generations forever. With millions of children not getting an adequate education, a simple computer can solve their problems. In conflict-ridden countries where it is unsafe for children to go to school, or in countries where families are to poor to send their children to school, the Khan Academy would solve the education problem. This is where the country’s government needs to come in. By investing in more computers and technology based education for poor or rural families, children can finally receive an education. Education paves the path to a poverty free society, and a free online education could be the boost a poverty-ridden country needs.

Udit Hinduja is a student at New York University double majoring in Economics and Political Science. As a Program and Research intern with the SISGI Group his focus areas are education, poverty and economic development in Asia and South America.
Share

Apr 21

Ratifying CEDAW, Part II

On Tuesday I posted about the history of CEDAW ratification in the United States and some of the arguments made against it, and wrote about how there is a new campaign pushing for it in the US as soon as possible. There are, of course, arguments in both directions for its ratification or not, but what is particularly interesting about thisdebate is how it is divided into two distinct categories: debates where one side is misinformed or has misinterpreted CEDAW vs. debates where both sides have ideological differences that make them see particular, correctly identified consequences of CEDAW as beneficial or harmful.

For instance, one of the more common arguments one hears against CEDAW is that it called for a ban on Mother’s Day in Belarus. This has been pretty heavily misconstrued. Belarus was recovering from its separation from the USSR, which had forced an end to traditional gender roles. Belarus bounced back from this very hard, reinstating the roles of women as mother’s and caregivers in a big way that was actually extremely discriminatory in its effect. Belarus responded to the criticisms of the CEDAW committee by creating a Mother’s Day, celebrating the traditional roles of women. This, of course, was not what the CEDAW Committee had in mind when it chastised Belarus, and they expressed their disappointment. This was blown up and seen as a call for an end to Mother’s Day by the CEDAW Committee.

On the other hand, subjects like maternity leave have created a lot of friction between US groups for and against CEDAW. Article 11 of CEDAW calls for “maternity leave with pay or with comparable social benefits without loss of former employment, seniority or social allowances.” That, pretty explicitly, obligates ratifiers of CEDAW to have a paid maternity leave system, something the US does not have (although this has been a criticism leveled against the US, especially in the face of the other industrialized countries that have instituted such a system). This, then, is an ideological difference that does not have any remedy in interpretation. One is either for paid maternal leave, or not, and those who aren’t must also be against CEDAW.

If the tone of this article had not made it obvious, I am very much in favor of US ratification of CEDAW. Not only is the US’ record on human rights treaties pretty pathetic, but CEDAW would give advocates for women’s equality another tool to fix many of the inequalities (the pay gap, lack of women’s participation in government, lack of paid maternity leave, since I’m on the “these are problems” side of that debate) that still exist in American society. In the absence of an equal rights amendment guaranteeing equality of the sexes, CEDAW will act as binding treaty that will allow the US to further demonstrate its commitment to the international legal system while also furthering the equality of women and men domestically.

Stephen Thompson is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group’s Research Division working on issues of Peacekeeping, women’s and gender equality, and domestic human rights program implementation. To learn more about the SISGI Group visitwww.sisgigroup.org

Share

Apr 20

Put Food First: The World Bank’s Open Forum

The World Bank has asked us to imagine living on $1.25 a day and spending 85 cents of that to feed our families. I have also read about estimates which state that nearly 1 billion people from around the world go to bed hungry every night.  These are thought-provoking facts but the truth is that most of us do not want to be  constantly reminded of problems that exist in other parts of the world.

We do not want to hear of extreme weather conditions in other cities, natural disasters miles away from us (so long as the effects do not wash up along our shores), spiking oil prices (so long as the price of our gas remains the same),  poverty in some developing country that we can hardly pronounce the name, constant riots in the name of oppression,  or unemployment (so long as we stay employed). We rationalize that we have enough to deal with within our cities and we hope that someone, an international organization,  or just maybe another country will fix those problems.

The reality today is that not only do problems such as the food crisis exist, the negative impact on the global economy is becoming so pronounced that we can no longer continue to wait for others to take action. Food prices are up 36% from what they were last year and without new strategies, the crisis may be heading to where you are. Yes it may take awhile, but surely if things remain the same it will get there.

To address the growing concern on this issue and also to seek solutions worldwide, the World Bank held an Open Forum recently in Washington D.C. I found the forum a crucial reminder of an article I had read earlier this year and estimates made about the food crisis in 2007/2008.  Yet, listening to Robert Zoellick, the World Bank’s president, state that he saw no short term reversal in the damaging effect of food crisis, made me wonder where we are heading and what we can do to address this growing problem.

So why is there a food crisis and what can be done to address it? There have been many suggestions as to the causes of the crisis.  For example, some people assert that events in the Middle East and North Africa have contributed to uncertainty and price volatility, while others blame the increasing number of natural disasters world wide,  speculation in the market, high oil prices, misappropriation of funds, the spiraling costs and tight supplies for basic agricultural goods and much more.

I have read several articles and reports that talk about what governments and financial institutions can do to solve the food crisis. Some of the solutions I have come across  include, stabilize and guarantee fair prices to farmers, workers and consumers; halt agrofuels expansion; support locally-based approaches to food production and food system management; re-regulate finance sector investment in food commodities, ensure a balance between food production and population growth,  the need to be less reliant on foreign produced foods etc.

Personally, I believe one major issue that should be addressed is how to make farmers in various countries self-sufficient. And to do this I feel that farmers need the requisite  technology that can ensure mass production. Also, education or training on how to balance demand with supply is very essential.  But whichever method(s) is adopted, the facts remain that actions need to be taken now and both developed and developing countries have crucial roles to play.

To view the questions and suggestions from the Open forum click here.

Do you have any suggestions which can address this problem?

Ufuoma Barbara Akpotaire is a Program and Research intern with the SISGI Group’s Research Division. To learn more about the SISGI Group please visit www.sisgigroup.org

Share

Apr 20

The Food Price Shock

How the Global Food Crisis is Pushing More People into Poverty

As a child, I hated being forced to finish eating my vegetables. I would always hide them in strategic locations like underneath my plate or behind the water jug. Only now as an adult have I finally realized the importance of food and how millions of people in the world are being affected by rising food prices.

Between June 2010 and February 2011, food prices rose quickly, pushing an additional 44 million people into poverty. Few people relate inflation to one of the main reasons that is preventing people from climbing out of poverty. The reasons for food inflation can be attributed to a variety of reasons, many of which cannot really be blamed on anyone. 2010 involved severe droughts, record heat waves and fires combined with floods and the forces of demand and supply caused food prices to rapidly rise. While governments (and central banks in particular) play a hand in deciding the inflation rates, the numerous forces I have mentioned above play a big part. Both corn and wheat, the staple diet of people living in developing nations, cost as much as they did in the crisis of 2008. For most of the world’s poor who are farmers and spend between 60 and 80 percent of their income on food, the inflation can cause several hardships.

Imagine this. A poor farmer in Indonesia who survives on a mere 2.25 dollars a day spends most of his money on food to support his family. Now a rise in food price, without a rise in his income, would greatly affect his livelihood simply because there is no money to cover a rise in food prices. This is exactly how inflation works and keeps people in the poverty bracket. Because of low supply or high demands of food, a familiar trend can be noticed amongst the governments of the world. China is looking abroad to import massive quantities of wheat, Saudi Arabia’s cereal imports may reach a record level this year and Indonesia has ordered 800,000 tons of rice exceeding their normal purchase rate.

We, as an international community, cannot afford to wait around and witness people going to bed hungry because of the global food crisis. Both short and long-term solutions need to be undertaken. Putting cash in the hands of poor families will help them stay afloat and also prevent a collapse of the food market. For example in Niger, mobile phones were used to distribute emergency cash after crop failure occurred because of the long drought. Long term solutions on the other hand, need to be undertaken in the form of investment in agriculture, ranging all the way from technology used to harvest crops all the way to roads used to transport them to the market. We may not have complete control of the forces of the market or nature, but we can definitely safeguard against them. Most developing countries have a large agricultural population, and dissatisfaction could have dire consequences for the country.

Udit Hinduja is a student at New York University double majoring in Economics and Political Science. As a Program and Research intern with the SISGI Group his focus areas are education, poverty and economic development in Asia and South America.
Share

Apr 19

Ratifying CEDAW, Part I

The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is the United Nation’s international human rights treaty on gender equality. It has been ratified by all but seven of the United Nation’s members: Iran, Nauru, Palau, Somalia, Sudan, Tonga, and the United States.

I would be very willing to argue that any list that includes Iran, Somalia, Sudan and the United States is a list that needs to be rectified as soon as possible. The US is the only advanced, industrialized country in the world that has not ratified CEDAW, and it has become something of an embarrassment, especially taken in conjunction with the US’ lack of ratification of the UN’s children’s rights treaty, and its forty years late ratification of the civil and political rights treaty.

Today I will give a brief summary of the history of CEDAW in the US, and on Thursday I will discuss the current opposition to its ratification, and argue in favor of its adoption in the US.

CEDAW came into force in 1981. Jimmy Carter originally signed and submitted the convention to Congress for review in 1980, but it was unfortunately caught up in the caustic political climate surrounding the discussion of an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) that would guarantee equality of the sexes in the US Constitution. Organizations like Concerned Women for America (CWA), and conservative women activists like Phyllis Schlafly, successfully blocked the passage of the ERA.

Similar arguments to those used to block the passage of the ERA were made to stop the ratification of CEDAW:

  • Argument: It would require women to participate in the draft and serve on the front lines of combat.
  • Fact: This is possibly true, given the language of CEDAW, but there is an argument to be made that women already serve on the front lines, and are just not recognized.
  • Argument: It would require standard, unisex bathrooms.
  • Fact: This is an absurd overextension of the language of equality found in CEDAW.
  • Argument: It would obligate access to abortion.
  • Fact: Although CEDAW advocates for family planning, nowhere does it call for access to abortion services.
  • Argument: The US already has existing legislation, such as the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equality of the sexes.
  • Fact: While the 14th Amendment grants equal citizenship opportunities to everyone in the US regardless of gender or color, it does not explicitly guarantee the equality of men and women.

CEDAW was not brought up seriously again in the US until President Clinton signed it again during his tenure, but it was not submitted to Congress. It has only been recently, with the end of the Bush Administration, that CEDAW supporters have again started up a campaign to have the US ratify CEDAW, but many of the same actors have reappeared to oppose it.

Stephen Thompson is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group’s research division. To learn more about the SISGI Group visit www.sisgigroup.org.

Share

Apr 15

Antibiotic Resistance

An Analysis into the Latest Threat Humanity Faces

One of the leading causes for the rise of average life expectancy in the 20th century was the development of effective antibiotics. Antibiotics are defined as any compound that either kills or severely impedes the growth of bacteria. Penicillin and other antibiotics were termed ‘wonder drugs’ and they were widely used even when there was noobvious infection present. Doctors and patients considered them appropriate for almost everything. In 1998, it was estimated that there were 80 million prescriptions of antibiotics for human use, the equivalent of 12,500 tons in one year.

The problem with antibiotic resistant bacteria is that they have an extremely strong impact on the world’s poor. Because poor people cannot keep affording to keep buying new antibiotics to combat new strains of bacteria, these antibiotic resistant bacteria eventually harm them. In countries that have poor medical facilities and health care plans, these poor people are left to suffer with these new types of bacteria. But the problem is that pharmaceutical companies aren’t investing into bringing new antibiotics into the market. Executives chose the more profitable path which is finding say an obesity drug or blood pressure drug that 10 million people take for the rest of their lives over pursuing an antibiotic that 10,000 people take for just two weeks. With no new innovation in efficient medicine being undertaken, the country enters into a stagnation period which in turn affects the economic and social development of the country.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America fears that we could slip back into a world in which we’re defenseless against bacterial diseases. While there is an agreement amongst doctors themselves that they overprescribe antibiotics, a big part of the problem is factory farms who feed low doses of antibiotics to hogs, cattle and poultry to make them grow faster. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that in the United States, 70 percent of antibiotics are used to feed healthy livestock, with 14 percent more used to treat sick livestock. Only about 16 percent are used to treat humans and their pets.

There are many solutions that have the potential to be adopted and some that already have been adopted that will help combat this problem. A decrease in the number of prescription for antibiotics for small children is occurring. In addition, several countries such as the UK have rules and regulations concerning the use of antibiotics to feed livestock. It is also extremely important to use the antibiotics that have been prescribed to you. In many places, failure to finish tuberculosis prescriptions can result in jail time. We also don’t really know too much about antibiotic resistance. Pharmaceutical companies also need to play a huge part in the process of finding solutions. They need to constantly research new methods of creating antibiotics and solving ways to combat antibiotic resistant drugs.

Hopefully, antibiotic resistance can’t be shunned to the side by the Obama administration like AIDS was by the Reagan administration in the 1980’s. Action needs to be taken fast, and people who are actually taking antibiotics need to take responsibility first.

Udit Hinduja is a student at New York University double majoring in Economics and Political Science. As a Program and Research intern with the SISGI Group his focus areas are education, poverty and economic development in Asia and South America.
Share

Apr 12

Goldstone in Perspective

Almost two weeks ago, Richard Goldstone, a prominent and well respected former South African judge, wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post in which he retracted some of the key findings of the Goldstone Report from 2009. The Goldstone Report,officially known as the Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, was the end result of a fact finding mission commissioned by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to investigate the Gaza War of 2008-09, in which 1385 Palestinians, half of which were noncombatants, were killed, in comparison to 13 Israelis, three of which were noncombatants. I was actually able to sit in on many of the hearings that took place in the United Nations concerning the report during my time there in 2009.

The findings of the report were, generally, that both sides had possibly intentionally targeted civilians and committed war crimes. The report, upon its release, was simultaneously lauded and criticized. Israel and the United States called the report one-sided, focusing almost exclusively on Israel and showing a heavy bias in favor of Hamas.

In the op-ed, Goldstone, who was only a co-author of the report, retracted his position that Israel had intentionally targeted civilians, and thus committed any warcrimes, while maintaining that Hamas was still guilty. Goldstone points to a followup report by Judge Mary McGowan Davis, which showed that significant effort had been made by the Israeli government to hold accountable those responsible for the crimes committed. Goldstone still laments the lack of support the Israeli government showed in the creation of the report, and believes that to be a key problem with its accuracy. Israel reacted immediately and very positively to the retraction, inviting Goldstone to tour Israel, after years of leading a campaign against Goldstone to the point where he was almost not allowed to attend his grandson’s bar mitzvah in South Africa.

Roger Cohen’s op-ed in the New York Times a week after the Goldstone article nicely summarizes the other prominent response: one of incredulity and wariness. Cohen writes that he, too, read the follow up report written by Judge Davis and found it to say quite the opposite about Israel. According to his interpretation, the report details the slow, inefficient way in which Israel is carrying out its investigations, as well as its extreme lack of transparency and willingness to cooperate with the UN fact finding mission. Cohen also notes the extreme political pressure that Goldstone has been under from Israel and the US to dismiss the findings of the report, and believes it is possible that the aging Goldstone finally caved in after two years.

It is undoubtedly true that Hamas has been provoking Israel for quite some time with constant missile attacks and the targeting of civilian populations, which constitutes a war crime. But, looking at the casualties from the Gaza War, it is hard to imagine that Israel was not responsible for its own atrocities when over half of the casualties were noncombatants. And, when Israel refuses to cooperate with the UN fact finders, especially when one of those fact finders is a well-respected Jewish jurist with no bias against the state, warcrimes can only be assumed without evidence to the contrary. The reaction of the entire international community to Richard Goldstone’s report and his retraction has been pretty appalling, and I believe it stands as a testament to the power that politically motivated personal attacks can have on international policy.

Stephen Thompson is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group’s Research Division. To learn more about the SISGI Group visit www.sisgigroup.org

Share

Apr 11

Vulture Funds and Sovereign Debts

A couple of years ago, celebrities like Bono and highly respected individuals like Nelson Mandela brought our attention to the importance of debt relief and what such relief might mean to developing countries. Ironically, at the same time, many countries began to understand the importance of having a secondary market for debt especially when dealing with sovereign borrowing and lending. This development led to many new investors, one of which was nicknamed the vulture fund, and the controversy for debt relief versus vulture funds began.

So what is a vulture fund?

Well, I believe the definition usually depends on whose perspective you chose to define the fund. From the point of view of many developing countries, a vulture fund in the sovereign context, is really a private equity or hedge fund that invests in debt issued to a country that is considered to be very weak or with a high risk profile. The analogy between these funds and the vulture is drawn because they wait to pounce on the “remains” of debtor countries predominantly in Latin America and Africa. It certainly does not create a pretty picture because a typical “vulture fund versus debtor country case” involves a developing country selling bonds on which it eventually defaults and a vulture fund, purchasing the debt from the lender at a discount price. The overall intent is to sue the debtor for full recovery. Such cases are typically filed in Western courts because of the belief that those courts are more creditor friendly.

From the perspective of the funds themselves, a vulture fund is simply a type of highly profitable financial investment, in which a fund buys risky sovereign debt cheaply and then sues to enforce it. Purely a business transaction and totally legal!

What most people find offensive about these funds is that while international organizations like the World Bank and IMF negotiate reduction in sovereign debt, these funds, by purchasing those debts at a discount and suing debtor countries, indirectly force these countries into situations were they have to divert money saved from debt relief, that would otherwise have been earmarked for poverty reduction, education and health, to paying these cheaply acquired debts.

Classic examples are countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Zambia which are often categorized as “Highly Indebted Poor Countries” (HIPC). In the Zambian case, the country was sued by Michael Francis Sheehan’s company, Donegal International, in 2007. Donegal had bought $15 million worth of debt for a mere $3 million from Romania. The company then sued Zambia in a British court for the full amount, which at the time of the suit had accumulated to $42 million. The lawsuit triggered grave concerns worldwide. For example, Martin Kalunga-Banda, noted that the amount sued for was equal to all the debt relief Zambia received the year before and that if Donegal had been able to enforce the full amount, the impact would have been severe. It was estimated at that time, that about a hundred thousand people would have lost medical services and that services involving teachers, nurses, and other infrastructural projects would have been cut. Donegal later won the court case against Zambia but the court limited its recovery from Zambia to pay $15 million.

Although vulture funds remain legal in most jurisdictions, the UK Government took a bold step on March 28, 2011. It passed a law prohibiting vulture funds from being able to make massive profits from HIPC countries in British courts, following a major campaign coordinated by the Jubilee Debt Campaign. This law is the first of its kind anywhere in the world and has already saved Liberia $40 million.

It is going to be very interesting to see how other countries respond to this prohibition and what subsequent decisions might mean for developing countries that owe debts purchased by vulture funds. Ironically, we may not have to wait too long because the Chinese Government has presently been called upon to approve a U.S. investment fund’s lawsuit (FG Hemisphere Associates LLC) in Hong Kong against the DRC.

Ufuoma Barbara Akpotaire is a Program and Research intern with the SISGI Group’s research division. To learn more about the SISGI Group visit www.sisgigroup.org
Share

Apr 08

Government & Security – Part III

In my previous post, I spoke about how corrupt governments and conflicts seriously dampen a countries quest to economic development and poverty eradication. While these posts were very general, today I would like to provide you with specific examples from across the world to show you what I mean.

Lets begin with India. One third of the world’s poor find themselves facing rising food prices, living with their large numbered families in small huts, paying large amounts of money to corrupt landlords and politicians, and in return not getting the livelihood they deserve. Unfortunately, a transparent government does not exist. A transparent government would prevent corruption, show the people what exactly their funds are being used for and provide a check against greedy politicians. Over the past three days, almost the entire Indian population has turned its attention to social activist Anna Hazare’s fast

Anna Hazare

against corruption. The new Lokpal Bill proposed by the government would provide stricter anti-corruption laws, but Hazare has proposed an even stricter bill to be formatted. Indians all over the country have joined the protests showing just how angered they are by the corruption in the government. Transparency is key to international economic development, and a corrupt government, as I mentioned in my previous post, is one of the forefront causes that hampers development.

The revolutions in the Middle East in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya are great examples of how the people of those countries have been unhappy with their governments. Rising unemployment, poverty and lack of education in these countries caused the people to finally get fed up with their corrupt governments. They finally realized that in order for their country to move forward both economically and socially, a transparent democratically elected government was necessary. Moreover, the experience of countries like Rwanda, Mozambique and Liberia has demonstrated that peace and recovery are possible even after decades of the dictatorship or debilitating conflict.

With more and more governments being scrutinized, it becomes clear what an important role they play in economic development. While conflicts play an equally important role, they result from external factors not in the control of a country’s government or people. The conclusion is that a clean government leads to a bright future. A country has no hope if billions of dollars are going into the wrong pockets.

Udit Hinduja is a student at New York University double majoring in Economics and Political Science. As a Program and Research intern with the SISGI Group his focus areas are education, poverty and economic development in Asia and South America.
Share