I'm taking a few minutes out of my day today to help stop global poverty. I just was forwarded an email from Susan McCue at the One Campaign inviting me to join the "ONE Campus Challenge". I signed Grinnell College up, and now anyone on campus can win points for Grinnell by participating in poverty fighting activities, such as dressing up a pet up in ONE gear, getting its marching band to form the "ONE" logo, or getting other people to join in on the Campus Challenge. I decided to start right away, and for this blog post linking to the Campus Challenge, I'm earning 75 points for Grinnell. I hope it will help us get out of 491st place.
A lot of ONE's activities deal with engagement, and because they seem to be reaching people who wouldn't normally know about global poverty, I have been able to ignore Jeffrey Sachs parading around Africa with Angelina Jolie. Even though they offer great prizes to the school that earns the most points, including a prize that's so great it's still a secret, the Campus Challenge doesn't seem to accomplish anything but get more involved with the Campus Challenge.
And that is my major criticism with the ONE Campaign. It is all about increasing awareness, which is fine, but it doesn't offer any information about how to work on the issues after people become engaged. On the main site for the ONE Campus Challenge, the only information it offers besides the rules of the Challenge is that "our generation has the tools, technology, and resources to end extreme poverty and yet, a billion people still live on less than a dollar a day." The ONE main website has an "issues" page, as well as a "take action" page, but the action either involves wearing ONE gear, getting more people to sign up onto ONE, or contacting Congress. (To be fair, the Campus Challenge also asks students to lobby Congress.) When you decide to "learn how to become an active member of the movement," all that is suggested is more ways to engage more people.
It seems like ONE gives people an easy way out for global poverty. It offers people shirts and wristbands, and people can proudly wear these, saying: "I care about global poverty." Which is great. But that care and concern, even if it is well meaning, cannot make change by itself. The ONE campaign offers no real course of action for individuals, it just puts the power back into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats.
And it is daunting for individuals to try to confront poverty by themselves. That is why ONE has gain popularity through uniting many different concerned individuals. But they have lost their way. They have become self-serving and do not look for effective ways to stop poverty, and instead focus on what they think is right rather than what is working.
So what is working? I will shamelessly plug my own student group, the Social Entrepreneurs of Grinnell. We have raised over $3,000 on campus and loaned almost all of it all over the world to Third World entrepreneurs. There is no reason why other colleges can't do this instead of participating in the Campus Challenge.
I think that the work of SEG is more effective than anything the Campus Challenge can accomplish, but are they really ending poverty? Maybe. I don't know. But SEG is actually doing something. And we certainly are doing more to end poverty than just wearing a ONE wristband.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Update: The Shifting of Terrorism
The Defense Department has developed a new tactic for killing enemy combatants, where snipers place fake weapons or bomb materials and wait for someone to pick it up. Then, they shoot, sometimes to wound and sometimes to kill. Currently, three snipers are on trial for murder charges, and this program, called "baiting", was disclosed in their defense. The Army denies that this is an institutional program, yet many soldiers have testified to its existence.
This just another example of how the U.S. is no longer fighting terrorism, but causing it.
This just another example of how the U.S. is no longer fighting terrorism, but causing it.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
The Shifting of Terrorism
The war on terror has come full circle. The US was once liberators and now we are the terrorists.
Last Sunday, a convoy of hired Blackwater USA security forces escorting State Department vehicles open fired on a crowd of innocent Iraqis in an open square. The first person they shot was a man in a car, the second was the woman next to him, holding a baby. When the incident was over, somewhere from eight to eleven Iraqis were killed.
The Iraqi government recently released a preliminary report about these events, stating that “the murder of citizens in cold blood in the Nisour area by Blackwater is considered a terrorist action against civilians just like any other terrorist operation."
This statement sums up the US's involvement in Iraqi, military or private. Before, even if it was under false pretenses, the US claimed it was trying to spread freedom and democracy. Now, it seems, we are just adding to the terror we came to stop.
According to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, there have been seven incidents of Blackwater needlessly killing Iraqis. Blackwater claims that the convoy they were guarding was ambused, and no press releases or acknowledgment of the issues appears on their web page. The only thing that appears is their denial that employees have been illegally smuggling weapons into Iraq that end up on the black market.
Even before the shootings last Sunday, Iraqi officials repeatedly complained to the US about the problems with Blackwater. After the incident, the Iraqi government banned Blackwater operations. Prime Minister al-Maliki even insisted that the state department drop them as a contractor. But they continued their work anyways. Apparently, private security firms are protected in a loophole law that was set up before the Iraqis took power.
The arrogance of Blackwater's continuation is incredibly frustrating. The US is over in Iraq to stop terrorism, yet we are perpetuating it ourselves. Blackwater has denied all wrongdoings, and the US government has made no moves to evaluate the situation. This situation shows how much we don't care about the Iraqi citizens and just how concerned we are with our own agenda. This isn't the war on terror, and it never has been. Soon, both the American people and the Iraqi people are going to completely realize the falsity of this war and everyone will be in a huge amount of trouble. It seems like it is already to late to do anything about it.
Last Sunday, a convoy of hired Blackwater USA security forces escorting State Department vehicles open fired on a crowd of innocent Iraqis in an open square. The first person they shot was a man in a car, the second was the woman next to him, holding a baby. When the incident was over, somewhere from eight to eleven Iraqis were killed.
The Iraqi government recently released a preliminary report about these events, stating that “the murder of citizens in cold blood in the Nisour area by Blackwater is considered a terrorist action against civilians just like any other terrorist operation."
This statement sums up the US's involvement in Iraqi, military or private. Before, even if it was under false pretenses, the US claimed it was trying to spread freedom and democracy. Now, it seems, we are just adding to the terror we came to stop.
According to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, there have been seven incidents of Blackwater needlessly killing Iraqis. Blackwater claims that the convoy they were guarding was ambused, and no press releases or acknowledgment of the issues appears on their web page. The only thing that appears is their denial that employees have been illegally smuggling weapons into Iraq that end up on the black market.
Even before the shootings last Sunday, Iraqi officials repeatedly complained to the US about the problems with Blackwater. After the incident, the Iraqi government banned Blackwater operations. Prime Minister al-Maliki even insisted that the state department drop them as a contractor. But they continued their work anyways. Apparently, private security firms are protected in a loophole law that was set up before the Iraqis took power.
The arrogance of Blackwater's continuation is incredibly frustrating. The US is over in Iraq to stop terrorism, yet we are perpetuating it ourselves. Blackwater has denied all wrongdoings, and the US government has made no moves to evaluate the situation. This situation shows how much we don't care about the Iraqi citizens and just how concerned we are with our own agenda. This isn't the war on terror, and it never has been. Soon, both the American people and the Iraqi people are going to completely realize the falsity of this war and everyone will be in a huge amount of trouble. It seems like it is already to late to do anything about it.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
At Least Two Sides to Every Issue
All of my course work is starting to blend together. I can't remember which conservations I had in which class, which professor said what.
I suppose it's my own fault for choosing classes that try to explain the same thing, just through different academic lenses. But the higher up I get in academia, the more I realize that it doesn't matter whether or not your trying to find answers through political science, ecology or anthropology, people will conclude different things, even while looking at the same facts.
We just read two pieces in my African cultures class, both put out around the same time, but with completely messages. The first was Robert Kaplan's, "The Coming Anarchy" and the other was Nelson Mandela's 1994 speech to the OAU. Both came out around the same time, Kaplan's in February and Mandela's in June, but each describes Africa in a completely different way. Kaplan's article, from the Atlantic Monthly, is famous for being the first wake-up call to the Western world about the trouble Africa is in. After I read it, I felt that Africa is beyond repair and there's nothing we really can do about it.
Mandela comes to a completely different conclusion. He tells the OAU that Africa has been through hard times, but they can persevere through them. He cites South Africa's expulsion of Apartheid as an example of all they can accomplish. Strangely, Mandela's hopeful speech comes after the Rwandan genocide and Kaplan's warning comes only a few months before it. Of course, Mandela is a politician and Kaplan is a journalist.
Another great example of people looking at the same thing but seeing it differently is the Jeffrey Sachs/ William Easterly debate. We're reading both their books ("End of Poverty" and "White Man's Burden", respectively) in Political Economies of Developing Countries, and it is hard to tell which has their facts right. It seems that both of them do, yet their conclusions are such polar opposites.
If you don't know the story behind Sachs and Easterly, Sachs runs the One Campaign with Bono and champions the idea that extreme poverty can be ended by 2025. Easterly makes no such claim and thinks poverty only can be ended by grassroots movements, instead of large aid donations recommended by One. Both make convincing arguments.
But when all the arguing is over, it seems like not much is really getting done. We get reports of terrorism around the world and people dying needlessly. The One Campaign reports 10 million children die every year, mostly from preventable diseases.
That is, until this year. UNICEF today released a report saying that in 2005 the number of child deaths before the age of five dropped to 9.7 million, a fall of 29% from 2000. This is the lowest its been since UNICEF began to record these statistics. "We feel we’re at a tipping point now,” said Dr. Peter Salama, Unicef’s chief medical officer. They expect this drop to continue, and think the UN Development Goal of cutting child mortality by two-thirds by 2025 could be accomplished.
So was Sachs right? Does this drop come from the increased efforts of NGOs like One and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria? Or was Easterly right, and this reduction in needless deaths is due to people at the bottom finally taking control of their lives?
Was Mandela right in calling Africa to unite and be strong? Or was Kaplan right in scaring the First World into doing something?
If more than 300,000 children are no longer dying needlessly, I don't think it matters.
I suppose it's my own fault for choosing classes that try to explain the same thing, just through different academic lenses. But the higher up I get in academia, the more I realize that it doesn't matter whether or not your trying to find answers through political science, ecology or anthropology, people will conclude different things, even while looking at the same facts.
We just read two pieces in my African cultures class, both put out around the same time, but with completely messages. The first was Robert Kaplan's, "The Coming Anarchy" and the other was Nelson Mandela's 1994 speech to the OAU. Both came out around the same time, Kaplan's in February and Mandela's in June, but each describes Africa in a completely different way. Kaplan's article, from the Atlantic Monthly, is famous for being the first wake-up call to the Western world about the trouble Africa is in. After I read it, I felt that Africa is beyond repair and there's nothing we really can do about it.
Mandela comes to a completely different conclusion. He tells the OAU that Africa has been through hard times, but they can persevere through them. He cites South Africa's expulsion of Apartheid as an example of all they can accomplish. Strangely, Mandela's hopeful speech comes after the Rwandan genocide and Kaplan's warning comes only a few months before it. Of course, Mandela is a politician and Kaplan is a journalist.
Another great example of people looking at the same thing but seeing it differently is the Jeffrey Sachs/ William Easterly debate. We're reading both their books ("End of Poverty" and "White Man's Burden", respectively) in Political Economies of Developing Countries, and it is hard to tell which has their facts right. It seems that both of them do, yet their conclusions are such polar opposites.
If you don't know the story behind Sachs and Easterly, Sachs runs the One Campaign with Bono and champions the idea that extreme poverty can be ended by 2025. Easterly makes no such claim and thinks poverty only can be ended by grassroots movements, instead of large aid donations recommended by One. Both make convincing arguments.
But when all the arguing is over, it seems like not much is really getting done. We get reports of terrorism around the world and people dying needlessly. The One Campaign reports 10 million children die every year, mostly from preventable diseases.
That is, until this year. UNICEF today released a report saying that in 2005 the number of child deaths before the age of five dropped to 9.7 million, a fall of 29% from 2000. This is the lowest its been since UNICEF began to record these statistics. "We feel we’re at a tipping point now,” said Dr. Peter Salama, Unicef’s chief medical officer. They expect this drop to continue, and think the UN Development Goal of cutting child mortality by two-thirds by 2025 could be accomplished.
So was Sachs right? Does this drop come from the increased efforts of NGOs like One and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria? Or was Easterly right, and this reduction in needless deaths is due to people at the bottom finally taking control of their lives?
Was Mandela right in calling Africa to unite and be strong? Or was Kaplan right in scaring the First World into doing something?
If more than 300,000 children are no longer dying needlessly, I don't think it matters.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Read This Post
I am not going to start off with a personal anecdote and suspend for once my delusions that this blog could be a jumping point my my New-York-Times-columnist career.
I am just going to say; read this article: "A Way Out of Debt By Way of Iraq."
It is about the men and women of this country that have chosen to go to Iraq to escape and eliminate their financial burdens.
At first, I thought, how interesting. Then, as I continued to read, I thought, how incredibly horrible and frightening. The article describes how people with massive amounts of debt find volunteering for Iraq an easy way to gain some quick cash and live in a low-cost lifestyle.
My country has left people with no choice but to sell their lives to escape their problems at home. I cannot believe this. I thought this was the land of opportunity, yet my fellow citizens are resorting to participating in warfare and violence to solve their individual problems, and financial ones at that.
I am reminded of a David Cross joke of him describing his reaction to watching a reality show: "Bush always says; 'the terrorists hate our freedom.' Well, I hate our freedom too, if this is what we do with it."
This is the land of the free, but these free people have been forced to resorting to risking their lives abroad to fix their lives at home. If this is what our freedom gets us, then it really isn't freedom.
I am just going to say; read this article: "A Way Out of Debt By Way of Iraq."
It is about the men and women of this country that have chosen to go to Iraq to escape and eliminate their financial burdens.
At first, I thought, how interesting. Then, as I continued to read, I thought, how incredibly horrible and frightening. The article describes how people with massive amounts of debt find volunteering for Iraq an easy way to gain some quick cash and live in a low-cost lifestyle.
My country has left people with no choice but to sell their lives to escape their problems at home. I cannot believe this. I thought this was the land of opportunity, yet my fellow citizens are resorting to participating in warfare and violence to solve their individual problems, and financial ones at that.
I am reminded of a David Cross joke of him describing his reaction to watching a reality show: "Bush always says; 'the terrorists hate our freedom.' Well, I hate our freedom too, if this is what we do with it."
This is the land of the free, but these free people have been forced to resorting to risking their lives abroad to fix their lives at home. If this is what our freedom gets us, then it really isn't freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)