They Come in the Name of Helping, reloaded

This article popped up in my Google Reader - 3 times.

The article itself, from The Washington Post, casts a critical eye on the affluence that foreigners live in while working in Liberia.

As this impoverished country climbs its way back from 13 years of civil war with the tiniest of steps, a boom is underway in the industries that cater to the rarified tastes of thousands of mostly European and U.S. expatriates who have come to help since peace arrived in 2003. The increasingly visible splendors available to this relatively wealthy group have left some Liberians wondering whether the foreigners are here to serve the nation or themselves.

I blogged about this topic a couple of months ago, after watching Peter Brock's "They Come in the Name of Helping" - if you haven't yet watched it, please do.

This story about sushi in Liberia popped up twice more in my reader - Chris Blattman and Rupert Simon both reacted to it (and, according to Blattman, it seems that a LOT of people picked up on this story)

Simon seems to side with the opinion expressed in the article:

... If only the sushi were made from local fish (fresh and delicious), I wouldn't mind. But importing tuna and salmon to serve to aid workers, when the rest of the population can barely get enough rice (let alone fish), seems a little absurd.

Blattman, on the other hand, says - what's the problem with a couple good restaurants?

My opinion is somewhere in the middle - I still believe that, in general, to have such a discrepancy between the way foreign aid workers and locals live is a problem - it distances the foreigners from the realities that they're supposed to work on, and from the people they are supposed to assist. But that's essentially the problem with development work that isn't grassroots based.

On the other hand, I appreciate Blattman's straight forwardness in the matter. Because when you work in difficult settings, far from your family and the comforts of home, sometimes, it's nice to take a break. And that's just the reality of it - aid workers are not super heros, they are human beings with needs and desires, and some people in Liberia know what those are, and are taking advantage of it - how entrepreneurial! (This is only half sarcastic)

In a lot of post-conflict settings and generally poor places where NGOs and IOs are active, aid workers always inject cash into the local economy. Some say it's good (it boosts local economy, creates jobs, etc.), some say it's bad (unsustainable). Whatever the case may be, it's definitely a reality that needs to be contended with. Perhaps the negative effects of foreign affluence juxtaposed to local poverty can be mitigated by developing an approach where locals would benefit from in a sustainable manner - through job creation, using local resources (think local instead of imported fish for the now (in)famous Monrovia sushi restaurant mentioned above), etc.

If I end up traveling to Liberia this summer for The Niapele Project (fingers crossed), it will be interesting to see the reality of this juxtaposition.

If Only...

... my high school chemistry teacher had shown us this video, I may have become a scientist.

This Just In

Today in the Financial Times:

The low ranking of the US, which comes below Syria, Rwanda and Mongolia, reflects its high level of ­military expenditure and engagement. It also has proportionally more citizens in jail than any other state.

Interesting map, courtesy of the Global Peace Index.

Winning Hearts & Minds, One Body at a Time

For once, a refreshing story which I thought was interesting for a few reasons (aside from the title, which really floats my boat: "Japan courts Africa with a gentle touch".) I like the idea that Japan, in trying to deepen strategic relationships with Africa, is using novel, innovative approaches. I have no doubt that other aid and diplomatic agencies also have their own unique approaches to development which challenge the modus operandi, but I really DIG the idea of having Japanese shiatsu experts train unskilled workers to offer this service.

It does fall in line with the whole skills-training, sustainable development approach of assisting individuals in learning a trade they can use for self-sustenance, a practice which I have criticized here, mostly because while the theory is great, in practice, these programs achieve very little.

However, I find it really interesting to offer unusual skills training - not only does this mean that those trained in that skill will meet less competition on the market, but also contributes to diversifying the economy AND contributes to the multifariousness and richness of societies. Indeed, if Kenyans somehow get into the habit of visiting their local shiatsu masseuse (is that the term? or shiatsu master? I have no idea), that would be a fabulous testament to the beauty of globalization.

Furthermore, I thought that the fact that this training is offered to blind women is particularly interesting - for most in the developing world, that kind of handicap can signify life long dependency and stigma. Exploring new ways to empower the most marginalized at the micro level and help them become productive, contributing members of society in innovative ways, while not the panacea of development, does provide the impetus for development practitioners to think more creatively.

"World View"

A short talk by Alisa Miller, CEO of Public Radio International, discussing coverage of international news by American networks. It's just a tidbit, but it definitely makes me want to learn more about this - particularly as she points that more Americans than ever care about international issues. Perhaps they had Iraq in mind, which would explain a lot about the data she shows...

The Magnificent Seven

This story hit the media and blogosphere yesterday - seven Republican senators are blocking the re-authorization of PEPFAR, on the grounds that the new proposed strategy strays away from what made PEPFAR a success - up until now, 55% of the funding of this program was to be used strictly for treatment. In its new version, this restriction would be removed, and the budget more than tripled, from $15 billion over 5 years, to $50 billion over the same period of time.

Many media outlets picked up on the blockage by the seven senators ("The Coburn Seven") - Michael Gerson, whose story I linked above, received a response from Senator Coburn, who reminds us in a few tear jerking paragraphs that he has long been a leader in pushing for HIV/AIDS legislation.

That's great, Senator Coburn, but why then be so opposed to a bill with overwhelming bipartisan support? A bill meant to save lives? It seems that the "Coburn Seven"'s opposition to the bill is mainly because funds will be freed up for related initiatives, such as gender empowerment, treatment of other infectious diseases, etc. For someone who cares so much about HIV/AIDS, it seems that Senator Coburn is unaware - or unwilling to admit - the profound implications and consequences on affected societies. People who receive treatment and are given a new lease on life also need assistance to become productive members of society, to regain some form of dignity and purpose in life. Otherwise - as cynical as it sounds - we are merely prolonging existence, not creating solutions.

Mead Over, from the Center for Global Development, has suggestions as to how to further improve the bill - his non-partisan, reasonable, suggestions will hopefully reach the eyes of Senator Coburn. His last point, about earmarking, is worth nothing

CGD's HIV/AIDS Monitor has recently argued for a relaxation of the earmarks that Senator Coburn wants to reimpose. They found that the earmarks are unnecessarily constraining PEPFAR country teams' ability to tailor programs to individual country contexts. Because different countries have different epidemics and different needs, imposing an arbitrary spending mandate (even if a global mandate) is not the way to ensure the most effective use of funds. A recent GAO report echoes these findings and the recommendation for pursuing a country-based approach. Removing the treatment earmark would not force country teams to do more prevention, but rather allow them to allocate resources based on available evidence for what is needed in a particular country (not to mention based on host country priorities). Nor would earmarks effectively curb expenditure on consultants and channel money to widows and orphans, as Senator Coburn claims. Under the earmarks, any funding that contributes to treatment, prevention, or care is allocated under these categories, including for example the hiring of consultants for the implementation of treatment programs. And keeping the treatment earmark might in fact reduce funding for widows and orphans because these activities fall under PEPFAR's "care" category, which could presumably get less funding under a 55 percent treatment mandate.

I agree with Senator Coburn that Congress should insist that its AIDS funding be spent efficiently. However, the way to address Senator Coburn's concern is not with a return to earmarking, as he promotes, but with explicit and measureable targets like those I suggest above.

AllAfrica.com reports on this story as well, with this fabulous quote

Coburn added: "We are deadly serious about making sure [Pepfar] stays an effective program."

I hope Senator Coburn didn't intend that pun.

Oh, and, by the way, Senator Coburn advises John McCain on health issues (for the record, Senator Coburn is anti-gay, pro-life - he is quoted as saying "I favor the death penalty for abortionists,"...etc....)

FP Passport blog also expressed the view that "The Coburn Seven" are misguided - as have been a majority of Republicans since HIV/AIDS became an issue 20 years ago -, and that

When historians sit down to assess the modern conservative movement a generation or two from now, among the most severe tarnishes on the GOP's legacy will be Guantanamo and record deficits. There also will be the string of painfully ignorant policies the party has held on HIV/AIDS.

I completely agree with this statement. I already said this in my previous post on the war on common sense - History will judge harshly those that refuse to face the reality of the HIV/AIDS pandemic and block or reverse efforts to fight it.

The War on Common Sense

This is incredibly sad. Muslim clerics in Kenya have agreed to campaign against the use of condoms as a means to prevent HIV infection. Over here, the author asks if it's a war "on common sense".

"A lot of money is being wasted to poison our community ... a huge amount of money is spent on buying condoms, buying immorality," Sheikh Mohamud Ali, of Garissa district, told IRIN/PlusNews.

The leaders agreed to actively preach against the use and public promotion of condoms as a strategy to contain the pandemic and prevent pregnancy. They also agreed to oppose the distribution of condoms in villages and educational institutions across the northeast [...]

The leaders expressed their view that the best way for the youth to avoid HIV was through the observance of Islamic teachings such as fasting, regular prayer and shunning extramarital affairs. They advised men to avoid looking at women, who should dress modestly [...]

"After all, we have heard in the past that the Western world is using the condom to eliminate Africans, and Muslims in particular."

Well, that's great, isn't it? More religious leaders who are actively against the use of life saving contraception. Luckily for them, the rate of infection is low in their region (1.4%, compared to 5.1 nation wide). But still, can we afford to back track like this? It's also extremely unfortunate as people can pick up on this and assume that this is the position taken by Muslims - which is untrue. In West Africa, some progressive religious leaders are harnessing their influence to have a positive social impact. Meanwhile, there are stories pouring out of the continent on a daily basis about preachers and pastors who condemn HIV/AIDS and infected patients.

In other, completely unrelated news, I read this story about "$2.99 gas"

Chrysler’s new incentive program that guarantees consumers who buy one of their new cars or trucks won’t pay more than $2.99 a gallon at the pump for the first three years they own the vehicle.

Random incredibly large SUV

And the author proceeds to tell us that he thinks it's a "brilliant idea". I just wrote about how Americans (and Westerners in general) have hard time getting to terms with the fact that their lifestyle and habits will have to - at the very least - be modified. The fact that Chrysler offers this (probably following massively expensive market studies) is very telling - to me, it represents people clinging on to an obsolete way of life. Isn't it time to move away from cheap gas, precisely because it perpetuates a very unsustainable life style?

The Chrysler offer is going to appeal to people who refuse to face the facts - that the era of cheap gas is over, or nearly over (even if it happens in 20 years, that is not a very long time to contend with). Am I the only one who finds this incredibly near-sighted??

"World of $10$-a-gallon gas and $20 Big Macs?"

Hanoi - August 2006

The authors of this LA Times piece are not particularly worried about the increase of the global population and the availability of commodities.

Currently in the U.S., we consume the energy equivalent of six gallons of gas per person per day. Some rich countries manage on much less. The Danes, for example -- whose public policy mandates expensive energy -- use the equivalent of only three gallons of gas per person. The Danes are not suffering much from their missing three gallons a day. Reducing food consumption in our high-consumption society is equally easy: a bit more bread, a bit less steak. Given that we can easily reduce consumption when costs go up, a permanent doubling of the prices of food and energy would reduce income by less than 6%. At current rates of economic growth, incomes would recover from such a shock in less than three years. After that, onward on our march to ever greater prosperity.

However, I was just discussing yesterday how it seems unlikely that people will forgo certain privileges - refusing to let go of some degree of wealth. Even though, of course, a lot of people make individual efforts to reduce their impact on the environment (including me), I just don't see Americans eating "a bit more bread, a bit less steak" without some serious resistance. In a sense, that means going "backwards", and since we've decided to construe progress as a line along which you move, it will be hard to convince people that foregoing certain habits (using the A/C to make your house as cold as a refrigerator; driving SUVs in big cities, etc.) are neither modern, nor sustainable - but if you've ever watched FOX News, you'll realize that a lot of people are not ready to make these individual changes.

Ultimately, however, the goal of these changes is to ensure that we maintain our current way of life. Someone said "For everything to stay the same, everything must change" (Thanks, C., for that quote) In conjunction to the fact that the richest people in the world are intent on preserving their way of life, the "global South" is busy trying to become rich(er). We must ask ourselves what the goal of development is: ultimately, is development the creation of new consumer markets? People who dedicate their lives to buying things and making the money to buy them? If that's the case, then can this planet really handle a few more billion consumers? (I know this is a bleak view, but I'm feeling pessimistic today)

Will there always be - no matter what - a "bottom billion"? Is the existence of a global very poor class of people a necessity? Or will we (and this planet) really be able to provide for a multi-billion middle class? If you construe growth as a zero-sum game in a world of finite possibilities, then it becomes clear that the richest will ultimately have to be less wealthy for the poor to gain - however, that seems a bit simplistic, since global wealth IS increasing. Nonetheless, we have to wonder if we can continue to see growth and wealth grow exponentially:

Two things allowed growth to occur from 1750 to 2000 with declining commodity prices. First, only a small fraction of the world grew rapidly.... The West was alone in its voracious appetite for raw materials and energy. Second, fossil fuels cheaply substituted for land in agriculture by increasing crop yields.... What will happen depends on the race between technological improvement and growing demand.... [N]o one can predict which force will win.

Can supply AND demand grow forever without leading us to self-destruction? I'll leave you with this thought-provoking quote (original in French)

Le développement suppose l'apparition d'un monde nouveau, et non le grossissement quantitatif de ce qui existe déjà

Development supposes the emergence of a new world, and not the quantitative expansion of what already exists

(Jean-Marie Albertini, Mécanismes du Sous-Développement et Développements, 1981)

Wanted: Paradigm Shift

The policy choices and the decisions made in terms of dealing with the return of refugees are today at odds with the reality of these people's lives.

MS shared this article, which discusses the return of IDPs in Kenya.

One phrase strikes me as "universally" applicable to refugees and IDPs who are considering return:

"Why are they ignoring our sentiments and resorting to forcing resolutions down our throats? We are the victims and our views have to be considered," said an angry woman.

Save the date, World Refugee Day is June 20th.

War Crimes etc

You know how sometimes you hear or read about something completely random or that you had never thought about before, and then, the next day, you see this concept/word/thing somewhere else, and you wonder: "coincidence...? I think not..."

A few weeks ago, while in Ghana, C. and I asked what a plant was, and we were told it was "water greens", which is a variant of the famous potato greens. Now, having spent about 4 months there over the last year, we ate potato greens over and over, but never even heard of water greens. That afternoon, we saw a woman with a large bowl on her head, filled with - what we thought was - potato greens. When she started calling "water greeeeeens! wateeeeeeeer greeeens!", we had the "coincidence" moment...

Anyway.

The point is that I was reading a fascinating investigative piece by Philippe Sands in Vanity Fair, about the way in which "extreme interrogation techniques" became a tactic in the American strategy in the War on Terror, and that it seems that everywhere I look these days, I'm reading about this topic (recently in the New Yorker). This strikes me, since it doesn't seem particularly topical - perhaps it's one of those "coincidence" moments. Getting to the point now, I promise.

Sands' piece is enlightening, and shows exactly how these measures were decided on at the highest level of the administration:

The fingerprints of the most senior lawyers in the administration were all over the design and implementation of the abusive interrogation policies. Addington, Bybee, Gonzales, Haynes, and Yoo became, in effect, a torture team of lawyers, freeing the administration from the constraints of all international rules prohibiting abuse.

We have all heard the "trickle up" version of the story - a few bad apples, which took it upon themselves to commit some pretty serious abuse on prisoners. Not so, my friends. Not so. It's extremely unfortunate, and, more importantly, worrying, that the administration managed to completely circumvent the Geneva Conventions. One of my last assignments in grad school was a presentation discussing breaches in jus in bello (laws of war) using the case study of the continued American presence in Iraq. During my research, I learned -- much to my dismay -- that the American administration had essentially managed to ignore its legal obligations, while pretending to uphold the system on the whole.

Douglas Feith , former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, explains this quite well to Sands:

Douglas Feith had a long-standing intellectual interest in Geneva, and for many years had opposed legal protections for terrorists under international law. He referred me to an article he had written in 1985, in The National Interest, setting out his basic view. Geneva provided incentives to play by the rules; those who chose not to follow the rules, he argued, shouldn’t be allowed to rely on them, or else the whole Geneva structure would collapse. The only way to protect Geneva, in other words, was sometimes to limit its scope. To uphold Geneva’s protections, you might have to cast them aside[...]
How had the administration gone from a commitment to Geneva[...] to the president’s declaration that none of the detainees had any rights under Geneva? It all turns on what you mean by “promoting respect” for Geneva, Feith explained.
Geneva didn’t apply at all to al-Qaeda fighters, because they weren’t part of a state and therefore couldn’t claim rights under a treaty that was binding only on states. Geneva did apply to the Taliban, but by Geneva’s own terms Taliban fighters weren’t entitled to P.O.W. status, because they hadn’t worn uniforms or insignia. That would still leave the safety net provided by the rules reflected in Common Article 3— but detainees could not rely on this either, on the theory that its provisions applied only to “armed conflict not of an international character,” which the administration interpreted to mean civil war[...]

On February 7, 2002, President Bush signed a memorandum that turned Guantánamo into a Geneva-free zone. As a matter of policy, the detainees would be handled humanely, but only to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity. “The president said ‘humane treatment,’ ” Feith told me, inflecting the term sourly, “and I thought that was O.K. Perfectly fine phrase that needs to be fleshed out, but it’s a fine phrase—‘humane treatment.’ ” The Common Article 3 restrictions on torture or “outrages upon personal dignity” were gone.

“This year I was really a player,” Feith said, thinking back on 2002 and relishing the memory. I asked him whether, in the end, he was at all concerned that the Geneva decision might have diminished America’s moral authority. He was not. “The problem with moral authority,” he said, was “people who should know better, like yourself, siding with the assholes, to put it crudely.”

What really gets to me is the fact that a country such as the United States could entertain the thought that some people do not have rights (the Geneva Conventions are the one and only safeguard during a time of war - it is specifically meant to provide guidelines for the treatment of human beings in war, when human rights are ignored - that is the very nature of war) Contrarily to what I recently heard in a Ghanaian court of law - that rights "are not absolute" - I am absolutely convinced that every single individual is entitled to legal protection and due process, no matter what his crimes or background is. That is the very basis of equality and justice.

I find it so unfortunate that the United States, a nation that has (had?) the power to really positively influence the world, with progressive, enlightened and benevolent paradigms, has sunk to this level of disrespect for human rights.

Torture, which the Sands article is about, is a case in point. I just recently found out about Amnesty International's Unsubscribe initiative:

Unsubscribe is a movement of people united against human rights abuses in the ‘war on terror’. Thousands of unsubscribers have now joined up. The threat of terrorism is real, but trampling over human rights and abandoning our values is not the answer. From Guantanamo Bay, Rendition, Torture and Waterboarding – we unsubscribe.

(warning - graphic images)






Someone recently pointed out that such behavior on the part of a government is inevitable in times of war - and they quickly reminded me about the French abuses during the war in Algeria in the 50-60s. But is it really inevitable? Besides the obvious moral and legal objections, in the long run, doesn't this type of tactic weaken the overall strategy and the likelihood of a positive outcome?

Untying Food Aid

Canada just announced that it would move to "untie" its food aid - which means that it is removing restrictions on the origin of the food that is provided as aid. Previously, Canada's food aid was linked to the provision that domestically grown food was to be used for international aid - which is recognized as detrimental to aid effectiveness:

It is widely acknowledged that tied aid—that is, aid that must be used to purchase goods or services from a particular donor country—undermines aid effectiveness. It has been clearly documented that tying aid raises the cost of many goods, services, and works by 15-30 percent40, and the cost of food by 40 percent [...] But beyond these financial aspects, tied aid hinders developing country ownership of programmes and requires procurement procedures that often circumvent local procurement systems. This not only results in higher transaction costs, but also limits incentives and efforts to harmonise donor procedures and co-ordinate their activities.(p.41 of the report)

That leaves only the United States as a major donor country that still ties its food aid. The IRIN report notes that

Almost all food aid donated by the USA is tied to domestic requirements for procurement, processing and shipping. According to Barrett [Development Economics professor at Cornell University], it costs more than two dollars of US taxpayers' money to deliver one dollar's worth of food procured as in-kind food aid.

More here.

There has been a lot of media trumpetting over the $770 million food aid package that President Bush recently announced - which Bush coupled with a call to spend 25% of those funds on purchasing food locally. The Washington Post reminds us that historically, the United States has provided about half of all global food assistance and that the United States is the world's largest provider of food aid, delivering more than $2.1 billion to 78 developing countries last year.

The US move to increase its food aid budget is laudable, and does indeed demonstrate leadership. There are caveats though - the funds requested will only be made available after October 1, when the federal fiscal year begins, which means, as Democratic congress men pointed out, "that [it] is far too late for the urgency of this problem. If you're hungry and your government is collapsing, waiting until December 2008 or January 2009 for food to hit the ground is just too late". Coupled with the fact that tied food aid is inefficient, and that other policy options are available that would have a more immediate impact, it seems that American food aid will fall short of helping resolve the global food crisis.

Perhaps this new series of Congress hearings on foreign assistance reform should give us hope.

Meanwhile, in somewhat related news, in Somalia, food riots kill 2 - and food aid to Palestinians in Gaza is threatened by fuel restrictions.

Something to nibble on

Not exactly food for thought, just a little snack for today

Detained Migrants Riot in Belgium

In slightly related news, the article above reminded me of this kind of funny story

Speaking of Justice...

Here is an interesting essay by Owen Fiss, a law professor at Yale. I tend to be an advocate of the International Criminal Court, particularly because it (theoretically) signals the end of impunity for perpetrators of atrocities. I find his basic argument, that the internationalization of prosecution is unnecessary because nations usually have the capacity and ability to deal with these issues through their own justice system, to be quite potent:

The crimes may have a global dimension—human rights, after all, are universal—yet national tribunals are capable of punishing persons for human rights violations under either ordinary criminal law or the same norms used by international tribunals[...]
Justice is also a political obligation, for it defines the foundational commitments of a given regime. The willingness of a regime to punish human rights abuses reveals—to its own citizens and to all the world—its true character.

I do believe that, in general, it is important to let States take responsibility. This is true in terms of post-conflict reconstruction, as it is true in terms of developing certain sectors of public services, such as health and education, where the intervention of foreigners can be detrimental to long term sustainability. Thierry Vircoulon has a great paper on this topic.

However, I'm not entirely convinced by the argument - if States chose not to prosecute these types of crimes (for mostly political reasons), or if the outcome is influenced by political considerations, then the whole process becomes a farce. As Fiss notes, the ICC only has African cases on its docket - even though plenty of crimes against humanity have been committed in other parts of the world, and not necessarily only in the context of civil wars... The ICC's inability -thus far- to prosecute Western criminals of war (and they exist!) leads to the type of argument Fiss is making. This is precisely the same line of thinking that American detractors of the ICC use - that the US is able to prosecute and handle these cases within their own national jurisdiction, and that the ICC basically encroaches upon their sovereignty.

I would only agree with Fiss if it were the case that, left to their own devices, nation States would prosecute these crimes. He cites the case of Argentina,

In 1985, for example, leaders of the junta that ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983 were convicted in Argentine courts under domestic criminal statutes for their roles in authorizing extrajudicial killings, torture, kidnapping, and other crimes.

But there are so many counter-examples for this - Iraq comes to mind. The circus that was Saddam Hussein's trial and his brutal execution were an enormous shame - this could have been the opportunity for the ICC to show its worth. Also, the current debacle with the Cambodia trials for the Khmer Rouge also demonstrates how political considerations disturb these crucial legal proceedings.

Until the ICC becomes truly global in its reach - meaning that it doesn't only prosecute African war criminals - it will continue to be criticized (and, I suppose, rightly so). But that is entirely dependent on the willingness of States to at least complement their own prosecution of these crimes with a parallel international mechanism (like Rwanda did with the gacaca, for instance).