- – - -

After reading “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift, (a friend had been assigned to read and analyze it for their advanced English class) and it got me thinking. Alot of the same problems then still exist now; and in “A Modest Proposal” Jonathan Swift wrote about starvation, and poverty.
Published in the 1700s “A Modest Proposal” was written about Jonathan Swift’s idea of reducing the homeless. His idea was designed to be remembered, he wrote that the solution to the problem of Irish poverty was for mothers to sell their children to the nobles to eat for dinner in substitution from pork and other meats.
I wonder if instead of being written in the 1700s and it were to be written today if it could possibly sway the minds of many of the North American populace. Instead of being written about seventeenth century England it was written about modern day Ethiopia; who has recently pleaded to the United Nations for international aid. After drought, disease, starvation, and poverty a pamphlet was published selling the idea of cannibalism was published. Would politicians be more inclined to deliver international aid if they were afraid the Ethiopians would devour their children? Would only then the seriousness of the situation sink in?

A Modest Proposal:
http://www.online-literature.com/swift/947/

In many US States, the jobs of social services and mental health services workers are increasing in numbers.

People that work in domestic violence services want to reach more people in effective ways. The following link provides background on some of the most prominent catalysts toward domestic violence today, along with a directory of places to go for real help.

Men are abused as profoundly as woman and so are other groups of people, including MR/DD populations, the mentally ill, the elderly, GLBT, ethnic minorities, the obese, and others.

Where to Get Help for Domestic Violence

The New York Times made a good case the other day that AIDS aid may be taking funding and resources away from fighting simpler, more easily treated diseases like diarrhea and pneumonia. Although as a nation, the US spends close to $750 million a year on fighting AIDS in developing countries, AIDS accounts for a smaller percentage of childhood deaths than other diseases, like diarrhea. So the question is – if we are to spend the money we have saving as many lives as possible, is AIDS prevention and treatment really the best route to go? If not, is it actually harmful to spend so much on AIDS-related causes?

Jeffrey Sachs takes the view that we should not stop spending money on AIDS, but that the world (re: other countries) should simply dedicate more resources to maternal health in general:

[Sachs] rejected what he called the wrong-headed idea that “we need to make a terrible and tragic choice between AIDS or pneumonia.” The United States has invested heavily in the fight against AIDS, and other wealthy nations should pick up more of the cost of other global health priorities, he says.

“Rather than tearing down what’s working, we should continue to invest in what’s needed,” he said.

Sure, this would make sense if we had unlimited resources. Governments allocating funds to international aid do not have unlimited resources. This is why social scientists carefully study the outcomes of development programs – not only to see what works, but to see what works the best, so we can invest money in programs that provide the most bang for our buck. I’m failing to see how some decisions don’t need to be made here.

The article also profiles a woman who was immediately counseled by an aid organization to get tested for AIDS, but didn’t know to give her son oral rehydration salts as soon as he started showing signs of diarrhea. I see two needs here: the first is for distribution channels for oral rehydration salts, which sound cheap and small (the doctor quoted in the story says “everyone should have O.R.S. at home like we have Band-Aids”), and second is for knowledge of basic childcare (which makes me think of Geoffrey Canada’s Baby College, a topic for another post).

When is there enough evidence to change the status quo? In the ’80s, the U.S. government dedicated only $1 million to the CDC to research a cure for AIDS. At some point between then and now, AIDS turned into the “sexy” health cause – supported by celebrities and abandoned at a developed country’s peril. AIDS is a bigger threat to public health than diarrhea, which (as far as I know) is not contagious. However, waterborne diseases are a bigger killer than AIDS, and why not go after low-hanging fruit, especially when it doesn’t have to mean cutting off all funding to AIDS? Are we experiencing decreasing returns to AIDS aid, and should we channel that surplus to something that may be simple, but may have a larger effect on child and maternal mortality rates?

~Amy Richmond, Indiana USA

After experiencing a series of catastrophic storms last month, comprehensively taking 712 lives and adversely affecting millions of others, the Philippines are asking for at least one billion dollars from donors all around the world to recoup their losses. Part of the reasoning behind this request is the belief that, as stated by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, “The Philippines is a victim of climate change, not a culprit.” The World Bank and UN are currently attempting to determine the damage in monetary terms; preliminary numbers easily already exceed five-hundred million dollars in total damages.

Floodwaters in especially disaster-prone areas reached over five meters in height, causing the Philippine government to seriously reconsider methods of flood control. These disasters highlight the Philippines’, and other island states’ susceptibility to the effects of rising seas, changing weather patterns, and climate change.

Thanks to Ondoy and Pepeng: Lumakas ang halaga ng peso kontra dolyar.

Kaninang umaga nagpunta ako sa “remittance center” upang magpadala ng pera sa Pinas. Aba, ang bilis umakyat ang halaga ng peso. Biruin mo, ang palitan ngayon ay 1 PHP = 0.178 MOP (Macau dollar), samantalang nung huli kong padala nung 25 September, ang palitan pa nun ay 1 PHP = 0.173 MOP. From my point of view, lugi ako sa aking kita ngayon kasi sa bawat 100,000 PHP na padala ko sa Pinas, magbabayad ako ngayon ng 17,800 MOP, samantalang nung 25 September, 17,500 MOP lang ang kapalit nun. In just a matter of 20 days, lugi na ako ng 300 MOP o mahigit 1,700 PHP for every 100,000 pesos na ipapadala sa Pinas. Di bali, kelangan ko magpadala e!

Isa pang mas kupal ay ang mga remittance centers mismo. Ang totoong foreign exchange rate ngayon ay 1 PHP = 0.1725 MOP, that means, for every 100,000 PHP na ipapadala ko, 17,250 MOP lang sana ang aking babayaran. But, for every 100,000 PHP na ipapadala ko sa Pinas, kikita ang mga remittance centers ng 550 MOP o mahigit 3,100 PHP, di pa kasali dyan ang “service charge”. At hindi lang ako nag nagpapadala ng pera — marami kami! Di lang libo-libo ang OFWs kung di milyon-milyon! At di lang nagpapadala ng pera ang OFWs ng once a year, kung di every month! Kaya, dyan nabubuhay ang bansang Pilipinas — sa pawis at dugo, sa hirap at tiyaga ng mga “modern slaves”!

Bilang OFW, wala kaming ibang alternatibo at epektibong paraan sa pagpapadala ng pera sa Pinas but through the remittance centers. Kesa naman i-postal mail namin ang aming mga dolyares. Naku po, isa pang di mapagkatiwalaan yang Philippine Postal System na walang ka siste-sistema. Tuwing paparating ang Pasko, binabasket nila ang mga makakapal na sulat galing ibang bansa. Kaya daw dati, kung magpapadala ka nang package galing abroad, halimbawa magpadala ka nang sapatos, huwag daw pagsabayan ang isang pares ng sapatos. Otherwise, mawawala yan on the way. Dapat daw, this month, ang kanan o kaliwang-sapatos muna, then after a month or two, kaliwa o kanang-sapatos na naman. Nalaman ko yan galing sa aking mga kaibigan mismo na nagtrabaho dati sa PhilPost. Sabi pa nya humina na raw ang “racket” ng PhilPost since the “technological revolution”. Hindi na uso ang “sulat-kamay”… may email or text na kasi. At di na rin uso ang pagpapaipit ng dolyares sa mga sulat o card, may “remittance centers” naman kasi.

Thanks to Ondoy and Pepeng: Bumaha ang perang padala ng mga OFWs and foreign aid sa Pinas. Aminin man ng mga ekonomista o hindi, may “maganda” pa ring idinulot sina Ondoy at Pepeng sa ating ekonomiya.

But No-Thanks to Ondoy and Pepeng: Sinasamantala ng karamihan sa ating mga kababayan ang trahedyang ito. Marami sa ating mga kababayan abroad ang nagnanais kuno na makatulong sa mga biktima nina Ondoy at Pepeng. Nagkaroon sila ng samu’t-saring pakulo, kagagohan, kalokohan, upang makalikom ng limpak-limpak na salapi na ipapadala kuno sa mga biktima ng kalamidad, pero ang perang kanilang nalikom ay ipinadala sa kani-kanilang sariling pamilya at ginamit nila para sa kanilang sariling kapakanan. Isang halimbawa dyan ay ang “dinner for a cause.” Nagbayad ka ng P2,000 pesos for a buffet sa halagang P250 pesos lang na kinain mo, tapos ang “proceeds” daw ay mapupunta sa mga biktima nina Ondoy at Pepeng. How would you know? Well, it’s a matter of trust. But how can you trust a politician or a political clan na nag-organize ng ganung kagagohan at kalokohan? Kaya, ang hamon ko sa mga Pinoy, huwag magpagago at magpaloko — maging mapagmatyag! It’s not a sin not to trust the un-trustworthy!

But No-Thanks to Ondoy and Pepeng: Ang mga “in kind” daw na donations ay na-Ondoy at na-Pepeng din. Nakay Mayor at Kapitan daw ang mga magagandang gamit na para sana sa mga biktima ng kalamidad.

But No-Thanks to Ondoy and Pepeng: Gusto pa ng economic adviser ni Arroyo na si Go-beer-nor Joey Salcedo ng Albay na manghingi ng USD1-B (isang bilyong dolyar) na donasyon galing sa international community. Ang kapal! Nag-set pa ng quota! Naku po, ang laki nyan! Hindi po pwedeng i-audit ng COA ang donations, kaya, hala sige… kaliwa’t kanan ang pagnanakaw at pamumulsa nang mga buwaya sa gobyerno, lalo na ang mga tatakbo sa darating na halalan! Syempre, hihingi rin ng kapalit ang mga banyagang bansa na nagbigay ng donasyon sa Pinas. It’s like bidding. Ang pinakamataas magbigay ng donasyon ay siyang nasa priority list ng gobyerno! Sige, pasok kayo sa Pinas ng walang visa — and exploit our natural resources, sexploit our people! Pag ni-rape ang isang babae sa Subic ng Sundalong Kano, sige, oki lang yan — puta naman ang babaeng yun!

But No-Thanks to Ondoy and Pepeng: Inaprubahan na nang Kongreso (both in the House of Repress-SIN-ta-THIEVES and SIN-nate) ang P12-B calamity fund! Naku po, malaking pera rin for “relief operations, rehabilitation and reconstruction” or (R.R.R.). How would we hold our government officials accountable for every single penny that they will use in the name of R.R.R.? Hindi kaya “Rest, Recreation, and Re-election” ang ibig sabihin ng R.R.R. na yan?

No-Thnks to Ondoy and Pepeng: May forecast ako: Few months from now, mababalitaan na lang natin na ang P12-B supplemental calamity fund ay ibinulsa NA NAMAN ng mga walang-hiyang kupal sa administrasyon na yan! As usual, magwewelga na naman ang mga tao. Magpa-file na naman ng impeachment sa Kongreso. At mababasura na naman ang impeachment complaint dahil sa dami ng kaalyado, ang “legion” ng Pangulo.

Di na tayo natuto sa Fertilizer Scam na ginamit ni Arroyo nung 2004 para mapanalo ang eleksyon, magkakaroon na naman ng Calamity Fund Scam para mapanalo ang kulelat na pambato ng administrasyon sa 2010!

Thanks to Ondoy and Pepeng: Umangat ang “ratings” ng ating mga presidential hopefuls ayon sa pinaka-latest na SWS survey. Umepekto na siguro ang lata-latang sardinas, sako-sakong bigas at kahon-kahon na noodles na ipinamudmod ng mga pulitiko sa mga biktima nina Ondoy at Pepeng. Oo, apektado na ang utak ng ating mga kababayan dahil sa kakulangan ng sustansya sa kinain nila, kaya di na tuloy gumana ang kani-kanilang utak! What nutritional value can they get from canned sardines and instant noodles? Wala! MSG o monosodium glutamate lang!

Thanks to Ondoy and Pepeng: Pumasa na sana sa grading o semester na ito ang mga estudyante sa mga lugar na sinalanta ng kalamidad — yan kung pinagbigyan ng DepEd ang panawagan ni Sen. Chiz Escudero.

An extraordinary 40 per cent of the billions of dollars in aid destined for Afghanistan never reaches the country, a top international specialist on the region has warned.

Anthony Cordesman, from the US Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said that the massive waste of international aid was one of the great failures of the campaign to win the war in Afghanistan. Dr Cordesman said some foreign aid that did make it to Afghanistan was wasted on showpiece projects that were built in the wrong place and caused friction among local people.

The United Nations was presiding over an uncoordinated and unmanaged mess, said Dr Cordesman, who has advised the Obama Administration and the US military extensively on Afghanistan and Pakistan as they plan a new strategy to defeat the insurgency.

Dr Cordesman also backed the worst reports about corruption in the recent elections, saying that President Hamid Karzai had ‘’stuffed the ballot boxes in a remarkably clumsy way”.

The Age

Ofu, American Samoa

Again, a part of the world that is dear to me has been devastated by a tsunami. Last time was the 2004 Boxing Day disaster which wreaked havoc on several Indian Ocean countries, most famously Thailand. This time the Samoan islands have borne the brunt of killer waves resonating from a huge earthquake in Indonesia – also the epicentre of the 2004 catastrophe.

Phuket was worst-hit in 2004, while Krabi also suffered extensive damage, and scenes of the damage there were poignant for me at the time, as I had only two months earlier enjoyed my first trip to Thailand, spending half of it in Krabi, a dramatically beautiful province which remains my favourite place in the kingdom.

Last week the Samoan islands – both independent Samoa and the US territory of American Samoa - have been hit by a tsunami of a similar ferocity, with reports of waves of anything between three and seven metres high washing up to a mile inland, devastating the southern coastlines and in some cases destroying entire villages. Tonga, too, was hit.

The South Pacific tsunami death toll – nearly 200 as of today, but continuing to rise – pales in comparison the 150,000 who perished in 2004, but the damage to the countries and communities could be just as pronounced. Consider that these are nations with populations in their thousands, not millions, and with land areas that would constitute mere provinces in the bigger countries that were hit in 2004. Further, the majority of the inhabited areas are on the coast. The impact of this disaster in national terms cannot be overstated.

Furthermore, in economic terms, the Samoas will almost certainly face a longer and more difficult road to recovery than the 2004 victims. Thailand is one of the world’s foremost holiday destinations, while the likes of Indonesia, the Maldives, India and Sri Lanka, also affected, likewise enjoy a healthy tourism industry. And, with the exception of the Maldives, these are much bigger, vastly more populous nations with a myriad different industries from which their people can make a living.

Not so the Samoas. Offering the South Pacific ideal of pristine tropical beaches and rainforests, a relatively unspoilt native culture, and a largely subsistence-level lifestyle of which generosity and hospitality are the backbone, they do draw tourists, whether in search of a world class beach break or an authentic adventure. But the numbers are small. 125,000 holidaymakers arrived in independent Samoa in 2008. Compare that to Thailand’s 17 million last year, even during a time of recession and political instability.

Of course the Samoas are much smaller so would not be able to cope with tourist arrivals in their millions. But the point is, for small countries that do nevertheless rely on the tourist dollar, the loss of visitors in their thousands will be felt that much more keenly.

Which is a terrible shame. I visited all three nations – independent and US Samoa, and Tonga - in 2006 and was charmed. Over the course of nearly six weeks, I enjoyed jungle treks, coral reefs, delicious food, the vibrancy of the capital and the tranquility of the countryside in independent Samoa, and then ventured to American Samoa, with its towering, dark green peaks and the best beach I have ever seen, Ofu, where powder-white sand met sea with the clarity of bottled water, inhabited by marine life coloured like cartoons, while enormous flying foxes took the skies above me in the early evening. On top of this, the Samoan people were among the most charming I had met anywhere in the world. I also spent a week in Tonga, and while a much shorter experience, similar impressions were gained there. 

I have talked glowingly about these experiences ever since, and recommended them to all as travel destinations. In fact, before I moved to Thailand last year, I had identified both Thailand and Samoa as the two places I’d visited where I’d most like to live and work. Ironic, then, that both have now become tsunami victims.

Presumably most people who have upcoming holidays in the Samoas and Tonga booked will cancel, and those who were thinking of visiting will now look elsewhere. With the infrastructure badly weakened and several resorts badly damaged or even destroyed, this is understandable. But recovery will take years, and a dip in tourism will compound this. Tourists will stay away because of the damage, but the damage cannot be quickly fixed without the tourist dollar. A vicious cycle.

Furthermore, while global news outlets have covered the story in the past week, inevitably it will fade from international consciousness sooner rather than later. That’s the way it is with natural disasters, especially when the countries affected are so far away, both in terms of geography and personal relevance, to the average First World citizen. The Indian Ocean tsunami was different, partly because of its unprecendented scale, and partly because Thailand, in particular, is so firmly on the tourist map and has such a large expat community.

But Samoa? Relatively speaking, very few people outside Oceania will have any connection these islands, let alone will have visited them. So they will look at the images on the BBC or CNN and spare a thought for the dead and the stricken, and then forget about it. I’m not criticising these people; it is natural and I have been guilty of the same when watching footage of crises in places which have no relevance to me. But it does mean that outside of those who do have an existing stake in the Samoas, there will be two kinds of people:

1) Those who have considered a holiday there, who will now choose to go elsewhere, thus depriving the islands of much-needed income; and

2) Those who had never previously thought about Samoa, and likely never will again.

The latter will, unfortunately, make up the majority of the international community, and this means donations and aid will be in short supply. The Indian Ocean tsunami generated an enormous global response, but again this due to the countries involved meaning something to so many people. Thailand as one of the most-visited holiday destinations, India and Indonesia as among the world’s most populous nations, and so on.

So, the effect on tourism, coupled with lesser international aid, looks to be economically devastating, beyond the physical chaos which has already been wreaked.

But what can you do? As for me, I just hope that this article raises awareness of a very special part of the world, and that in turn that might encourage some people to visit. Because that is the best thing you can do – visit the Samoas. Your money will make a difference. By all means wait a while until the worst of this disaster has passed, but please do go in future. Spend your money in independent hotels and restaurants – the American and Australian chains will be fine without you, but to the smaller businesses you can make a very real and immediate difference. And beyond that, Samoa will have a very real and immediate effect on you. The rewards to both sides are obvious – I say that as someone who has been to the islands and continues to cherish my memories of them.

My thoughts and prayers go to the islands and their people .

www.helpsamoa.com

So I mentioned earlier how Oprah’s episode last week focused on poverty relief through women.

Not convinced yet? In that case, you might want to go and check your pulse. In the meantime, check this out too.

You know that saying, “Put your money where your mouth is?” Well I don’t have money. And this is a blog. So tonight, I put my time where my blog was… or something like that.

Tonight, my boyfriend and I attended the volunteer orientation at Women for Women, Int’l. Featured on the Oprah show (see previous post), they enjoyed a SPECTACULAR 10,000 additional sponsorships to help that many women in the developing world attend a year-long program that empowers them through education and vocational training.

That’s about a tenth of the previous amount of women that W4W has helped since their inception in ‘93 by the gloriously beautiful and equally brilliant Zainab Salbi, an Iraqi immigrant who started the program in Bosnia and Herzegovina (is it just me or are Persians unfairly and ungodly attractive? Didn’t think so. Latinas too. I digress).

On top of that, they got over $7K, yes, $7,000, in donations. That’s enough to sponsor an ENTIRE program (1 year) for and entire class of women (20 students)! Thank you Oprah!!

To boot, Half the Sky (you still haven’t bought it? Even after watching Oprah?) got the “Oprah bump,” and was catapulted to the no. 2 position on the Amazon bestseller list. Behind Glenn Beck. No comment there – that’s a whole ‘nother blog.

At the HQ of W4W, we watched a lovely video on W4W’s work, and my Mr. Wonderful teared up a little, I am proud to say. He’s so cute. I did a bit too, I admit it. It was quite moving.

After a tour and a hundred questions about how the programs work, we got started on our volunteer work. We organized folders with brochures and literature for the sponsors in America to read when they receive information about their sister overseas. Just some tedious but calming work that is too mundane for the sparse staff to deal with – I’m more than happy to donate my time so the .org can do it’s thing!

I felt really normal when I was there, like there was no other place I needed to be at the moment. Eventually, I hope to do bigger and better things, but I can’t believe I waited so long to volunteer for this organization. I mean, I don’t have any shortage of volunteer experience, but this one is particularly relevant to me. Rehabilitating wild critters is great, but I’m not majoring in it, I’m afraid.

Volunteering is an incredibly rewarding experience. Just two hours of my time on a weeknight + a little administrative work = happiness. And that’s the equation to remember. Though, I have to admit, feeding baby squirrels was way cuter than stuffing folders. But still.

Just in case time is what you don’t have, donations are needed too. W4W is having a fall matching campaign where your dollars are doubled. Just think! It would be a nice gift to a young college woman in your life, for example, to sponsor a woman in her name, allowing her to connect with a different kind of student with similar hopes and dreams. What a motivation for midterms – at least she doesn’t have to walk 3 hours to get to school in a post-conflict region of the DNC!

I’m lucky enough to live a few subway stops away from our nation’s capitol, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t volunteer at or for an organization that helps women. Almost every state or county in America has women’s centers and shelters, and they probably need help with all kinds of things. In fact, there are a lot more places than county shelters – visit www.volunteermatch.org/ to check out opportunities in your area!

With the holiday season only a few weeks away, it’s about time to get into the spirit of things. In fact, it’s about damn time, period!

A couple of think-tank-ites have suggested, via the New York Times, an idea to generate more revenue for the Afghan government:

“By some estimates 40 percent of international aid leaves the Afghan economy as quickly as it comes in — going to pay Western security contractors, maintain back offices in the West and pay Western-style salaries, benefits and vacations — while as little as 20 percent of that aid reaches its intended recipients …. when it comes to large-scale projects like building roads and hospitals, Western contractors have to take the lead because Afghan companies are years away from having enough experience. But there is a way for the Afghan government to recoup some of the billions of dollars of aid flowing to those contractors and being recycled back to the West: tax it.”

In other words, have the Afghan central government take a cut off the top.

Good idea in theory – after all, the Taliban does the same thing closer to the shovel-in-ground end of some projects, collecting “protection” money to keep projects from being attacked.

One slight problem – this, diplomatically put, from the IMF this summer on Afghanistan’s financial management capacity (highlights mine):

“The deteriorating security situation over the past few years has resulted in the loss of control over parts of the country, facilitated the expansion of illicit poppy cultivation, and encouraged corruption. This has slowed implementation of the reform agenda and undermined revenue collection.  In the coming year, the government has committed to focus its economic reforms on strengthening governance in customs and tax administration, modernizing indirect taxation, and tightening controls of key public enterprises.”

Plain text:  they’re still having trouble collecting tax money, and they’re still having trouble making sure all the money they do get is spent on what it’s supposed to.

Another problem, pointed out by Nathan Hodge of Wired.com’s Danger Room blog (h/t for the NYT piece):  who’s going to be the first organization working in Afghanistan to step forward to give up its tax-free status?

“If anyone surrenders their tax-free status in Afghanistan, I’ll eat my hat.”

If I was Nathan, I wouldn’t worry about having to look for a recipe for toque souffle anytime soon.

Dear Nonprofiteer,

I am wondering if you can help.  I recently made a film about the efforts of a group of villagers in the developing world to find a means of support after their livelihoods were taken away by misguided government actions.

I am getting requests from people who want to donate money to the village after seeing the film, but there are currently no charities that specifically cater to the village and I know it takes a long time to start one.   Are there any charities where you can specifically earmark donations for a purpose and manage how that money is used? Kind of as a sub charity?

I just don’t want the money going to some big non-profit organization where by the time it gets to the village it has been depleted by other things.  There is a very big church in the village which might want donations to go to them, but I don’t believe that’s what’s best for the village, either. What do you advise?

Signed,

Avenue for Aid

Dear Avenue:

Though you’ve described a very particular set of circumstances, you’re asking a question of general interest: how to make sure that donated money gets to its intended beneficiaries. Often the correct answer to that question is, you can’t–and that’s a good thing. People gave oodles of money to relieve the suffering of the victims of September 11, but once that suffering was relieved and there was still a ton of money left over, the Nonprofiteer approves of its being used by the Red Cross to relieve other kinds of suffering, rather than its being used to enrich the intended beneficiaries. In any event, the price we pay for having experienced professional suffering-relievers on the ground when we need them is to pay their salaries and the light bills and rent of the people who send them there–and to pay all those overhead expenses year-round, not just when disaster strikes.

But you’ve described a case where very tightly targeted aid is available and makes sense, yet there’s no recognized pipeline from donors to recipients. Each country has its own unique way of handling charity, and even if you set up a recognized US charity it might not meet the necessary requirements for transmission and distribution of funds in Africa or Asia.

So your first step should be to get the lay of the land from the aid groups that know it best. Start with UNICEF or CARE: they’re certainly the least corrupt and most able people on the ground.  UNICEF has a presence in virtually every country on the globe, working closely with local groups, and its office staff should be able to get to the in-country people and find out what systems would work for targeting your aid. Yes, of course, they’re likely to say, “Give to UNICEF [or CARE] and we’ll guarantee the aid will go to your country of choice,” and they actually will–but that won’t increase the total money allocated to that country by the agency. It will just substitute your money for some other money that hasn’t been so designated, with no net increase in welfare for the country. Nor would an increase in country funding help you support this particular group of villagers.

So you probably need to suck it up and tell people you’re happy to accept their contributions, but that they’re NOT tax deductible. They can send the money to you (or to a bank fund you set up, if that makes them more comfortable: establish the Village Rescue Fund at First National Bank, and the bank has a fiduciary obligation to keep the money separate and to remit it in accordance with the purpose you describe when you set up the account), and then you can send it to your contact(s) in the village for distribution as they see fit. 

You won’t get to oversee it once it’s in the hands of people in the village, but you wouldn’t really want to: the point is to assist them in restoring their economic self-sufficiency, right? So concede them their autonomy. The last decision you get to make is to send it to your friend John instead of to the head of the local church; it’s hands-off from there.

If people are very moved by the film, the lack of a tax deduction (which is all that you lose by giving money to someone or -thing that isn’t a nonprofit) shouldn’t deter them from giving. Best of luck, and let us know if you find a better mechanism than the ones described here.

Riches get their value from the mind of the possessor; they are blessings to those who know how to use them, and curses to those who do not.
~Terence

I am going to analise two important phenomenas that affect a country development: The Dutch Disease and The Democracy Effect in Economy. I will start with the former and analyse the later in my next post.

Dutch disease is named after the effect that the discovery of natural gas had in Holland in the 1960s. It is also called the Resource Trap but it can originate not only in natural resources discovery, but in any development in that results in a large inflow of foreign currency, including a sharp surge in natural resource prices, foreign assistance, and foreign direct investment.

Imagine first a country like Japan in the 1950s, with not natural resources. Japanese people want to buy imports, but they can only do so with hard currency, so they need to produce exports to get it. Exports (tradable goods) would sell in hard currency and sell it to importers who will use it to buy imports and sell them in Japan. Exports in such cases are manufactured products and some services (and some natural resources in a limited fashion), so the country start producing in order to import goods that lacks, making the national industry important and competitive. The local non-tradable good and services (like restaurants) get some of the money since people increase their standard of living, elevating the price of these non-tradable goods and services, and attracting some labour

Imagine then a country that discovers oil or gas or diamonds. This natural resource is sold in the international markets, creating a surge in the inflow of hard currency to the country. Since the price of tradeable goods is set internationally, the laws of supply and demand make rise the exchange rate of the country in question, hence making the rest of the exports in the country less competitive. Additionally, the extra revenue make non-tradeable goods and service more expensive in the country since there is more money to be spent and demand for new items.

Example, in the 1970s, Nigeria exported peanuts and cacao, then the oil revenues started to build up, and the Nigerian currency gain value, making their peanuts and cacao too expensive. Both industries collapsed. When prices eventually went down, the growth and standard of living of Nigerians was halved.

So the ill effect comes when the resource runs out or when the price goes down. The manufacturing industry has been badly damaged and cannot compete in international markets. All the foreign investment went towards the natural resource, and nothing to the traditional manufacturing sector. The country then stops development and spiral down.

Foreign Aid has the same effect that a natural resource discovery: It brings unearned hard currency to a country, making his own currency more expensive and killing its exports.

Hence, a sudden surge in the foreign currency inflows to a country make this country uncompetitive in the global markets, killing his tradable sector, making his non-tradable sector more expensive, and slowing the growth in the long run.

Now with pictures: In a normal economy without lots of natural resources, the manufacture sector is big (blue), some people and employ in services (green), and very few are in the natural resources sector (red) and, with hope, very few are unemployed (grey)

Country without resources

Then oil is discovered and a boom starts. The booming sector attracts all the labour force and foreign investment, while the traditional sector lags behind and gets reduced. The non-tradeable sector grows a little since there is a new demand for its goods and products, and draws some of the capital and labour, making these goods and services more expensive and in further detriment of the traditional sector. The excesive exports of the natural resource make the currency so expensive that further damages the traditional tradeable industry.

The economy in a natural resource boom

After some years or decades, the natural resources either ran out or the international prices plumbed. The former boom sectors shrinks, laying out people, the demand for non-tradable good and services shrinks too, laying out people, and the traditional manufactures are now too small to accommmodate the excess of labour. No further investment is done, and unemployment rises.

Dutch Disease effects

Harper’s had a great snapshot of USAid which I read this morning that cited some ugly statistics on aid/development.  USAid used to be an organization that did developmental assistance in other countries.  However, under the Reagan and Bush administrations, many jobs were cut under USAid, forcing the agency to sell contracts to private firms for development projects.  It’s now reported that only 14% of USAid funds actually make it into the local economy.  Technical assistance contracts run as much as $1,000 a day — just one example of the money going to line the pockets of Americans, rather than the people it was intended to help.

This is a problem all over the international development spectrum — of actually getting money effectively into the local economy to promote development.  USAid has been failing, and many other large-scale government and economic interventions are also failing.  Proper aid development should occur primarily on the community level and in partnership with the local community, striving to achieve local solutions.  Large scale policy and economic measures are helpful, but not if there is no concurrent local action.

There’s gotta be some kind of bureaucratic efficiency coefficient.  I think it would apply to both government and business.  As an organization increases its size, it becomes more efficient to a point, but beyond that point, it succumbs to all kinds of problems of corruption, and ultimately, retreats back down the efficiency ladder.  It’s why I think corporations are evil.  Its why I’m cautious about government.

And as far as USAid is concerned, privatization was a bad idea.

Following is an excerpt of a GlobalPost article by Jean MacKenzie:

It is the open secret no one wants to talk about, the unwelcome truth that most prefer to hide. In Afghanistan, one of the richest sources of Taliban funding is the foreign assistance coming into the country.

Virtually every major project includes a healthy cut for the insurgents. Call it protection money, call it extortion, or, as the Taliban themselves prefer to term it, “spoils of war,” the fact remains that international donors, primarily the United States, are to a large extent financing their own enemy.

“Everyone knows this is going on,” said one U.S. Embassy official, speaking privately.

Up until quite recently, most experts thought that drug money accounted for the bulk of Taliban funding. “In the past there was a kind of feeling that the money all came from drugs in Afghanistan,” said Richard Holbrooke, U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, according to media reports. “That is simply not true.”

The new feeling is that less than half of the Taliban’s war chest comes from poppy, with a variety of sources, including private contributions from Persian Gulf states, accounting for much of the rest.

Read more

The manager of an Afghan firm with lucrative construction contracts with the U.S. government builds in a minimum of 20 percent for the Taliban in his cost estimates. The manager, who will not speak openly, has told friends privately that he makes in the neighborhood of $1 million per month. Out of this, $200,000 is siphoned off for the insurgents.

If negotiations fall through, the project will come to harm — road workers may be attacked or killed, bridges may be blown up, engineers may be assassinated.

The degree of cooperation and coordination between the Taliban and aid workers is surprising, and would most likely make funders extremely uncomfortable.

One Afghan contractor, speaking privately, told friends of one project he was overseeing in the volatile south. The province cannot be mentioned, nor the particular project.“I was building a bridge,” he said, one evening over drinks. “The local Taliban commander called and said ‘don’t build a bridge there, we’ll have to blow it up.’ I asked him to let me finish the bridge, collect the money — then they could blow it up whenever they wanted. We agreed, and I completed my project.”

[Excerpt of a GlobalPost article by Jean MacKenzie]

Knowing that I was soon to visit a Millennium Village in person, I’ve been reading everything I came across in the media about this controversial project. A few weeks ago, the Huffington Post published a column by Magatte Wade that opened with outrage at the Millennium Villages Project. Wade quoted the brochure of the official tour company which asked visitors not to hand out pens, candy, gum, water bottles or other “treats” to the villagers. She argued that the Millennium Village tour amounted to treating the villagers as zoo animals that outsiders paid to gawk at. I was appalled and righteously angry but then my trip co-leader, J’Lein Liese of the Foundation for Global Leadership, pointed out a counter-argument written by the head of the Millennium Village project in Mayange, the very one that was criticized and the one that we were scheduled to visit.

According to Donald Ndahiro and our tour guide Cecille, the tour company was far from exploiting the villagers—it was actually set up by and for the villagers themselves as part of a tourism cooperative among the villagers. In short, the various cooperatives—the women’s basket weaving group, the farmers, the beekeepers, the school—banded together to make sure that their community received something in return for all their efforts to show visitors the work they are doing. They formed a tour company that charges a fee and then spreads the wealth evenly between the various cooperatives, rotating “hosting” responsibilities among different “cells.”

J’Lein explained that she also strongly discouraged our trip participants from handing things out to children because it taught them to follow tourists with their hands out, asking for, well, handouts. J’Lein explained her rationale to the group this way:

“ I have witnessed children attacked by their peers for what a well-intentioned tourist gave them – often leaving them with torn clothes, bloody and in tears…

“I think it is our ‘human nature’ to want to give and while in other people’s country we often feel so touched by what we are seeing and experiencing that we feel we need to give something in return. Sometimes is it so that we will feel the experience is reciprocal, or so we will be remembered or sometimes simply so we can feel ‘liked.’ Or, often it is just seeing the poverty that makes us want to give a little something to a child who appears to have nothing….

“Among many unintended consequences for wanting to give a small gift to a child, is that it prevents authentic relationship building from taking place and pretty soon the kids see foreigners and start begging or asking for stuff and we feel badgered and harassed – leaving a bad impression on both sides.

“Whereas, when we stop and actually engage the child in a conversation, both sides get to take away something from the human connection and interaction. Stereotypes are often broken and memories are made… Trust me in Rwanda, the children will LOVE to try and talk with you as English has only been introduced post-genocide and they like to practice!”

In both Uganda and Rwanda, there were always plenty of children running alongside our vehicle or stopping to watch as we passed, shouting “Mzungu!!” which technically means “wanderer” but actually refers to any foreigner. They’d wave at us, and we’d wave back, everyone inside and outside the vehicle smiling and laughing as we acknowledged each other.

Paul Kagame, president of Rwanda, has a philosophy that says “we’ll do it ourselves. We don’t need government aid dollars. What we need is investment.” Kagame plans to wean the country off of aid by 2020 or 2025. Foreigners are encouraged to come to the country as investors and business partners, not as charity workers. In this spirit, I like the idea of the children seeing me as a visitor enjoying their country and potential source of sales and revenue, rather than a source of charity.

When educated about the reasons behind the Millennium Village tour group policy, I found it to be the stronger position. Our group had such fantastic interactions with both children and adults in every place we visited—the orphanages in Kampala, the AIDChild compound near the Equator, the Empowering Hands project in Gulu and, yes, the Millennium Village in Mayange. Only twice in our travels–once in Uganda and once in Rwanda, did children approach us with their hands held out.

After the conversations we’ve had and the ideas we’ve shared with people we met in these countries, it now seems to me that handing out pens and candy is actually the behavior that treats people like zoo animals.

In the realm of international aid and development, it’s hard to judge effective interventions for development.  However, I’ve begun to notice one tell-tale sign of bad development: the white man’s burden.

How many times have you seen fundraising and advocacy efforts that try to place the salvation of the project on one act or the group of people carrying it out?  How many times have we seen the objects of our efforts labeled and put into boxes?

Case in point:  Invisibile Children.  Having traveled to Uganda and Sudan, child soldiers and the abuses of Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army have been on my heart.  I was excited when a group of college students who called their project Invisible Children came along to promote awareness of the issues in Uganda and to raise support.  However, years after viewing their materials, I’m convinced that while they probably have good intentions, their materials contain a significant amount of white guilt and elicit a messiah-complex.  Their movie victimizes the people of Uganda by referring to the people as “The Raped” and “The Abducted”, and most of the movie is about them and their experiences, and less about Uganda.  The movie trivializes the people in Uganda and makes their problems one-dimensional — which means it’s easier for us Westerners to swoop in on the clouds and solve their problems.

I don’t mean to harp on and single out Invisible Children.  They are good guys who are attempting to do something meaningful, but their story is an example of one that is repeated all too often in the realm of “charity.”

We cannot trivialize the needs and issues faced by the people we want to help.  They lead complex lives and face complex issues, just like we do.  We don’t like people coming in and running our lives, so why should they?  True aid development (both internationally, at home, and in our personal relalionships) seeks to partner with, to listen, to understand, and then “maybe” to offer some form of assistance.  When we reduce people’s problems to being raped, abducted, poor, homeless, or hungry, we destroy their humanity.  In order to help people, we must honor their humanity first, seek to understand, and then seek to find ways to help.

Our traditional way of helping those in need is not sustainable, will create dependence, keep people mired in their problems, and will only satisfy our guilt that we are doing nothing.  The white man’s burden is a guilt for other people’s suffering and a messiah-complex that believes that we have the solutions and answers, before we’ve even asked the questions.

We don’t.

We may have a few extra resources and a few extra ideas.  But until we listen to people and their needs, truly understand their lives, and seek partnership over charity and subsistence, we  all fail.

Since we launched the Jewish Fast for Gaza, we’ve received all kinds of feedback, some supportive, some critical, some utterly unprintable. (My personal favorite from the latter category: “You should all get severe stomach ailments.”)

On occasion, however, our effort has offered us the opportunity for genuinely respectful dialogue. Below is one such exchange – an email I received from a rabbinic colleague, followed by my response:

The Conservative Party have just launched a new advert to promote a policy announcement on international development.  They continue to use this ‘Girl Effect’ style of advert; for an advert hack like me it’s feeling a bit tired now, but no doubt it’d be impactful for someone viewing a Tory advert for the first time – if they included a few bits of non-typed animation it would certainly jazz it up a bit.

I won’t go into any detail as to the content of the policy initiative, but it certainly seems like a new territory for The Conservatives.  In terms of political marketing, releasing content around international development at the same time as Obama tours Africa is a really smart, capitalising move.

In response to the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza, my dear friend and colleague Rabbi Brian Walt and I have organized a new initiative, Ta’anit Tzedek – Jewish Fast for Gaza.

See below for the press release about the project, which is already attracting increasing numbers of supporters, including many rabbis. Click the link above to visit the website and sign up yourself…

RABBIS  ANNOUNCE MONTHLY FAST FOR GAZA

Seeking “to end the Jewish community’s silence over Israel’s collective punishment in Gaza,”  an ad-hoc group of American rabbis has called for a communal fast.  Known as Ta’anit Tzedek – Jewish Fast for Gaza, this new initiative will organize a series of monthly fasts beginning on July 16.

The project was initiated by a group of thirteen rabbis representing a spectrum of American Jewish denominations. The group’s website explains the religious meaning of the campaign: “In Jewish tradition a communal fast is held in times of crisis both as an expression of mourning and a call to repentance. In this spirit, Ta’anit Tzedek – Jewish Fast for Gaza is a collective act of conscience initiated by an ad hoc group of rabbis, Jews, people of faith, and all concerned with (this) ongoing crisis…”

The fast has four goals: to call for a lifting of the blockade, to provide humanitarian and developmental aid to the people of Gaza, to call upon Israel, the US, and the international community to engage in negotiations with Hamas in order to end the blockade, and to encourage the American government to “vigorously engage both Israelis and Palestinians toward a just and peaceful settlement of the conflict.”

The water-only fast will take place every third Thursday of the month, from sunrise to sunset. In addition to signing on to the fast statement, participants have been asked to donate the money they save on food to the Milk for Preschoolers Campaign sponsored by American Near Eastern Refugee Aid, a relief campaign that combats malnutrition among Gazan preschool children.

Since the electoral victory of Hamas in January 2006, Israel has imposed a blockade that has severely restricted Gaza’s ability to import food, fuel and other essential materials. As a result, the Gazan economy has completely collapsed and it suffers from high levels of unemployment and poverty and rising levels of childhood malnutrition.

“Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people in Gaza amounts to nothing less than collective punishment. While we condemn Hamas’ targeting of Israeli civilians, it is immoral to punish an entire population for the actions of a few,” said Rabbi Brant Rosen, who serves Jewish Reconstructionist Congregation in Evanston, IL. “This blockade has only served to further oppress an already thoroughly oppressed people.  As Jews and as human beings of conscience, we cannot stand idly by.”

“We’ve been enormously encouraged by the initial response we’ve received from the Jewish community thus far,” said fast organizer Rabbi Brian Walt, former Executive Director of Rabbis for Human Rights – North America, who noted that the initiative has signed up numerous supporters prior to the launch of the project. “We truly believe this effort is giving voice to a significant number of people who been looking for a Jewish voice of conscience on this issue.”

The humanitarian situation in Gaza has grown beyond intolerable.  If you have any doubts, just read this devastatingly important article by Sara Roy, senior research scholar at Harvard’s  Center for Middle Eastern Studies:

Today, 96 percent of Gaza’s population of 1.4 million is dependent on humanitarian aid for basic needs. According to the World Food Programme, the Gaza Strip requires a minimum of 400 trucks of food every day just to meet the basic nutritional needs of the population. Yet, despite a 22 March decision by the Israeli cabinet to lift all restrictions on foodstuffs entering Gaza, only 653 trucks of food and other supplies were allowed entry during the week of May 10, at best meeting 23 percent of required need.

Israel now allows only 30 to 40 commercial items to enter Gaza compared to 4,000 approved products prior to June 2006. According to the Israeli journalist, Amira Hass, Gazans still are denied many commodities (a policy in effect long before the December assault): Building materials (including wood for windows and doors), electrical appliances (such as refrigerators and washing machines), spare parts for cars and machines, fabrics, threads, needles, candles, matches, mattresses, sheets, blankets, cutlery, crockery, cups, glasses, musical instruments, books, tea, coffee, sausages, semolina, chocolate, sesame seeds, nuts, milk products in large packages, most baking products, light bulbs, crayons, clothing, and shoes.

What possible benefit can be derived from an increasingly impoverished, unhealthy, densely crowded, and furious Gaza alongside Israel? Gaza’s terrible injustice not only threatens Israeli and regional security, but it undermines America’s credibility, alienating our claim to democratic practice and the rule of law.

And now the news has just come in that Israel has seized the “Spirit of Humanity,” a boat carrying a cargo of humanitarian aid in international waters, and  is  forcibly towing it to an Israeli port.  The boat contained 21 human rights workers from 11 countries, including Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire and former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. It was bringing medicine, toys, and other much needed humanitarian relief.

If you’re looking for a way to channel your upset over this dire situation into effective contribution to Gaza relief, I particularly recommmend American Near East Refugee Aid.  Their projects in Gaza include:

- Delivery of  life-saving pharmaceuticals and medical supplies to hospitals and clinics;

- Distribution of  fortified milk and high-energy biscuits to 25,200 children in 186 preschools.

- Water projects that bring water networks to families in need and pumping systems to keep raw sewage off the streets.

- A psychosocial program that helps thousands of children and parents struggling to survive the effects of war.

- Cash-for-work programs that employ workers to clear agricultural land of plastic waste and provide 200 families a means of self-reliance.