The rural highlands are remarkably colorful in agriculturally rich Guatemala, providing a stunning view from afar. The visible beauty of pastoral Guatemala is undeniable, but a closer look into the Mayan communities that reside in the mountainous countryside reveals the equally undeniable issue of poverty, and the visible malnourishment of its inhabitants.
Despite the abundance of surrounding vegetation, up to 80 percent of children residing in the countryside are extremely undernourished and around half of all children in Guatemala fall into this category. Many of the families effected are farmers, but find it more beneficial to sell their harvest than eat it themselves. In this agricultural paradox, the vegetables grown in rural Guatemala hardly reach the plates of the natives. Instead, they are exported to the United States, Europe and other parts of Central America for a higher sale price that still manages to provide meager wages for the produce growers. For instance, the farmers in the farming village of Pammus live on only $3.42 per day.
Lack of funds makes it difficult for villagers to provide their family with nutrient-rich foods. “The fundamental diet here is basically corn and coffee. Maybe once, twice or three times a week beans,” said Arnulfo Alvarez, a local doctor in Pammus. “There is a shortage of proteins and vitamins and a shortage of some minerals that are fundamental in the development of a child’s growth, especially in the first five years of its life.”
Many children in Guatemala will benefit from adopting a rich, diverse diet, but will not be able to undo the lifelong effects of malnourishment from an early age. New developments focus on children 1,000 days old or younger, which is a make-or-break period in childhood development. The repercussions of malnourishment in Guatemalan children have been shown to include lower IQ scores, and increased likelihood for heart disease, diabetes, kidney damage and anemia into adulthood.
The most notable symptom of prolonged malnourishment in rural Guatemala is the significantly shorter average height of the Mayans. What has been chalked up to genetics until recently is now understood, at least partially, as the result of insufficient nutrients consumed during early stages of childhood development. Stunting is a clear indicator of malnutrition in Guatemala, indicated by the fact that Mayans over the border in Mexico are taller than their southern cousins.
The problem is also saturated by a lack of education; two years ago, most rural parents did not even understand the concept of malnutrition. New educational programs enlist mothers of small children in classes that teach about food health and track the health of infant children.
Guatemala ranks the highest gross domestic product in all of Central America, but lands in sixth place among chronic malnourishment rates worldwide. While Guatemala is rich enough to tackle the issue on its own, less fortunate Latin American countries such as Bolivia, Peru and Brazil have successfully reduced child malnutrition rates with fewer resources. The government and aid donors are currently sending supplies to around 300,000 people in Guatemala but an additional 400,000 people require assistance as well.
The government has taken creative steps to humanize the issue and gain a better understanding of the lifestyles of those most in need. Efforts include community outreach and visits to rural villages. One instance even involved numerous government officials spending the night in a rural hut, an event that is still discussed today, two years later.
The Guatemalan government has adopted a zero-hunger policy but has been long criticized for its failure to provide for all of its citizens. The response has been slow, but the issue is complicated by factors stemming back to the country’s mid-century civil unrest. Democracy came to the nation over time as well as a booming economy. However, improved social conditions remained mostly limited to expanding urban scenes while citizens on the country’s fringe were left behind.
There is extreme inequality in Guatemala and the government fails to collect enough taxes from wealthy citizens to provide for the poor. Reformed policies are coming into effect, but they are slow. The government only plans to reduce malnourishment by 10 percent by the end of 2015.
– Edward Heinrich
Sources: DW, The Economist, PBS
Photo: PBS
Saudi Activist Faces Jail Time for Inciting Freedom
Walid abu al-Khair, a well-known human rights lawyer and Saudi activist, has received a jail sentence for 15 years for undermining the state of Saudi Arabia and insulting its political system.
The Saudi activist’s charge stems from the apparent violation of a recent anti-terrorism law which prohibits any civil act that, “disturbs public order, shakes the security of society, or subjects its national unity to danger, or obstructs the primary system of rule or harms the reputation of the state.”
This is not the first time al-Khair has faced the threat of jail time. On multiple occasions, the Saudi activist has been sentenced to varying amounts of time, though it has never reached a degree as intense as that of this most recent conviction. In his statement, al-Khair declares that he will not appeal the sentence because he does not see the legitimacy of the claim, and therefore believes it will fall apart when it comes time to book him.
The international reaction to the jailing of such a prominent voice has been negative thus far, with the Saudi researcher for Human Rights Watch saying, “Walid Abu al-Khair’s harsh sentence shows that Saudi Arabia has no tolerance for those who speak out about human rights and political reform and it will go to any length to silence them.” Saudi Arabia’s reaction simply shows the rest of the closely watching world that freedom of speech is less than valued.
By showing dissent from the Saudi king, al-Khair put himself in the crosshairs of the government. The Saudi activist has brought international attention to Saudi Arabia and this action has upset the government to the point that they believe he has represented them falsely and in a harsh light.
This incarceration demonstrates Saudi Arabia’s fear of the people, and the movement they could start if enough voices show disagreement. Countries that strive for a democratic state should allow the citizens to voice concerns; however, it appears this is not the case in Saudi Arabia. With reason, multiple countries, including the United States, have shown concern for the blatant disregard of human rights in this ongoing debacle with al-Khair, and begin to question the stability of the country.
– Elena Lopez
Sources:
Sources: CNN, Reuters, Aljazeera
Photo: Gulf Center for Human Rights
The Relationship of Hunger & Poverty
The world currently produces enough food to sustain the entire global population, yet nearly a billion people around the world still suffer every day from hunger. The U.S. alone could end global hunger with only $30 billion a year — a mere fraction of the $530 billion the U.S. spends annually on the military.
If we have the power to feed the world, it begs the question — why is hunger still such a monumental problem?
The primary and most obvious cause of hunger is poverty. While enough food exists to feed the world, a significant portion of the population still live in such abject poverty that they cannot afford even the most basic food items.
This creates an incessant poverty trap. The global poor can’t feed themselves or their families, so they become weak and malnourished which makes them unable to work. In turn, they fall deeper into poverty. This phenomenon is affecting millions of people around the world. Any solution to hunger must also be in part a solution to poverty.
Another major cause of hunger is natural disasters and climate change. Storms and droughts — both of which are on the rise — damage crops and lead to massive food shortages. Often, the poorest countries are the ones least equipped to deal with these disasters, and the greenhouse gases that lead to climate change originate from the richest countries.
One way to remedy this problem is to increase foreign investment in agriculture. By establishing adequate infrastructure, cultivating the land properly, managing water usage and ensuring storage facilities are used effectively, the fallout from natural disasters can be handled much more easily.
Unfortunately, most poor countries lack the resources and the knowledge to shore up their agricultural sector by themselves. However, foreign investment in the agricultural sector of developing countries would go a long way towards helping them becoming self-sustainable. A U.N. study found that investments in agriculture reduce hunger five times more than investments in any other sector.
Finally, war represents another major cause of hunger. The most war-torn areas in the world also tend to suffer the most from hunger. In war, food is often used as a weapon. Farms and livestock are ravaged in an effort to starve the opposition into submission. In Africa, countries with the most conflict — like Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo — are often the hungriest. On the other hand, in more peaceful countries — like Ghana and Rwanda — hunger is on the decline.
There are a number of insidious causes to the problem of global hunger, but the good news is that all of them are preventable. First and foremost, the problem of hunger must be tackled by facing poverty head-on. From there, we should turn our attention away from feeding impoverished peoples through aid, and towards helping them become self-sustainable.
– Samuel Hillestad
Sources: WFP, Global Concerns Classroom, DoSomething, FAO
Photo: OoCities
The Special Olympics: Helping the Poor
Rhoda Kaittany knew something more needed to be done to help her son. They lived in Nandi, a county in Kenya where children dealing with intellectual disabilities, including her child, lacked the resources to overcome their handicaps.
Working alone, she set out to organize everything required to bring a Special Olympics program to her county. During this process, she discovered children with intellectual disabilities growing up isolated from the world. In one case, a boy had been kept rope-tethered in a sheep’s pen to keep him from straying into danger.
Kenya’s situation is typical for poor countries. In fact, the majority of people dealing with developmental disabilities reside in developing countries. As Kaittany’s discoveries show, these people are often excluded from societies which lack the means to accommodate their special needs. The governments of developing countries are often too poor to devote the necessary social, health and educational resources to assisting the intellectually disabled. Moreover, few eligible families with disabled children receive government benefits in low-income countries. Lacking these resources, the disabled get stuck in poverty more often than those without disabilities.
Kaittany saw how desperate the problem had become in Kenya, one of the world’s poorest countries and home to an estimated 3.9 million people living with intellectual disabilities. She knew that the Special Olympics were part of the solution.
The Special Olympics is defined as a “global, grassroots movement dedicated to empowering the lives of people with intellectual disabilities.” The movement empowers lives first by promoting fitness through sports. A study conducted in The Netherlands found that children with intellectual disabilities tend to have less aerobic endurance and physical strength than other children. Since other research papers have suggested that improved physical fitness leads to improved cognitive and physical development in all children, it is imperative that the intellectually disabled find more opportunities to improve their fitness.
But the Special Olympics does more that just promote exercise. The organization provides health screenings, youth programs and public awareness campaigns for a population typically marginalized. It also believes in the potential of sports to educate in addition to promoting fitness. For example, in Botswana, the organization taught its athletes, who as a group were at a greater risk for contracting infectious diseases, about HIV/AIDS.
Globally, about 190 Special Olympics competitions take place every day—or 70,000 per year. The number is impressive, yet the movement strives to do more. The goal? Reach 200 million disabled people around the world through Special Olympics programs. For example, a relatively new program, the Global Football Initiative, is using the world’s most popular sport—soccer—to bring the organization closer to its goal. Through this program, Special Olympics athletes train with the support of professional clubs: the Italian Inter-Milan and the English Manchester United, for example.
So whether it is developing the bodies and minds of people living with disabilities or teaching communities how to help these individuals, the Special Olympics can play a crucial role in developing countries—as Rhoda Kaittany’s efforts have shown.
– Ryan Yanke
Sources:
Sources: USAID, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 1, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 2, Special Olympics, World Bank, KAIH
Photo: Special Olympics
Neeti Kailas: Preventing Newborn Hearing Loss
Indian entrepreneur Neeti Kailas has developed a new device for detecting hearing loss in early stages of a baby’s life. Kailas states that her ultimate goal with the new technology is to “prevent late detection of hearing loss” that has already resulted in speech problems for countless Indian youth.
Hearing is crucial to the cognitive, language and speech development of a child, and early detection is the key to preventing speech loss in adolescents. There is currently no standard screening system in the Indian healthcare system that exists, and hearing impairment goes undetected for anywhere between 100,000 to 150,000 Indian babies each year.
“At age 3, people realize ‘Oh my god, she’s not saying anything. By the time the parents go to the pediatrician and get sent to someone else and then finally she gets a hearing screening, she’s already lost speech,” Kailas said. “Speech loss is preventable if a baby is diagnosed early enough and given the right rehabilitation.”
Kailas is the director and co-founder of Sohum Innovation Lab with Nitin Sisodia, her husband, an engineer. Sisodia won the Stanford-India Biodesign fellowship in 2010, funded by the Union government’s department of biotechnology, in partnership with the All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Indian Institute of Technology in New Delhi, the Indo-US Science and Technology Forum and American University.
Four years ago, Sisodia’s fellowship fueled this power couple’s journey to health centers in Delhi and surrounding areas to study needs. Kailas and Sisodia recognized infant hearing loss as a relevant problem with a feasible solution, so they made it their organization’s focus. The new auditory screening device is the Sohum Innovation Lab’s first product, currently in its prototype stage, but developing quickly.
Sohum Innovation Lab is exactly what it purports itself to be: innovative. Their new technology addresses cost, usability and environmental factors that currently limit reliable testing in India and other developing nations. Domestic manufacturing and the lack of disposable parts will severely reduce production costs and drive the price down. The instrument will cost as little as one fifth the price of instruments in use now, which range between $12,000 and $29,000. It is also battery powered, portable and designed to be intuitively operated by untrained users.
The instrument is impressively non-invasive and fits easily over the patient’s cranium, like a headband. Non-stick electrodes on the scalp measure the auditory brain-stem response (ABR) to auditory stimuli. If the patient’s brain shows no response, there is indication that the child suffers from a hearing disorder.
One of the most innovative additions to Kailas’ device addresses the typically noisy setting of an Indian hospital. Sohum’s new testing system incorporates noise-cancelling technology that foreign-designed systems, which often result in false positives, lack.
Kailas was one of the five winners globally of the 2014 Rolex Awards for Enterprise, prized 50,000 Swiss Francs ($56,000). The prize money will propel the device into clinical trials for sensitive fine-tuning before it hits the market. The Sohum Innovation Lab hopes to have its product on the market by 2016, giving thousands of Indian children a chance at a brighter (and louder) future.
– Edward Heinrich
Sources: Washington Post, Live Mint, Daiji World
Photo: Rolex
Poverty in India, Redefined
India is redefining poverty. In the latest update from the Former Chairman of the Economic Advisory Council, Chakravarthi Rangarajan, an urban family living on under 47 rupees (78 cents) a day, or a rural family living under 32 rupees (53 cents) a day, would be deemed poor. These values are up from 27 and 33 rupees, respectively, on the definition of poverty in India, and would deem 94 million more Indians as poor. However, the new poverty level is still low compared to the World Bank’s cutoff for extreme poverty: $1.25 a day. The line in India has been criticized many times before, and people have even challenged previous prime ministers to live on less than a dollar a day.
According to the new definition of poverty, 29.5 percent of the Indian population was poor in 2011-2012. The cutoff for poverty in India has never been so high before, but, when applied to past years, it reveals a decrease in the number of Indians living in poverty. In 2010, under the current standard, 38.2 percent of Indians were poor.
In coming up with the new poverty line, Rangarajan’s committee studied government statistics on the ability of households to pay for food that provides the minimum nutrition an individual needs, as well as the ability of individuals to obtain education, health care, housing, electricity, transportation and clothing.
The poverty line is significant because social sector programs are directed toward those who fall below it. But, that might change too. The Rangarajan panel suggested that entitlement to social security programs should be disconnected from poverty ratios. Instead, entitlement to the programs may be better linked to social and caste census. Either way, the new definition will factor into Finance Minister Arun Jaitley’s budget-making.
India’s government released a new budget focused on curbing, borrowing and reviving growth this week. This seems like good news, but critics are not sure how the new spending will reduce the fiscal deficit plaguing the country.
Different parts of the country have dealt with finances differently and to varying results. Recently elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi bragged frequently about the way he ran the state of Gujarat as Chief Minister since 2001 – its per capita income was among India’s highest. But he neglects to include the fact that the state’s poverty rate in 2011-12 was only a little below the national average, and its rural poverty rate was actually higher than the national average. While Gujarat focused on industrialization and ignored welfare programs, the state’s income inequality continued to grow.
Meanwhile, in southern state Kerala, industrialization has fallen by the wayside. But, social indicators are highest in the nation because of the state’s practice of investing heavily in social welfare. Under the new definition of poverty in India, Kerala’s poverty rate in 2011-12 was only 11.3 percent, and only 7.3 percent of the rural population would be considered poor. Because Kerala chose to invest mainly in education and health care, everyone, including the poor, has increased an access to opportunities.
– Rachel Reed
Sources: New York Times, Slate
Photo: Owni
Malnutrition in Agriculturally Rich Guatemala
The rural highlands are remarkably colorful in agriculturally rich Guatemala, providing a stunning view from afar. The visible beauty of pastoral Guatemala is undeniable, but a closer look into the Mayan communities that reside in the mountainous countryside reveals the equally undeniable issue of poverty, and the visible malnourishment of its inhabitants.
Despite the abundance of surrounding vegetation, up to 80 percent of children residing in the countryside are extremely undernourished and around half of all children in Guatemala fall into this category. Many of the families effected are farmers, but find it more beneficial to sell their harvest than eat it themselves. In this agricultural paradox, the vegetables grown in rural Guatemala hardly reach the plates of the natives. Instead, they are exported to the United States, Europe and other parts of Central America for a higher sale price that still manages to provide meager wages for the produce growers. For instance, the farmers in the farming village of Pammus live on only $3.42 per day.
Lack of funds makes it difficult for villagers to provide their family with nutrient-rich foods. “The fundamental diet here is basically corn and coffee. Maybe once, twice or three times a week beans,” said Arnulfo Alvarez, a local doctor in Pammus. “There is a shortage of proteins and vitamins and a shortage of some minerals that are fundamental in the development of a child’s growth, especially in the first five years of its life.”
Many children in Guatemala will benefit from adopting a rich, diverse diet, but will not be able to undo the lifelong effects of malnourishment from an early age. New developments focus on children 1,000 days old or younger, which is a make-or-break period in childhood development. The repercussions of malnourishment in Guatemalan children have been shown to include lower IQ scores, and increased likelihood for heart disease, diabetes, kidney damage and anemia into adulthood.
The most notable symptom of prolonged malnourishment in rural Guatemala is the significantly shorter average height of the Mayans. What has been chalked up to genetics until recently is now understood, at least partially, as the result of insufficient nutrients consumed during early stages of childhood development. Stunting is a clear indicator of malnutrition in Guatemala, indicated by the fact that Mayans over the border in Mexico are taller than their southern cousins.
The problem is also saturated by a lack of education; two years ago, most rural parents did not even understand the concept of malnutrition. New educational programs enlist mothers of small children in classes that teach about food health and track the health of infant children.
Guatemala ranks the highest gross domestic product in all of Central America, but lands in sixth place among chronic malnourishment rates worldwide. While Guatemala is rich enough to tackle the issue on its own, less fortunate Latin American countries such as Bolivia, Peru and Brazil have successfully reduced child malnutrition rates with fewer resources. The government and aid donors are currently sending supplies to around 300,000 people in Guatemala but an additional 400,000 people require assistance as well.
The government has taken creative steps to humanize the issue and gain a better understanding of the lifestyles of those most in need. Efforts include community outreach and visits to rural villages. One instance even involved numerous government officials spending the night in a rural hut, an event that is still discussed today, two years later.
The Guatemalan government has adopted a zero-hunger policy but has been long criticized for its failure to provide for all of its citizens. The response has been slow, but the issue is complicated by factors stemming back to the country’s mid-century civil unrest. Democracy came to the nation over time as well as a booming economy. However, improved social conditions remained mostly limited to expanding urban scenes while citizens on the country’s fringe were left behind.
There is extreme inequality in Guatemala and the government fails to collect enough taxes from wealthy citizens to provide for the poor. Reformed policies are coming into effect, but they are slow. The government only plans to reduce malnourishment by 10 percent by the end of 2015.
– Edward Heinrich
Sources: DW, The Economist, PBS
Photo: PBS
Seven Questions to Ask About Foreign Aid
1. Why does the U.S. give foreign aid?
The U.S. gives aid for several reasons: economic interests, national security and American values. Economically, aid builds trading partners and supports the demand for U.S. goods. For national security, U.S. aid can sustain efforts to reduce injustice and poverty, which can contribute to instability and social tensions. Providing aid can also validate the kindness of the American people, advance democracy and human rights and build a better world.
2. What types of U.S. assistance does it include?
Foreign aid is a very comprehensive term. It incorporates several types of assistance, from the international affairs budget to poverty-focused assistance. The international affairs budget includes the resources to finance U.S. endeavors abroad. For example, it provides funds for USAID and the Department of State’s diplomatic costs and expenses that are sustained in protecting the interests of U.S. citizens and businesses abroad. In addition to helping people in poor countries, this aid provides money to allies for strategic purposes. Poverty-focused assistance concentrates on promoting economic growth and providing services like education and health care.
3. How much does the U.S. government spend on poverty-reducing foreign aid?
The U.S. government spends around $80 per taxpayer on foreign aid. To put that into perspective, compare that number to what Americans spend on other items: $204 per person on soft drinks, the $126 per person on lawn care and $101 per person on candy.
4. What is Americans’ understanding of how much the U.S. spends on this aid?
Americans think the U.S. spends more money on foreign aid than Medicare and Social Security – as much as 30 percent. However, only 0.7 percent of the U.S. federal budget is spent on poverty-focused foreign aid.
5. How can we ensure development aid is not wasted by corrupt governments?
Most poverty-reducing foreign aid is not actually provided directly to foreign governments. Around 85 percent goes through NGOs and U.S.-based government contractors. It may actually force governments to increase transparency and accountability.
6. What is the U.S. doing to make this kind of aid more effective?
The U.S. is doing many things to make foreign aid more efficient, such as defining aid’s purpose, modernizing USAID, developing new models of providing aid and making it more transparent. In 2010, President Obama put forth the first U.S. Global Development Policy which clarifies that the main purpose of U.S. development aid is to pursue global economic growth to fight global poverty. For modernizing USAID, USAID Forward is a new reform agenda that is working to make USAID more efficient, transparent and accountable. President Bush introduced the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) during his presidency. MCC is a “United States foreign aid agency that is applying a new philosophy towards foreign aid.” The MCC model demands that countries to meet criteria in three areas: investments in people, economic freedom and good governance.
7. How can the U.S. improve it to better fight poverty?
There are a few ways. The United States could focus aid more on combating poverty worldwide, provide more transparent information about their foreign aid and give more aid to effective local leaders.
– Colleen Moore
Sources: Alliance for Peace Building, Oxfam America, The Borgen Project
Photo: The Spectator
Donate to Africa
When a child does not want to finish his or her food, a parent often says something along the lines of “Finish your food; there are starving children in Africa.” This statement and others like it represent the mentality most Americans grow up with. We know that much of Africa is impoverished, which leads to malnourishment in children, death from curable diseases, homelessness and much more. If we know all this, then why not help? Knowing that people across the world are suffering means that we should donate to Africa.
While Americans have access to a variety of medications and are able to see a doctor, many Africans are living with HIV/AIDS or curable diseases. But those diseases are not considered “curable” in Africa because they do not have half of the access that Americans have to medical help.
While Americans are getting an education for free and many progress to college, many children in Africa do not have the privilege of going to school.
Many people living in the U.S. think they are incapable of making a difference in someone’s life who is living across the world. But the reality is quite the opposite: there are plenty of organizations that allow people to get involved and donate to those living in poverty in Africa.
The word “donate” according to Merriam Webster’s Dictionary means, “to give in order to help a person or organization.” When people hear the word “donate,” they often think of giving away their money. Yes, sometimes it may mean donating money, but it also means giving away clothes, books, food and more.
Here is a list of organizations that you could go through to donate to people in Africa:
1. Donate Africa – This organization has two options on their website: Donate money (even $10 can make a difference) or donate goods. In the “donate goods” area you simply write what you are donating and a quick description.
2. Save the Children is another great and well-known organization that keeps people informed about what is going with people living in poverty. They make it easy to make a donation and even have PayPal as a choice of payment, which is sometimes a little more comforting for those donating.
3. Books for Africa – There are children in Africa who are starving for books, who are waiting to see the different pages to take them to another world just for a little bit. This organization allows you to donate money and makes sure that it goes to giving children books. Just $50 gives children 100 books.
4. SHARE Africa allows people not only to donate money, but to send nonperishable items that are appropriate for ages 5 to 18. The items are then distributed to children by staff workers in Kenya.
5. Heal Africa is an organization that is specifically geared toward helping Africa with its medical needs. Donations go to training doctors and medical health caretakers and also toward medication and facilities.
These are only a few organizations that you could get involved in to help those living in Africa. Just because they are far away does not mean they are out of our reach to make a difference.
– Priscilla Rodarte
Sources: SHARE Africa, Books for Africa, Merriam Webster, Save the Children, Donate to Africa
Photo: SHARE Africa
Algeria to Donate FIFA Money to Gaza
Although not yet confirmed, there have been reports that the Algerian national football team will donate their World Cup prize money to the Gaza Strip.
Islam Slimani, renowned striker for the Algerian team, supposedly announced after their loss in the round of 16 that they will give their estimated $9 million prize money to Gaza.
If the reports are true, the team may be accused of bringing politics into sports. Last month, FIFA announced Argentina would face disciplinary action after the team presented a political banner prior to a match against Slovenia bearing the phrase “The Falkland Islands belong to Argentina.”
Since 2007, poverty and unemployment have increased greatly in Gaza, a territory self-ruled by the terrorist organization Hamas. About 1.2 million people out of the 1.8 million that live in the Gaza Strip live in refugee camps.
Poverty has been the only way of life for 50-year-old Palestinian Mahmoud al-Ashqar, who lives in the Shati refugee camp in Gaza. Al-Ashqar primarily depends on the education, health care and food rations provided by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. He has asked UNRWA many times to save his house, but his calls have been met with no success.
“The walls may collapse anytime, they would seriously fall down over our heads if I do not make some repair from time to time,” al-Ashqar said. “I have asked many organizations, including UNRWA, which is the care taker of refugees, to help us restore the house, but they all gave us a cold shoulder.”
Algeria’s alleged donation to the impoverished people of Gaza would help people like Mahmoud al-Ashqar. “They need it more than us,” Slimani said.
The Israel-Palestine issue is complicated, due to a long history of territory disputes and religious conflict. Violence has once again erupted from both sides and international organizations are actively working to quell tensions.
– Colleen Moore
Sources: The Independent, Daily Mail, The National, PressTV, Global Post
Photo: Fox Sports
Photo: International Business Times
Why the U.S. Should Ratify CEDAW
Despite having been proposed during the Carter administration, the Global Women’s Treaty (CEDAW) was never approved by the Senate. Under the current Obama administration, attention has been brought back to the United Nations treaty for ratification. Many human rights organizations have criticized the United States’ inaction with this treaty for decades.
The treaty hopes to attain full gender equality, specifically in areas of domestic violence, maternal health, economic opportunities and human trafficking. Although the U.S. prides itself on being at the forefront of human rights activism and campaigns, not ratifying the treaty seems contradictory. Only seven nations, including the U.S., have not ratified the treaty.
The Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee has supported the treaty twice, but there has not been substantial support in the Senate as a whole. CEDAW acts as a guideline for countries to follow in order to eliminate gender inequality. In past years, many advancements in women’s rights have been attributed to the CEDAW framework.
With barriers to economic and social equality, countries are functioning at a fraction of their potential. CEDAW helps to alleviate these barriers, tailoring guidelines for each country based on its current landscape. For these reasons, the U.S.’ ratification would not only help solidify domestic efforts to foster gender equality, but also promote gender equality in other nations.
With nations including China, Russia, the UK and many of our NATO allied nations participating, the U.S. is one of the few to not cooperate on this issue. With U.S.’ leadership and resources, the international alliance toward improving global living conditions for women can prosper. With the approval of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, hopefully CEDAW will pass through the Senate this year.
– Kristin Ronzi
Sources: Human Rights Watch, CEDAW 2014
Photo: Ratify CEDAW Facebook