Archive for category: Politics

,

Operation Good Neighbor: Syrians and Israelis Together

Operation Good NeighborUnder the cover of darkness, Syrian children and their adult chaperones cross the border into Israel. They are greeted by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), but not with guns or bombs. They are greeted with medical care and food. This is Operation Good Neighbor.

The beginnings of this aid project started in 2013, when injured Syrians arrived at the Israeli border. The government made the decision to give them treatment. Since then, 4,000 Syrians have been treated. Operation Good Neighbor, started in 2016, expands this humanitarian initiative to a larger scale. The IDF serves around 200,000 Syrian residents who live in southwestern Syria. These Syrians are close to the Syrian-Israeli border, along the Golan Heights. One-third of them are displaced refugees and half of them are children. They all have been devastated by the Syrian civil war.

The IDF not only gives out medical care, it has begun supplying other necessities as well. The list is expansive and includes medicines like painkillers, anesthetics and insulin, 450,000 liters of fuel for heating, baking and energy for water wells, generators, water pipes, equipment for schools, 12,000 containers of baby formula, 1,800 diaper packages, 12 tons of shoes and 55 tons of clothing for cold weather.

In a statement, the IDF explained its two reasons for helping Syria. The first was the obvious “moral imperative.” The second was more nuanced. It contended that “the aid will ultimately create a less hostile environment across the border.” This security would “lead to improved Israeli security.” These two reasons are both compelling arguments for providing aid to Syria.

Operation Good Neighbor becomes more incredible after considering the historical Israeli-Syrian animosity. Currently, Syria and Israel are technically in a state of war. Syrians have historically been taught to resent Israel and vice-versa. But citizens on the ground in Israel and Syria have found ways to look past their history of enmity. In fact, Israeli citizens have been pressuring Israel’s government to give more aid to Syria for years.

Syrian victims bear striking resemblance to Jews displaced by tyrannical regimes throughout history. Gadi Eizenkot of the IDF puts it best: “I think this [Operation Good Neighbor] is our basic obligation as neighbors and as Jews.”

Being a good neighbor means watching out for everyone around you, even if they don’t look like you. It means treating others how you would like to be treated. It means reaching out, with a helping hand, when someone close to you is hurting. With this in mind, it becomes clear that Operation Good Neighbor is aptly named and that the work that it’s doing is indispensable.

– Adesuwa Agbonile
Photo: Flickr

,

On the Main Causes of Poverty in North Korea

Causes of Poverty in North KoreaNorth Korea, the only country in the world which still adopts Stalinist principles, has long been one of the most impoverished countries in the world. Recently, it scored 28.6 in the 2016 Global Hunger Index, a level which the International Food Policy Research Institute classified as “serious.” A report published by the Korea Institute for National Unification (KINU) in 2013 estimated that about half of North Korea’s 24 million lives in “extreme poverty,” who are “severely restricted in access to fuel for cooking and heating.”

The two primary causes of poverty in North Korea are as follows:

Climate and geography
North Korea’s climate is less suitable for agricultural production than that of South Korea. Northern and northwestern winds that blow from Siberia cause the winters in North Korea to be bitterly cold, often involving heavy snow storms. This type of weather is particularly harsh in the mountainous regions in the north, contributing to the relative lack of arable land in North Korea. Due to the cold temperatures, single cropping is usually practiced in the north, while double cropping is possible in the south where winters are less severe.

Because of the country’s mountainous terrain, the regime has sought to increase agricultural production mainly through double cropping, rather than through expanding the cultivable area. However, due to factors such as short cropping season, prolonged and harsh winter, and uncertainty of the spring weather, the results have often been disappointing.

Despotic regime
Another one of the causes of poverty in North Korea is the despotic regime succeeded by the Kim family. During the 1980s, the North Korean regime embarked on a radical economic policy of self-sufficiency known as “juche.” This policy wreaked havoc on the country’s economy, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, after which the country could not import cheap fuel, its industrial base was fractured and its production of fertilizer decreased.

North Korea’s provocations on the international stage, such as the shelling of the South Korean island in 2010 and repeated nuclear tests, also resulted in numerous sanctions by the U.N., which restricted the amount of humanitarian aid going into North Korea.

These are the main causes of poverty in North Korea. Whether North Korea will be able to escape from poverty will heavily depend on the international community’s efforts, as well as the regime’s willingness to adopt open-market reforms, just as China did in the late 1970s.

– Minh Joo Yi

Photo: Flickr

,

Facts and Figures of North Korea

Facts and Figures of North Korea

Hidden behind the tensions of military bluster between the U.S. and North Korea lies a sad and often overlooked reality: North Korea is an incredibly impoverished country.

The conflict on the Korean peninsula can be traced back to when Japan controlled Korea till 1910. After the Japanese lost in World War II, the peninsula was divided between a communist northern half and a democratic southern half.

Tensions between the north and south erupted into war in 1950. The U.S. led a United Nations coalition to support the south; China was the principal ally of the north. The war ended in a stalemate with the current division becoming a demilitarized zone. North Korea has languished since, relying heavily on outside aid.

Most of the developed world stopped sending monetary aid to North Korea in 2009. South Korea ended aid in 2010 due to conflicts with the incoming government of Kim Jong Un.

Much of North Korea’s poverty problem stems from government spending, or the lack thereof. Most of the country’s budget is allocated to military and defense spending. This means that most of North Korea’s budget is not invested in its people.

This lack of aid has impacted North Korea’s investment in education, health services and infrastructure.

The average education level for a North Korean is only 11 years. The average annual income is only $1300. These disparities stem from the government’s sole interest in military spending, and its lack of interest in its people. These facts and figures of North Korea illustrate that the impoverished Asian nations strongly needs foreign aid, as well as restructuring its own budget, to combat its extreme poverty.

In the interest of its citizens, North Korea could decrease spending on its military and defense program. This could increase international confidence in the country’s financial and political system, therefore increasing foreign aid that could be used for basic services for its populace.

Until the North Korean government focuses on its people instead of its military, and makes serious efforts to combat these disastrous poverty-related facts and figures of North Korea, it will continue to be an impoverished nation.

– Raymond Terry

Photo: Google

,

President Trump’s Buy American Laws

Buy American LawsThe Trump administration is dusting off Depression-era laws to advance its “America First” agenda. The aptly-named “Buy American” laws require firms to buy U.S. materials when manufacturing military equipment.

In 2013, $20 billion went to foreign entities, roughly 6.4 percent of military spending. That money is spent largely on raw materials like lumber, fuel and construction materials from Canada and other allies. The enforcement of these 80-year-old laws would force the government to spend that money within the states.

While 6.4 percent isn’t a large chunk of total expenditures, the concern is the message it could send to U.S. allies when they are cut out. Bill Greenwalt, a former Defense Department procurement secretary believes that by cutting out allies, the U.S. will spark retaliation legislation. Many nations depend on the U.S. for military goods. Buy American laws could kick off many global domestic purchasing regimes and ultimately hurt U.S. sales abroad.

Furthermore, those regimes could end up not being specifically military equipment. An domestic purchasing agenda could instigate allies and developing markets to look inward or to each other for goods and put up trading barriers to the U.S. such as quotas and tariffs.

If the U.S. positioned itself to try its hand at grand-scale manufacturing and set up the tariffs favorable to domestic manufacturers, U.S. consumers and developing nations could suffer. For the U.S. consumer, prices of normally imported goods such as clothing, pharmaceuticals and cell phones could increase. Many middle and lower class citizens would feel the strain of these price increases and the overall standard of living would see a decline.

Developing nations could suffer as manufacturing and exporting goods to developed neighbors are one of the biggest staples of economic activity. Favoring domestic production to the purchase of fair trade goods from these nations could stunt their economies and put their citizens at higher risk of falling into poverty.

For both the U.S. and our trading partners, Buy American laws could be a game of mutually assured economic stagnation. Manufacturers and consumers everywhere could feel the burden.

– Thomas Anania

Photo: Google

,

The Stateless People in Brunei

Stateless People of Brunei
Brunei Darussalam or Adobe of Peace is a state on the northeastern coast of the island of Borneo. Since the discovery of vast oil fields in the 1920s, the state is among the wealthiest in the Asian Pacific region with a high standard of living among those living there.

The population of Brunei totals around 330,000, consisting of only 16% indigenous peoples. Roughly 64% are Malaysian and 20% Chinese. The government of Brunei has not reported that anyone in the state is seeking asylum. However, many stateless people are residing without citizenship. Here are seven facts about the stateless people of Brunei.

  1. Brunei has cooperated with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) by agreeing to share statistics of the number of stateless people of Brunei, and the number of those who have been granted citizenship.
  2. As of 2016, there were 20,524 stateless people living in Brunei. This is about 6.2% of the population living without citizenship.
  3. Obtaining citizenship in Brunei is difficult and can only be done after passing rigorous testing. Between 2009 and 2012, 2,420 stateless people were granted citizenship.
  4. Brunei law prohibits non-Bruneians, including stateless permanent residents, from owning property.
  5. Although somewhat hesitant to grant citizenship to stateless people of Brunei, each stateless person is given an International Certificate of Identity that enables them to travel overseas and do anything that you need identification for.
  6. Minors can be registered as nationals as long as the Sultan sees fit. And foreign women who are married to a national man can obtain citizenship by registering themselves as married to a citizen.
  7. Furthering the recognition of stateless people, the Brunei government has instituted a birth registration program for stateless children. The program establishes a record of where a child was born and who his parents are to prevent children from slipping through the cracks of the legal system. This information will help children to get education, healthcare and employment when they are adults.

Despite the fact that Brunei does not have asylum-seekers, it is moving forward in setting standards for its non-national residents.

– Madeline Boeding

Photo: Flickr

,

To End Poverty, Countries Must Prioritize SDGs and Cooperation

SDGs and Cooperation
This Monday, the U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for the international community to step up efforts to meet the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The Secretary-General stressed that many regions worldwide are lagging behind with their sustainable development efforts. Guterres warned that without a stronger commitment to the SDGs and cooperation, the world will not meet the 2030 SDG deadline.

What are the SDGs?

The U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals are a set of 17 ambitious goals that, among other things, aim to end global poverty and encourage development in struggling regions. These goals were agreed upon in 2015 and implemented the following year, and are meant to be fulfilled by 2030.

Despite the admirable intent of the SDGs, they suffer from the same critical issue that stymies other U.N. projects: they lack enforcement. Because the national governments of each member state are responsible for the organization and implementation of programs, they can easily ignore their commitment to the goals. Even worse, the SDGs are not legally binding and therefore countries around the world have little to no reason to ensure their realization.

The SDGs have only been in action for a little over a year, yet Guterres’ call to action indicates that the relatively new program is already struggling. As of now, the SDGs are well-intentioned but inconsequential.

Perhaps countries around the world hesitate to contribute because they believe the SDGs are too ambitious and ask too much, too soon. However, their hesitation is not justified.

At the very least, ending global poverty (the first goal out of the 17) is indeed possible. Since 1990, the number of people living off of the equivalent of $1.25 a day has been reduced by more than half. While 836 million people still live below the poverty line, it is not at all impossible to end poverty once and for all in the next few decades. Even if it is difficult to determine whether or not this goal can be achieved by 2030, this should not discourage countries around the world from refusing to try.

The Necessity of Commitment

In order for the world to end global poverty and encourage universal development by or around 2030, the international community needs to prioritize SDGs and cooperation. They cannot write off the SDGs as another romantic notion proposed by the idealistic U.N.; instead, they should seriously think about the benefits they can reap from a better world in 2030. That better world can be theirs, but they need to work for it first. The SDGs provide the guidance to get there.

Also, the international community needs to facilitate cooperation in order to more effectively tackle global poverty and inequality. As Peter Thompson, President of the U.N. General Assembly expressed, there must be “effective collaboration and partnerships between governments, private sector, civil society, local authorities, schools, universities and our communities.”

Streamlining cooperation between the public and private sectors is particularly important for the development and execution of on the ground development solutions. In the US, the proposed Economic Growth and Development Act (HR 2747) hopes to allow more opportunities for the private sector to contribute to foreign assistance programs. If the bill receives enough support to become a law, it could bolster U.S. efforts in the fight against global poverty.

Hopefully, the Economic Growth and Development Act will become a part of the U.S.’s toolkit in ending global poverty. Other countries around the world should encourage similar legislation so that the international community can further promote the importance of SDGs and cooperation in creating a better world.

– Isidro Rafael Santa Maria
Photo: Flickr

, ,

Progress Thus Far on the Sustainable Development Goals of 2030

Sustainable Development Goals of 2030
When it comes to reaching the Sustainable Development Goals of 2030 that would eradicate extreme global poverty, rich countries are lagging behind.

Scandinavian countries are leading the way among 157 nations ranked by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN). The United States is ranked 42 in the list while Russia was ranked 62 and China 71. The Bertelsmann Foundation, which looks at global challenges to recommend solutions for pressing political, economic and social issues, says that the most developed countries need to speed up to complete their end on the Sustainable Development Goals of 2030.

“A rising ‘my country first’ approach by many heads of government threatens the realization of the SDGs,” according to the SDSN. As reported by Reuters, the countries that are most on track with meeting the Sustainable Development Goals of 2030 are Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway.

“Leaders at the G20 summit in Hamburg must strengthen the commitment towards these historic global goals,” reads the headline posted by the Bertelsmann Foundation. It released a story on countries not in line with meeting their Sustainable Development Goals right before the G20 Summit in Germany. The foundation’s goal is to have this dilemma addressed by the major world leaders at the G20 Summit.

The problem is that the Sustainable Development Goals of 2030 are just goals that aren’t mandatory. Therefore, countries may not have this as a priority, or might not even plan on fulfilling them at all. This is why it is so important to lobby policymakers and contact representatives to let them know where about important issues such as these.

– Vicente Vera

Photo: Flickr

, ,

Relations Between the Philippines and the EU

Philippines and the EUAs of May 2017, the Philippines decided to end development assistance from the European Union. The Philippines is willing to reject €250 million worth of aid to prevent the EU from interfering in its internal affairs.

Relations between the Philippines and the EU have soured in the past year. In 2016, EU member countries called for strict monitoring of human rights abuses committed under President Rodrigo Duterte’s ‘war on drugs’ policy. Almost 9,000 people were killed in the Philippines since Duterte took office on June 30. Many were small-time users and dealers who police say were sho tin self-defense by officers during legitimate operations.

Presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella said that Duterte approved a recommendation from the finance ministry “not to accept grants that may allow interfering with internal policies.”

EU official Gunnar Wiegand defended the EU’s practice of setting conditions in exchange for aid. “You know why? Because it’s the money of our taxpayers. They want to know where their money goes,” Wiegand said.

The longstanding relationship between the Philippines and the EU became formal in 1980 in the European Cooperation Agreement with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). In July 2012, the EU-Philippines Partnership Cooperation Agreement provided a legal framework for further cooperation in a range of areas. These included political dialogue, trade, energy, transport, human rights, education, science, technology, justice, asylum and immigration.

This agreement also doubled the planned grant assistance to the Philippines for the period of 2014 to 2020. Funds increased to €325 million, up from €130 million in the period from 2007 to 2013. The Delegation of the European Union to the Philippines states that this seven-year support strategy focuses on “the rule of law” (improved governance and increased cooperation in the justice sector) and “inclusive growth” through sustainable energy and job creation.

The EU also provided aid to Manila’s efforts to end the insurgency in Mindanao, a 50-year conflict that killed more than 120,000 people, displaced one million and prevented economic growth in the region.

The EU is also one of the most important providers of aid to the Philippines in the case of natural disasters. One example of such was after Super Typhoon Haiyan in 2013. The EU provided €180 million in humanitarian assistance and early recovery interventions to help those affected by Haiyan.

Wiegand stated that the EU will not “beg” the Philippines to accept its aid and that there are “no lack of other countries” for the EU to fund if the Philippines rejects its offer.

Some officials contend that this is only a temporary setback for relations between the Philippines and the EU. Economic Planning Minister Ernesto Pernia is skeptical of Manila’s decision. “I will not take that as policy. It is more of a reaction to criticism. I don’t think it’s going to remain as such,” Pernia said.

– Hannah Seitz

Photo: UN Multimedia

, , ,

Assad Diverts Foreign Aid from Those in Need

The U.S has spent a total of $6 billion in Syria as of 2016. The need for this assistance is extensive. USAID estimated that there are 13.5 million people in need of humanitarian assistance in Syria. However, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria diverts foreign aid from those who need it. He uses it for political goals.

Every day, Russian aircraft drop tons of food in the government-controlled neighborhood of Deir Ezzor. This has saved the lives of countless Syrians in the city. However, in towns controlled by the opposition, countless Syrians starve. Through the use of systematic regulations, President Assad diverts foreign aid from those in need. He then uses foreign aid as a political tool to increase his authority. Syrian expert Joshua Landis said that the Syrian government needs to manipulate foreign aid because “food is loyalty.”

The U.N. admits that it can only work with a small number of partners approved by Assad. Assad’s wife and close friend run two of these partnerships. Other humanitarian relief contracts are awarded to individuals under sanction and members of the Syrian regime known for their brutality and oppression. This is because the Syrian relief effort is the most challenging and complex operation the U.N. has ever seen. This gives Assad more bargaining power. He diverts foreign aid only to areas he controls. He only allows the U.N. into the country without interference if they play by his rules.

Moreover, a Russian airliner company, Abakan Air, carries out the aid transportation. Two Russian nationals, Nikolai Ustimenko and his son Patel, own the company. Both have previously been barred from doing business with the U.N. on account of bribery. It is unclear to what extent they play in Assad’s distribution of foreign aid.

It wasn’t always this way. Initially, the U.N. and Syrian Red Cross delivered aid impartially to the Syrian people. However, as the world turned its attention elsewhere, the Syrian government began blocking aid deliveries to rebel-controlled towns.

Advocates of the foreign aid program point to the amount of good aid have done in the region. Even through the aid only affects certain areas, civilians in need are still being fed. They say it would be unfair to punish those civilians in desperate need by withdrawing aid.

The USAID and UNICEF have done well to give aid. However, it is not good enough. The fact that Assad diverts foreign aid must be addressed. People are starving in Syria and aid needs to be distributed equally.

– Bruce Truax

Photo: Google

,

What Trump’s New Cuba Policy Means for Cubans

What Trump’s New Cuba Policy Means for Cubans
On June 17, President Donald Trump announced that he is “canceling the last administration’s completely one-sided deal with Cuba.” After only two years of normalized relations, President Trump unveiled a return to the restrictions on travel and trade between the United States and Cuba. While many news outlets have covered the impact this change will have for American travelers, what Trump’s new Cuba policy means for Cubans is far worse.

Cuba is a small country with a very weak economy. While Cubans benefit from social services such as free health care and education, a crumbling infrastructure and the inaccessibility of basic goods create tremendous hardships. As a result of these challenges and a longtime dependence on the sugar industry, Cuba is in desperate need of foreign investment.

In the two years since restrictions relaxed, U.S. travel and trade helped mitigate the effects of these challenges. In 2016, 614,433 U.S. visitors traveled to Cuba, a 34 percent increase in U.S. travelers to the country’s hugely important tourism industry. The hassle and expense of the new travel restrictions are designed to stem this influx of visitors from Cuba’s richest neighbor. What the president’s new Cuba policy means for Cubans is less money circulating in the economy and fewer customers for the small business workers who depend heavily on tourism.

Similarly, the new trade regulations, which restrict trade with businesses owned by the Cuban military, are likely to end almost all trade between the two countries. Since Cuba’s is a state-run economy, it will be almost impossible for businesses to create deals that do not indirectly feed into the military. Cuba will be forced to pay high prices to import goods such as rice from China instead of dealing with nearby rice farmers in Louisiana. Again, this move reduces the amount of money in the Cuban economy and exacerbates the inaccessibility of much-needed goods.

What the president’s new Cuba policy also means is a decrease in private workers’ incomes and an increase in the inaccessibility of daily items. The good news is that none of these restrictions will take place immediately. The White House will most likely roll out regulatory amendments in the next few months. Further good news is that Cuba is a low-priority policy for most Americans, so even a small amount of outreach can have a big impact in amending the proposed changes. To truly help the people President Trump calls “voiceless,” American citizens should raise their voices to their representatives about the damage this new policy could cause to the Cuban people.

– Bret Serbin

Photo: Flickr