Posts

The Costs of Military Intervention Versus the Benefits of Foreign Aid

costs of military intervention
A closer look at the costs of military intervention versus the benefits of foreign aid provides insight into why humanitarian assistance trumps military intervention.

The Costs of Conflict, Violence and Military Intervention

In March 2011, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) led a multi-state coalition in response to conflict escalation in Libya. To curb violence and human rights violations in line with the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ norm, NATO created a no-fly zone followed by air strikes. According to a 2012 Reuters report, NATO coordinated “26,000 sorties including some 9,600 strike missions and destroyed about 5,900 targets before operations ended on October 31.”

To terminate the rule of Saddam Hussein and abolish weapons of mass destruction, U.S. forces began the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The U.S. saw success as troops captured Hussein and the last U.S. troops exited Iraq in December 2011. The nine-year conflict cost the U.S. Treasury $800 billion and led to more than “4,700 U.S. and allied troop deaths” along with the deaths of more than 100,000 Iraqi people, highlighting the human and material costs of military intervention and war.

Kosovo was once a province of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which currently consists of today’s two states, Serbia and Montenegro. The Kosovo crisis escalated in early 1998 upon Kosovo’s desire for sovereign autonomy from Yugoslavia. With Kosovo’s mixed population of Albanians and Serbs, clashes between the ethnic Albanians and ethnic Serbs took place and the Yugoslav government took a firm stance against the Kosovo Liberation Army, a rebel Albanian group. The crisis led to displacement and death, prompting NATO’s intervention.

Libya (March 2011-October 2011)

While the total scope of collateral damage remains unacknowledged, Human Rights Watch reported 72 civilian casualties as a result of aerial strikes that NATO carried out in Libya in 2011. The number of internally displaced persons fluctuated throughout the intervention period, and by late 2011, the number stood at a minimum of 154,000 people, highlighting the profound implications of military intervention on human welfare.

A month after the intervention ended, The New York Times carried out investigations in Libya’s capital of Tripoli along with several other sites and findings show ramifications on civilian infrastructure. The airstrikes led to the destruction of residential and commercial buildings and many people suffered injuries, unable to access health care amid a chaotic political atmosphere.

However, the benefits of foreign aid outweighed military intervention as it helped restore social and economic order within Libya during and following the crisis. Since 2011, USAID has facilitated the delivery of social services, development and humanitarian support in Libya in an investment valued at more than $900 million.

For instance, in June 2011, to “build an inclusive and peaceful democratic future that reflects the will and needs of the Libyan people,” USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives allocated $12.2 million. The program goals included conversations to unite together Libya’s community leaders in creating “strategies to mitigate conflict and promote reconciliation” and public outreach initiatives to keep locals up-to-date on information about Libya’s transition process.

In 2012, USAID provided grants to build a computer center in the Mafqood Center for Missing Persons “where families from all sides of the conflict will receive training on advocacy using social networking and online media.” According to USAID, the center’s goal is to stand as “a sanctuary for families to seek solace and comfort” as well as “a platform from which the families can form a unified voice to tackle the legal and social issues they face.”

Iraq (2003-2011)

The U.S. military invasion led to several human rights violations as detailed in the accounts of abuse and torture in the Abu Ghraib prison, a U.S. army detention center that housed around 3,800 detainees from 2003 to 2006. Graphic photos of males and females show acts of torture, humiliation and assault. This led to charges against 11 U.S. military authorities, according to CNN.

Through the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund, U.S. Congress allocated $2.5 billion in 2003 to ease acute suffering in areas relevant to food security, water and health care. Later that year, an additional $18.4 billion went toward general reconstruction projects. By February 2006, Congress distributed $10.5 billion of the $18.4 billion for “security, economic and political” initiatives. The economic benefit of such foreign aid is visible in the nation’s gross domestic product, which rose from “$18.9 billion in 2002 to $33.1 billion in 2005,” signifying an improved standard of living.

Kosovo Crisis (1998-1999)

NATO nations endured a cost of £2.5 billion over 78 days while dispersing “more than 23,000 bombs and missiles” in Kosovo. On the first day of the conflict alone, NATO “launched more than £44.4 [million] worth of weapons” against Yugoslavia’s military bases. In total, the Kosovo war and reparation thereafter cost £31.67 billion, around two-thirds of which went toward rebuilding Serbia/Kosovo.

Already suffering from international sanctions, Yugoslavia endured economic shocks with the nation losing 44% of its industrial production. NATO bombings are reported to have set back Yugoslavia by as much as 20 years, with economic costs amounting to $100 billion, as Yugoslav officials reported in 1999.

However, foreign aid assisted in Kosovo’s recovery and economic development. For instance, since 1999, USAID committed itself to the reconstruction of Kosovo in investments totaling more than $1 billion.

Multilateral donors collected around $2 billion in a donors meeting held in 1999 to aid humanitarian support and reconstruction. The benefit of economic reconstruction in Kosovo is visible in its GDP, rising to $9.01 billion in 2021, according to World Bank data, from $1.85 billion in 2000.

Overall, the benefits of foreign aid outweighed the costs of military intervention in conflicts occurring in countries like Libya, Iraq and Kosovo, especially considering the heightened economic and human loss associated with military interventions.

– Noor Al-Zubi
Photo: Unsplash

Finland’s Sand Battery Heats a Small Town

Finland’s Sand Battery
Kankaanpää, a small town in Western Finland, is using sand to store heat from renewable energy sources to provide homes with better and more cost-effective heating during winter. Finland’s sand battery is the first of its kind to be fully functional and comprises thousands of cubic meters of sand. The sand battery may replace some of the energy drawn from the power grid and provide heating throughout the five-month-long Finnish winters.

How it Works

Polar Night Energy developed this sand battery and installed it at a power plant site that Vatajankoski, a green energy supplier in Kankaanpää, Finland, operates. It consists of a “4 x 7-meter steel container” that holds hundreds of tons of sand. Using renewable energy, the sand heats to about 500 degrees Celsius before it is “stored for use in the local district heating system,” said Energy Storage News.

The battery uses builder’s sand, which is a kind of rough and ready grain that stands as a cost-efficient power storing apparatus during times of need. The sand itself is heated using green, renewable power, mainly solar panels and wind turbines. The sand battery will bring the citizens of Kankaanpää, and soon all Finns, a better, greener, more cost-effective heating system, especially now that the war in Ukraine is affecting the importing of gas and electricity.

The Impact of Russia’s Halt on Energy Supplies

In a 2020 poll asking Finns about heating costs, 38% of Finnish consumers said their household’s heating costs represent a noteworthy economic difficulty and many other consumers reported “compromising their living comfort to save money on heating.” More so, most of Finland’s gas and energy comes via imports from the surrounding countries, mainly Russia. However, in May 2022, Russia halted both its gas and electricity supplies to Finland.

The first halt of the electricity supply came shortly after Western nations imposed sanctions on Russia due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. After these sanctions, Russia declared that all “unfriendly” countries wanting to continue receiving supplies of electricity and gas from Russia would have to pay using the Russian ruble, “a move the EU considers blackmail,” said the BBC.

As Finland deliberated joining NATO, Russia halted the supply of electricity to Finland and even threatened retaliatory action if Finland applies to join NATO. Then, on May 21, 2022, after Finland applied to join NATO, the Russian energy utility Gazprom affirmed it fully terminated any exports of goods to Finland. This halt also came after payment disagreements between the two countries due to Finland declining to make payments for gas in Russian currency.

Thus, since Finland gets most of its gas from Russia, concerns have risen “over sources of heat and light, especially with the long, cold Finnish winter on the horizon,” the BBC reports. Nonetheless, Finland’s state-owned gas and electricity companies confirmed that they will continue importing gas into the system through the Balticconnector entry point. The nation has plans to bring Finland’s sand battery technology to a larger, nationwide scale in the coming months, which may alleviate the heating expenses in the coming winter.

The Potential Benefits

Bringing Finland’s sand battery in Kankaanpää to such a large scale would make a great difference but it would come with certain challenges. For example, due to the nature of the technology, Finnish researchers have yet to find a way to keep efficiency from falling whenever the “sand is used to just return power to the electricity grid.”

But, even with these obstacles, the storing of this green energy long-term represents a significant opportunity for Finland’s textile, food and pharmaceutical industries that traditionally rely on fossil fuels. Due to power stations operating for several hours during the coldest months of winter, heating is “extremely expensive,” said Elina Seppänen, an energy and climate specialist, to the BBC.

Finland’s sand battery could be the solution to the heating problem and provide a more flexible way of using and storing heat that “would help a lot in terms of expense” while contributing to Finland’s transition toward more renewable sources of gas and electricity.

– Marcela Agreda L.
Photo: Flickr

The Impact of COVID-19 on Poverty in Afghanistan

The Impact of COVID-19 on Poverty in Afghanistan
Since the first confirmed case of COVID-19 in Afghanistan in February 2020, the total number of confirmed cases rose to 93,288, with deaths reaching a toll of 4,871 on July 1, 2021. Low government capacity and limited public health resources have hampered Afghanistan’s ability to contain the virus, amounting to only 0.9% of the population becoming fully vaccinated. The impact of COVID-19 on poverty in Afghanistan has been a domino effect across the country as many have fallen below the poverty line.

COVID-19 and Afghanistan

As COVID-19 continues to spread, Afghan citizens grapple with increased instability in the form of Taliban attacks on national security. The reduction of U.S. troops and decreased NATO assistance resulted in a 29% increase in civilian casualties and heightened corruption.

One of the most extreme effects of the pandemic is the impact of COVID-19 on poverty in Afghanistan. In 2020, the economy contracted by 1.9%, and poverty levels rose from 41.6% to 45.5%, with more than half of the population living under the poverty line. These higher levels correspond with a significant rise in food insecurity, as suppliers raised prices in response to trade restrictions. However, the World Bank and USAID initiatives promise enhanced development of humanitarian aid efforts for Afghan citizens.

The Domino Effect: How Poverty Affects Food Insecurity

Food insecurity is part of a domino effect. As COVID-19 in Afghanistan continues to spread throughout, poverty levels climb as more civilians fall into unemployment, resulting in them being unable to purchase sufficient amounts of food because of a rise in prices.

According to the office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), the combination of COVID-19 and rising urban poverty levels are resulting in 16.9 million Afghans facing crisis and emergency levels of food insecurity. Of these 16.9 million, 5.5 million are experiencing emergency levels of food insecurity, severely threatening their health.

The surge and impact of COVID-19 on poverty in Afghanistan, along with food insecurity, is partly due to the early closing of borders. In March 2020, one of Afghanistan’s primary food import and export sources––Pakistan––closed its routes to and from suppliers to prevent the spread of COVID-19, resulting in a food shortage.

Although borders opened again in July 2020, the initial closing proved to be disruptive. Nearly half of the children below 5 years old will face acute malnutrition by the end of 2021. To put food on their tables and fund medical treatment, several Afghan civilians resorted to selling their organs illegally. These combined infrastructure and economic pressures outline a need for aid to Afghanistan.

Relief Efforts

To combat the impact of COVID-19 on poverty in Afghanistan, various organizations implemented insecurity-reduction measures. In July 2020, the United States government designated more than $36.7 million to support COVID-19 relief efforts in Afghanistan through USAID. The United States allocated these funds primarily toward refugee assistance, health and disaster assistance and support for the Afghan government. This contribution proved helpful, as Afghanistan’s domestic revenues increased by 1.4% in the first quarter of 2021.

Additionally, the World Bank approved and issued a grant of $97.50 million in February 2021 to support Afghan civilians suffering the effects of droughts and COVID-19. By extension, a portion of this sum will go toward improving nutritional and food insecurity, which worsened as a result of widespread droughts and disease. This grant will also finance the Early Warning, Early Finance and Early Action Project (ENETAWF). The project aims to aid approximately 2.2 million impoverished Afghans and 78 districts struggling with poverty, drought and food insecurity.

Individuals in and outside of the United States can also support COVID-19 humanitarian aid efforts in Afghanistan by supporting Afghan businesses. Greater demand for goods will result in the creation of companies and jobs and the economy’s growth, so more funds go toward alleviating the impact of COVID-19 on poverty in Afghanistan.

– Riya Sharma
Photo: Flickr

,

Poverty in Croatia: The Basic Facts

Poverty in Croatia
Croatia is a country in Eastern Europe, part of the former Yugoslavia. It gained independence in 1991 after the Homeland War. As a result, the country struggles with poverty. It joined NATO in 2009 and the European Union (EU) in 2013, helping it advance as a country. In 2008, Croatia faced an abrupt economic slowdown that lasted into 2014, which plunged many into poverty. Now, poverty in Croatia is one of the nation’s most significant issues.

Croatia’s Economy

Croatia has high poverty rates. In 2015, an estimated 19.5% of the population fell below the poverty line. Further, 15% of people could not afford basic necessities, such as food, shelter and water. Poverty in Croatia increased when the nation separated from Yugoslavia during the Homeland War, changing from a communist to a free-market country.

Unemployment rates in Croatia are also high. The average unemployment rate is 12.4% (2017 estimate), which ranks Croatia 164th in the world for unemployment rates. For youth, the unemployment rate is 23.7%. This is largely due to a lack of qualifications for jobs. Skilled professionals have moved to work elsewhere in the EU and those remaining do not have the qualifications for the jobs that need filling.

Living in Poverty

Poverty is influenced by geography due to uneven developments throughout different regions. Small towns and other rural areas in the east and southeast, primarily near the border with Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia, are the most impoverished areas in Croatia. There is a 5.9% poverty rate in cities while small towns and rural areas note poverty rates of up to 34.3%.

Similar to the discrepancy between urban and rural areas is the disparity between the wealthy and the impoverished. The previous government did not allow such imbalances to occur. However, those in government positions received favored treatment. As Croatia recovered from the war in its new free-market system, the status of those previously disadvantaged worsened.

After Croatia became independent, the wealthy received advantages while the impoverished endured disadvantages. This created a large gap between the impoverished and the wealthy. Estimates from 2015 indicate that the most impoverished 10% of households in Croatia earn only 2.7% of all income while the wealthiest 10% earned 23%.

Some groups are more likely to live in poverty than others. Older people, single-person households and single-parent households, large families of four or more people, children lacking parental care, people with lower education, war veterans, victims of war and their families, displaced people and ethnic minorities are most likely to live in poverty in Croatia.

Additionally, retired people are also more likely to live in poverty. Retired people account for one-fifth of Croatia’s population. As a result, pension systems are becoming overburdened and people on pensions do not receive enough money to live. Those on pension receive less than 50% of the average Croatian salary.

Working Toward a Better Future

Croatia is working on alleviating poverty. Croatia is participating in the EU’s Europe 2020 strategy. The strategy aims to create sustainable and inclusive growth in the economy and employment while also reducing poverty and improving education. Because of regional disparities, Croatia is implementing a regional-based version of this strategy.

As a result, Croatia’s employment rate has improved from 60.6% of the population to 66.7% in the last five years. This figure even includes those who choose not to work. Also, the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion has reduced from 29.1% of the population to 23.3%.

After its economic slowdown in 2008, Croatia struggled with an increase in poverty. While it has the highest poverty rate in its region, Croatia is working to address this issue. The country strives to decrease the gap between rural and urban areas as well as the divide between different social groups.

– Seona Maskara
Photo: Flickr

Improving Healthcare in Macedonia

Psychiatric hospital Skopje, Macedonia
Healthcare in Macedonia utilizes a mixture of a public and private healthcare system. All residents are eligible to receive free state-funded healthcare and have the option of receiving private healthcare for treatments that the public system does not cover. Public healthcare in Macedonia often comes with long wait times and although public hospitals have basic medical supplies, they do not have specialized treatments. For these specialized treatments, residents typically seek private treatment where they must pay out of pocket or buy private insurance on top of their free healthcare.

Improvements in Overall Health

North Macedonia did not become a part of NATO until 2019, and still has not received admission into the E.U. As a result, its healthcare system has developed slower than member countries. Despite this, North Macedonia has shown growth in overall health. The introduction of private healthcare allowed residents to seek a wider range of treatments and cut down wait times. Life expectancy has grown from 71.7 years in 1991 to 75.1 years in 2010. However, this is still lower than the E.U.’s average life expectancy which is 80.2.  Although life expectancy has grown, North Macedonia’s infant mortality rate is still above average.

North Macedonia reached a European record of 14.3 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2015. To compare, the average mortality rate in Europe for 2015 was 5.2 deaths per 1,000 live births. The high infant mortality rate is likely the result of outdated equipment at public health facilities and a shortage of qualified health workers. Only 6.5% of North Macedonia’s GDP goes towards healthcare, and therefore healthcare in Macedonia is often reliant on outside donations. These conditions have caused health workers to leave the Macedonian healthcare system in search of better working conditions. The health ministry has worked to purchase new equipment as well as increase the amount of qualified staff in public hospitals by hiring more workers. Today, the infant mortality rate in North Macedonia is 10.102 deaths per 1,000 births. This is an improvement, and hopefully, with continued programs, the numbers will continue to decrease. Organizations such as Project HOPE and WHO have already made a direct impact on Macedonia’s healthcare system.

Organizations Combating Infant Mortality

Project HOPE has donated over $80 million worth of medicines, medical supplies and medical equipment to hospitals throughout North Macedonia since 2007. Starting in 2017, most of these donations went to hospitals specializing in infant care. Project HOPE also provides training for healthcare workers so they can adapt to the updated equipment. The current drop in the infant mortality rate is due to these donations that allow hospitals to buy updated equipment and retain healthcare workers through training. There is only one hospital in North Macedonia that accepts low birth-rate and premature babies, University Clinical Center at Mother Theresa. Therefore, Project HOPE’s donation has greatly lessened the burden on this hospital to care for infants. Since Project HOPE implemented this program, the number of deliveries at Mother Theresa has increased by 40%.

WHO has also assisted North Macedonia in developing a new 2020 healthcare plan for infants and mothers. This plan would link healthcare facilities in the country and classify them by level of service to ensure everyone is receiving the appropriate care. It should also improve transportation between hospitals to increase the continuity of care between locations. This shared communication and learning between healthcare facilities is imperative since there are only nine hospitals in Macedonia for 2.08 million people and seven of those hospitals are in the country’s capital, Skopje. Increasing transportation and communication will ensure that those living outside of the capital are receiving quality healthcare. Slowly but surely with these new policies in place, North Macedonia’s infant mortality rate will continue to drop.

– Rae Brozovich
Photo: Flickr

What to Know About Parliamentary Governments

parliamentary governmentsA parliamentary government is a system of governance that ensures democratic ideals. National parliamentary governments create laws for its citizens, while international parliamentary institutions govern globalization.

What is the Difference Between the Two?

National parliamentary governments create laws for their nation that applies to citizens. International parliamentary institutions are organizations that allow officials to represent their country in worldly discussions and bring awareness to global problems.

A parliament is a democratic system of government. A national parliament is a means in which a country governs its people and creates laws. More countries have started actively participating in international parliaments due to globalization. An international parliament does not have the power to govern countries but instead uses diplomacy to influence world governments.

What is a Parliamentary Government?

Great Britain laid the groundwork for a parliamentary system in the 1200s, and today more than 51 countries use parliamentary governments to represent citizens and pass laws.

A select number of parliamentary governments, such as Great Britain, are aligned with a monarchy. In a constitutional monarchy, a king or queen is the head of state but retains no political power. A few governments, such as France, are a hybrid of both a presidential system and a parliamentary system.

The main feature of parliamentary governments is the power of the legislative branch and the inclusion of the executive branch. Most parliamentary governments have a two-chamber or bicameral procedure to pass laws, although some may have a unicameral parliament. Citizens directly elect members of parliament; however, citizens do not elect the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is voted into office by the party who obtains the majority of members of parliament. The Prime Minister is the executive leader, who also participates in legislative lawmaking activities. This is different from a presidential system, in which the legislative branch and the executive branch are separate.

A parliamentary system is known to be effective due to its accountability and responsiveness. If the majority party becomes disliked, the Prime Minister can instantly be removed with a vote. This holds members of parliament responsible for their actions. Within a presidency, the system of checks and balances may result in gridlock. The power of the legislative branch in a parliamentary system results in a faster way to pass laws.

Growth of International Parliamentary Institutions

The number of international parliamentary institutions is growing, as the world becomes more interconnected. The first international parliament, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, was established in 1889. Later, the aftermath of World War II resulted in the need to resolve conflicts peacefully. The idea of international parliamentary institutions became a means to represent a country and its concerns, on a world stage. Currently, there are around 70 International Parliamentary Systems.

As globalization becomes more prevalent, international parliamentary institutions play a greater role in global affairs. It can be challenging for an ordinary citizen to voice their concerns to other countries. With international parliamentary institutions, parliamentarians represent their citizens globally.

International parliamentary institutions create awareness of global issues. Global issues include “environmental problems, nuclear disarmament, corruption, women’s rights, and population growth”. When these universal problems produce national concerns, countries collaborate with one another or with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) through international parliamentary institutions. This builds new relationships to solve matters, and country representatives then counsel their national governments. Although most international parliamentary institutions cannot enforce laws on nations, creating awareness brings societal change. Citizens who acknowledge these international issues can advocate for new laws within their own government.

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the European Union Parliament are examples of highly influential international parliamentary institutions. Currently, the United Nations is proposing the idea of an international parliamentary assembly, so all countries can participate in policymaking with non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

This article highlights why national governments and international institutions favor a parliamentary system. National parliaments are successful in promoting democracy in governments. As the world becomes more connected, international parliamentary institutions serve as a forum between governments to solve global problems and ensure peacekeeping.

– Hannah Nelson 
Photo: Flickr

,

How the U.S. Benefits from Foreign Aid to Montenegro

In comparison to other partners of the United States, such as Saudi Arabia and China, Montenegro appears to be quite small and insignificant. It is true that Montenegro’s total population is less than a million people. Furthermore, the country itself is slightly smaller than the state of Connecticut. However, Montenegro has proven to be a sturdy economic and military partner to both the United States and European Union. The overall goal of this piece will be to explore how the U.S. benefits from foreign aid to Montenegro. 

History and Renewed Relations

U.S.-Montenegrin relations officially began in 1905 and lasted until 1920. Montenegro eventually became a part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia until its dissolution in 1992. Montenegro wouldn’t achieve independence again until May 2012. In a referendum, rough 55 percent of the population voted for independence from the state union of Serbia-Montenegro. As a result, the United States re-established relations with Montenegro in 2006.

Quoting the U.S. Department of State on current relations with Montenegro, “The relationship between the U.S. and Montenegro has promoted peace and prosperity in the region and around the world.” For the FY 2019 budget, Montenegro is earmarked to receive $2.5 million in U.S. foreign assistance. Of that, 35 percent is geared towards bolstering democracy, human rights, and governance. The remaining 65 percent will be invested in peace and security.

Benefit: Influence in the Balkans

As aid continues to Montenegro, the U.S. gains a foothold in the Balkan region and can further promote its agenda. In recent years the U.S. has aimed for Montenegro to achieve Atlantic-Euro integration. On June 5, 2017, Montenegro became the 30th member to join NATO. In addition, Montenegro entered into accession negotiations with the E.U. to become a full member.

As a potential member of the E.U. and a part of NATO, Montenegro is of strategic significance to the U.S., particularly in reducing Russian influence and aggression in the Balkans. To reduce crime, the U.S. has sought to increase Montenegro’s ability to fight organized crime and corruption. If U.S. assistance continues as such, Montenegro has the potential to become a stronger economic and military partner which, in turn, affects greater U.S. influence and support in the region. This is a major example of how the U.S. benefits from foreign aid to Montenegro. 

Benefit: Foreign Investment

Montenegro’s low corporate tax rates and business-friendly policies have enticed foreign investment from the U.S. and E.U. The U.S. Department of State explains that Montenegro has enacted the following incentives to potential investors:

  • a business-oriented economic system
  • a high level of economic freedom
  • a stable currency (euro)
  • macroeconomic predictability
  • and openness to incentivized tax structures.

If Montenegro enters the E.U. it has the potential to gain increased investment from U.S. companies.

U.S. foreign assistance and economic investment in Montenegro has proven to be both beneficial and successful. Montenegro’s unemployment rate has decreased noticeably as U.S. and E.U. investment has increased. The country has also become a full member of NATO and is projected to enter the E.U. in 2022. As Montenegro strengthens, U.S. interests are further protected in the Balkans which is essential in limiting Russian influence. Overall, Montenegro has helped protect U.S. economic and strategic interests in the region. These two serious factors prove how much the U.S. benefits from foreign aid to Montenegro.

– Colby McCoy

Photo: Flickr

,

How to Help People in Seychelles

How to help people in Seychelles
Seychelles is an archipelago of 115 islands located off the eastern coast of Africa, north of Madagascar. It has the highest GDP per capita in Africa at $15,476 in 2015. Its extreme poverty rate is low (1.1 percent in 2013) as is its moderate poverty rate (2.5 percent in 2013).

Despite the low poverty rates, inequality is an issue in Seychelles. The poorest 20 percent of the population only holds 3.7 percent of the country’s wealth. The disparities between urban and rural areas are also substantial. The poverty rate in rural areas (as a percentage of the rural population) is 37.2 percent.

The economy of Seychelles depends on fishing (particularly tuna fishing) and tourism, both of which are impacted by the environment. Climate change disproportionately affects people in Seychelles. They also lack access to natural freshwater resources and face water pollution due to poor sewage management and industrial runoff. Natural and manmade disasters such as landslides, fires and oil spills affect the environment and hamper tourism.

The issues of piracy that have plagued the coast of Somalia also affect Seychelles. Due to the spread-out nature of the islands, it is difficult to guarantee the security of all people. The threat of pirates affects tourism, yachting and fishing which damages the economy.

Previously, NATO ran a counter-piracy operation called Operation Ocean Shield that was designed to protect people from pirates on the eastern coast of Africa. However, this program ended in 2016, once again leaving the people of Seychelles vulnerable.

With an understanding of the issues that Seychelles faces, the question now is how to help people in Seychelles. There are several steps that can be taken:

  1. Urge representatives to support American and/or NATO anti-piracy measures.
  2. Support climate change policies and solutions. Those who contribute the least to climate change are those who are affected the most.
  3. Consider donating to one of the following organizations that address some of the above concerns in Seychelles:

– Olivia Bradley

Photo: Flickr

,

How to Help People in Latvia

How to Help People in LatviaOne of the smaller Baltic states, Latvia gained its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, and ever since has been shifting to catch up to the rest of the economies in the EU. Although Latvia is one of the fastest growing economies in the EU, nearly one in three Latvians is at risk of severe poverty and nearly one in five suffer severe material deprivation. Additionally, the GDP per capita of Latvia is only $13,700 – in contrast, the United States’ GDP per capita for 2016 was over $52,000. Considering the close strategic ties between the U.S. and Latvia, this all begs the question of how to help people in Latvia who suffer from poverty.

With the aim of helping Latvia develop as a nation and stamp down its poverty rate, here are some ways to get involved and help the people of Latvia:

  1. In 2014, the U.S. provided Latvia with $67 million worth of assistance through an assortment of military programs run in the country. Writing to members of Congress in favor of continued support for Latvia can allow them to focus their attention and finances on their own economy.
  2. Similarly, the U.S. and Latvia are members of many of the same economic groups – such as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank and NATO. Urging your representatives in Congress to support these groups provides Latvia with access to the resources and assistance provided by them.
  3. Latvia is currently in the process of becoming a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) – an international group that seeks to assist nations in improving their economies and the livelihoods of their citizens. Getting involved with the OECD and supporting their initiatives is a tangible way of helping make an impact in the lives of Latvians.
  4. Investing in and purchasing the goods and services of Latvian-based companies puts money directly into the Latvian economy, which is largely based on industries such as transport and telecommunications. For example, choose to fly Air Baltic next time you take a trip to Europe.
  5. Volunteer your time or donate to the American Latvian Association, which has been providing aid to Latvia since 1989.

Ultimately, the choice of how to help people in Latvia most effectively lies in the hands of the Latvian government, but urging U.S. representatives to consider ways to assist Latvia as well as volunteering your own time and money can assist the poor in Latvia in making life a little bit better for themselves.

– Erik Halberg
Photo: Flickr

A Global Example: The Ever-Decreasing Poverty Rate In Belgium

The Poverty Rate In BelgiumBelgium is a country located in western Europe between France and the Netherlands. It became an independent nation from the Netherlands in 1830 and was then controlled by Germany during World War I and II. The foundation of the EU and NATO allowed the country’s capital, Brussels, to become the home for numerous international organizations. The influence of the organizations and membership in the EU and NATO has allowed the poverty rate in Belgium to remain low.

Currently, the poverty rate in Belgium rests at 15 percent. Like many other European nations, Belgium has a high standard of living and per capita income. Belgium consistently ranks among the top nations in the Human Development Index (an index that measures the quality of life in countries). In 2007, Belgium ranked number seven, which was ahead of the country it once was a part of — the Netherlands.

When measured in 1992, 3.7 percent of the population was in the lowest 10 percent of the income bracket. About 9.5 percent were in the lowest 20 percent, 14.6 percent were in the second 20 percent, 18.4 percent were in the third 20 percent and 23 percent were in the fourth 20 percent of income.

The highest 20 percent made up 34.5 percent and the highest 10 percent made up 20.2 percent of income. These statistics indicate the low poverty rate in Belgium and the little income inequality.

Although there is little income inequality in Belgium, 16.7 percent of people under the age of 18 lived in families that fell below the poverty line. Since 2012, the risk of being under the poverty line for people under the age of 18 has decreased considerably. Thanks to numerous social welfare programs, the risk of a person under 18 being under the poverty line in Belgium has fallen from 27 to 15 percent.

The social welfare system is a primary reason for why the poverty rate in Belgium remains low. The country has programs for family allowance, retirement, medical benefits, unemployment insurance and even a program that provides a salary in the event of an illness.

Belgium is a country that has managed to tackle the issues of income inequality and poverty while remaining a small nation. The social welfare system in Belgium in conjunction with its cooperation with the EU and NATO are one of the primary reasons for the success of the country. Thus, countries interested in lowering their poverty rates should follow Belgium’s example.

– Nicholas Beauchamp
Photo: Flickr