Posts

President Peres Hopes for Freedom for Pollard

pollard
In 1985, American analyst Jonathan Pollard was arrested for sending classified information to the Israeli government. He was given a life sentence, marking the first time in U.S. history that a life sentence was given for spying for an ally of the United States.

Now, Israeli President, Shimon Peres, is traveling to Washington, D.C. where the issue of Pollard’s release will be front and center. Officially, Peres is going to receive the Congressional Gold Medal as well as the 2014 Lantos Human Rights Prize. In addition, he has promised to meet with President Obama about the prospect of releasing Pollard, who has been imprisoned in America for nearly three decades.

One of the organizers of the movement to free Pollard, Efi Lahav, implored President Peres to lobby President Obama during his trip, stating that, “We believe your upcoming visit to the U.S. is the most serious opportunity yet to release Jonathan Pollard.”

Previous talks to release the convicted spy have fallen through at the last minute, and this trip may prove to be the final opportunity to strike a deal. Pollard is up for parole in 2015. His release could be part of a larger prisoner swap in which Palestinian prisoners would be released by Israel.

However, those talks fell short in the past. Instead of using Pollard as a bargaining chip, President Obama could also free him as a humanitarian gesture that would reaffirm ties with Israel. Whatever Obama decides, it is certain that the issue of Pollard’s release will be broached by Peres.

The day before Peres left for the U.S., he met with Pollard’s wife where he claimed that, “It is a national responsibility to work to free Pollard, I will speak to the President of the United States on behalf of the people of Israel. I intend to do this during my meetings in Congress and at the White House.”

On top of that, Peres will also deliver a speech to Congress, thus giving him another opportunity to exert influence in Washington.

While Peres will no doubt be pleased with his prestigious awards, the focus of the trip will certainly be Pollard.

Pollard was once a candidate for a CIA graduate fellowship, but was turned down due to a history of emotional instability and drug usage. He eventually landed a position as an analyst at the Navy’s Anti-terrorist Alert Center where Pollard had access to a wealth of classified intelligence information.

As a lifelong sympathizer of Israel who had dreams of eventually emigrating, he was easily talked into becoming an Israeli spy. In 1984, Pollard was contacted by a family friend in Israel who set up a meeting with his eventual handler. Shortly after, Pollard began handing over documents in bulk.

During the course of his 17-month spying career, Pollard leaked over 800 highly classified documents.

After a co-worker noticed Pollard accessing classified documents without authorization, the FBI became suspicious of Pollard. Spooked, Pollard attempted to seek refuge at the Israeli embassy in D.C., but he was turned away. He was arrested shortly after.

What happens next remains to be seen. Over the next few days, Pollard could be released in a deal that would help to deescalate the Israeli Palestinian conflict. President Obama could also opt for the humanitarian route and free Pollard with no strings attached. Whatever happens, Pollard’s usefulness as a bargaining chip is quickly running out, and President Peres’ trip to D.C. will likely be a decisive turning point on the matter.

While the official purpose of the visit is to honor Peres’ past accomplishments as a human rights leader, the true reason for the trip could have humanitarian implications that extend far into the future.

– Sam Hillestad

Sources: Jewish Press, CNN, USA Today, Jerusalem Post
Photo: The Algemeiner

,

Covert Drone War Has Killed More Than 2,400

Drones_usa_covert_war
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has released a comprehensive look at the United States’ drone program from 2009 to the present. Sketching its missteps and apparent successes, the United Kingdom-based nonprofit relates the story of the Barack Obama administration’s relationship with drones and brings clarity to an otherwise opaque issue.

Drone strikes began after 9/11, after the passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF.) This law enables the president to “take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the (U.S.).”

Since the act’s passage, both the George W. Bush and the Obama administrations have launched hundreds of attacks on foreign soil.

By their count, over 390 covert drone strikes have killed more than 2,400 people thus far since Obama took office. Targeting Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. Both civilians and militants have been killed.

Barack Obama first made use of drones just three days after the start of his presidency. While initial reports deemed it a success, information gathered later indicated that at least nine civilians were killed in the strike while the one 14-year-old survivor was blinded.

Instead of hitting a Taliban hideout, as intended, the drone struck a family household, killing a tribal elder and members of his family.

Although Obama was reportedly dismayed by the news, he has continued using drone strikes in much greater excess than his predecessor, although with greater rates of accuracy.

Under Obama, drone strikes have killed “six times as many people” than under Bush, but the casualties per strike has dropped from eight to six. Similarly, the civilian deaths have decreased as well, from three casualties per strike for Bush and only 1.43 casualties for Obama.

Some argue that drones help more than hinder anti-terrorism campaigns. As one Air Force officer expressed in the New York Times, “using them to go after terrorists not only was ethically permissible but also might be ethically obligatory, because of their advantages in identifying targets and striking with precision.”

Beyond their perceived benefits, mistaken drone strikes still rattle those who consider them immoral. In 2006, CIA drones killed at least 68 children located in a madrassa, or religious school.

Last month, drones attacked a convoy escorting a bride to her wedding. The U.S. has yet to comment on an attack that killed more than 15 civilians.

In September 2013, a law professor’s study found strikes harm global security and encourage other states and terrorist organizations to likewise arm themselves with unmanned weapons. As interest and concern over drones grow and the debate over their moral and unethical merits rage, the U.S. will carefully need to consider the cost of its continued employment.

– Emily Bajet

Sources: The New York Times, Justice, The Bureau Investigates, GPO, The Guardian
Photo: RT

Obama’s Advice for Improving Education in Africa

Obama's Advice for Improving Education in AfricaDuring his visit to the University of Cape Town last month, President Obama said there was no question that Africa’s economy was on the move—but it is just not moving quickly enough for children still living in poverty. With more than 60% of Africans under the age of 35, Obama emphasized the importance of the decisions Africa’s youth face that will determine the fate of their country and continent.

In his welcome address to President Obama, the University of Cape Town Vice-chancellor, Dr. Max Price, stated that African universities are lacking the expertise and resources to build advanced research universities that could contribute to improving economies. Over the past 15 years, education in Africa has made tremendous progress in expanding access to higher education, however, student numbers have increased three times more than funding often resulting in a lower quality education due to lack of resources.

Price called on institutions to consider research as a priority in developing low or middle-income countries. He said that Africa should view itself as a potential contributor to global knowledge with the capacity to develop local, relevant solutions. Unless Africans wish to remain, consumers of others’ knowledge and innovation, they should not avoid advancing their research capacity. “That capacity resides first and foremost in research universities,” stated Price.

In the Times Higher Education top 400 global universities—which focuses heavily on research as the basis for ranking—only four are located in Africa, and all four are in South Africa. Research universities in developing countries could play a critical role in educating the next generation of academics whose contributions could ultimately impact the entire continent. Like the partnership that forms the basis of Obama’s commitment to economic development in Africa, Price added that a possible key contribution of additional international partnerships could be to build research universities across the continent.

The University of Cape Town enrolls 30% of its graduate students from outside South Africa. The university hopes to advance research capacity throughout the continent with its education of Africa’s future academic leaders.

– Scarlet Shelton

Source: University World News, University of Cape Town Daily News
Photo: Flickr

,

Global Displacement by the Numbers

Displaced_refugees_Syria

Every day an entire town’s worth of people is rendered homeless.

23,000 persons per day are forced to flee their homes, according to a United Nations report. By the numbers, this is akin to the evacuation of entire American towns. Due to conflict or persecution, these persons must rely on aid provided by various domestic and international organizations, placing strain on already weakened local economies and food supplies. The vast majority of these persons – over 80% – are hosted by developing nations.

Not only are local economies suffering as a result of displacement, the burden is also felt by the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), which logged some 35.8 million persons of concern in 2012. As a reference point, the population of California, the largest state in the U.S, is approximately 38.1 million people. In Pakistan, the number of refugees in relation to economic capacity is 552 persons to every $1 of GDP per capita, an astonishing statistic by our measurements.

In response to displacement concerns in Syria, a state in which 70% Palestinian refugees are displaced by conflict in addition to the Syrians themselves, the Obama administration has authorized an additional $300 million in humanitarian relief funds. This brings the total amount of aid given to Syria to nearly $815 million, making the U.S. the single-largest contributor of humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people.

These contributions will be used “to help feed, shelter, and provide medical care for children, women, and men affected by the ongoing conflict in Syria,” according to a recent press release from the White House. The move is especially significant for efforts to increase global poverty relief and awareness in U.S. foreign affairs as it represents a clear recognition of an American responsibility to protect people worldwide.

In spite these commendable contributions, there remains a wide discrepancy between the number of refugees being hosted by developing countries and nations more capable of hosting displaced persons. To wit, UNHCR’s recent report  shows that more than half of the refugees under UNHCR’s mandate resided in countries where the GDP per capita was below $5,000 in 2012. Pakistan and Iran hosted the largest number of refugees. Clearly, there is a great need for the U.S. and other developed countries to support refugees and the countries that host them.

– Herman Watson

Source: New York Times, UN Refugee Agency, Huffington Post, NBC News, The White House
Photo: NBC News

Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network

Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network
Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN) supports the modernization of foreign assistance through collaboration with both Republican and Democratic Administrations and Congress to reform US development policy and practice. The coalition is composed of international development and foreign policy practitioners, experts, concerned citizens and private sector organizations that believe that the US should play a leadership role in achieving economic growth and reducing poverty and suffering around the world. MFAN believes that we can play this role with more effectiveness, efficiency, and transparency.

On May 2, Co-Chairs David Beckmann, George Ingram, and Jim Kolbe commended Congressman Gerry Connolly for introducing the Global Partnerships Act of 2013. The bill would eventually overhaul the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961 and allow for more efficiency and effectiveness in providing US foreign assistance.

MFAN supports the Global Partnerships Act of 2013 because it prioritizes several reform principals including the promotion of local ownership and partnerships with governments and citizens. As well, the Act strengthens accountability and transparency through budget planning and ensures program decisions are evidence-based. The approach to development adopted by the Act is one that is more integrated, coordinated, and outcome-based. It is flexible within sectors and agencies and elevates USAID as the US Government’s lead development agency.

Along with the Global Partnerships Act of 2013, MFAN also supports Obama’s latest budget requests and hopes that more representatives and members of the Obama Administration will support the bill. According to MFAN, these budget requests reaffirm Obama’s commitment to an approach to foreign assistance that is more evidence-based and selective. This will allow the US to maintain leadership on global health issues like HIV/AIDS and exercise new leadership with a strong proposal to reform the way the US delivers food aid.  MFAN looks forward to playing a constructive role in this effort to make our foreign assistance more effective and accountable.

– Kira Maixner
Source Modernize Aid
Photo US Embassy

Budget Reforms Could Affect U.S. AID

USAID
Barack Obama has called for reforms to the in-kind American food aid system. If enacted, these budget reforms could dramatically change how the world’s largest donor operates abroad.

The reforms, included in the President’s 2014 budget proposal, would significantly roll back requirements that American food aid is bought and shipped from the US. Instead, more funding than ever would be available for recipients to buy food closer to where it’s needed, or send cash or vouchers instead.

The administration’s proposals would entirely end “monetisation” programs where aid groups receive US food commodities in place of cash, which they then sell in local markets to fund other development projects such as clinics and schools. USAid said the reforms would enable it to reach an additional two to four million people each year. “Rather than limiting the United States to a tied, commodities-only approach, these reforms will enable experts to select the right tool to most efficiently meet the needs of hungry and vulnerable people,” it said.

However, if the reforms are passed, they may take a toll on the maritime unions and US based farmers that depend on the current food aid system. USA Maritime, a coalition of maritime unions, called on Congress to reject the reforms. “The administration’s proposals … will be harmful to our US merchant marine, harmful to our national defense sealift capability, harmful to our farmers and millers and bad for our economy,” said chairman James L Henry.

The administration’s proposal includes $25 million in additional funding for the department of transportation’s maritime administration, which would lose significant business under the reforms. This would support “certain militarily useful ships, and will facilitate the retention of US mariners”, it said.

Congress must now decide whether to fund these programs and accept the proposed changes. Analysts expect months of increased lobbying both from supporters and detractors.

-Kira Maixner

Source: The Guardian

US AID First Forward Progress Report

US AID First Forward Progress Report
The U.S. Agency for International Development released a progress report on its signature reform initiative USAID Forward at an event co-hosted by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Center for American Progress (CAP).
Three years ago, President Obama and former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton called for the elevation of development as a key part of America’s national security and foreign policy.

Some highlights that need us to focus are listed as follows:

USAID Forward, the mission with renewed capacity, is focused on seven key
 areas: budget management, policy capacity, implementation and procurement reform, monitoring and evaluation, innovation, science and technology, and talent management.

Delivering results on a meaningful scale through a strengthened USAID:
Designed 
by our missions in close collaboration with partner governments and citizens, our Country Development Cooperation Strategies now guide our development investments. When evaluations failed to meet the standard, the three most common concerns were: (1) evaluation teams received too many questions—especially questions that are too general and ill-defined—relative to the resources available for the evaluation, (2) the data collection and analysis methods were not appropriate to answer the evaluation questions, or (3) evaluation reports did not clearly demonstrate how evidence led to new findings and conclusions. Given these findings, we need to increasingly focus on taking early action to improve the quality of our evaluations.

Promoting sustainable development through high-impact partnerships:
USAID set out to employ the central pillars of aid effectiveness—county ownership, systems strengthening and sustainability—derived from global meetings in Paris, Accra and Busan. Putting these tenets into practice required us to take a hard look at our own systems and our capacity to work with a broader community of diverse partners while holding them accountable for delivering results. Going forward, we will build on the commitment
 to increase direct support to partner country governments, local private sector firms and non- governmental organizations. We will integrate this work more closely into our strategic planning process with the goal of institutionalizing it still further.

Identifying and scaling up innovative, breakthrough solutions to intractable development challenges:
In November 2012, the Higher Education Solutions Network, a groundbreaking partnership with seven top American and foreign universities designed to engage young people in the discovery of new solutions to development challenges, was launched. Each of the seven universities—The College of William and Mary, Texas A&M University, Michigan State University, University of California, Berkeley, Duke University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Makerere University in Uganda—will establish a development laboratory to incubate and scale up new innovations. The large-scale transformation of a federal agency is a long-term and complex endeavor. The transformation will be successful if it not only changes the way we do business but also results in improved results and continued development progress. USAID is committed to continuing our forward progress and calls on all of our partners to join us in our collective efforts to end extreme poverty.

– Caiqing Jin(Kelly)

Source: USAID
Photo Source: ETFTrends

What Elections in Kenya Mean to the United States

What Elections in Kenya Mean to the United States
Uhuru Kenyatta is slated to be the next President of Kenya. The elections in Kenya on Monday were a monumental and happy moment because they were one of the most peaceful elections the country has ever had. And now, as ballots are being counted, Kenyatta has the lead.

For the United States, while the peaceful elections are celebrated, Uhuru Kenyatta becoming President may lead to some serious problems. Kenyatta has been indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for a long list of heinous crimes. He has been accused of stirring up the local militia to conduct retaliation attacks in the previous election that killed numerous people, including innocent women and children.

The United States has invested a lot in Kenya, serving as an important ally to the region. Even more, Kenya has become a crucial center on Terror.

Yet, the United States is dedicated to justice. And supporting or working with a president that has been indicted by the ICC for crimes against human rights, against women and children, would not be living up to this value. President Obama’s administration, as well as the administrations of many of its allies, are faced with the very tough decision to either completely distance themselves from Kenya, because even small things like diplomats shaking Kenyatta’s hand could be problematic, or figure out a way to work with Kenyatta and still put forth a message of justice.

Jendayi Frazer, former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, said, “This is going to pose a very awkward situation. Kenyatta knows he needs the United States, and the United States knows it needs Kenya.” Some even say that the United States needs Kenya more than Kenya needs the United States.

The Obama Administration has refused to talk about the situation, only saying, in the words of President Obama, “The choice of who will lead Kenya is up to the Kenyan people.” Once Kenyatta is announced President, the United States, and its allies must proceed very cautiously.

– Angela Hooks

Sources: NY Times, CNN
Photo: Forbes

,

Will Capping Charity Deductions Hurt?

Will Capping Charity Deductions Hurt?
Despite Congress’ efforts in January to increase the tax savings for charitable donations, Obama’s newest proposal will lower it from the current 39.6% to 28%.  A cap on itemized deductions basically means that when someone makes a charitable donation, the amount that they can claim on their itemized tax deduction is now about 10.8% less than before. For example, say a person who earns about $450,000 a year makes a donation of $1000 to UNICEF. Originally, they would be able to write off $396 but with the change in charity deductions, can only write off $280.

This change, however, will only affect those in the top 35% tax bracket (those who make more than $335,000). For Obama, this is a major source of money that he would use to help pay for the $447 billion job plan he introduced a few years ago. It is also a way to make sure that the rich are paying a higher share of taxes and eliminating the loophole of writing-off thousands and thousands of dollars.

But what does this mean for nonprofits? And aside from them, what does the fact that this is even an issue mean about society and giving in general? To tackle the first question, Philanthropy.com referred to a study by economists John Bakija and Bradley Heim that concludes that for every 1% decrease in savings (in this case, about 10.8%), there is an equal 1% decrease in the amount given. They do, however, mention that there are many other factors that affect how much donors give and that this change will affect each charity in a different way.

The second question seems to be the elephant in the room. It is not naive to assume that people choose to give from the heart. Yes, we live in a country that allows those who donate to receive some sort of benefit for doing so, but at a time where our passions for a cause should be the driving cause of our actions and charity, why would receiving only 11% less on a donation make the wealthy hesitate when giving to a cause?

Perhaps the charted out reductions in total donations is frightening to some charities. They should still remain hopeful that there are those in the 35% tax bracket who will continue to donate at the rates they have previously, regardless of this new change in policy. Obama’s intent to bridge the income gap and require the wealthy to pay more taxes is understandable; but so is the fear of many nonprofit organizations.

– Deena Dulgerian

Source: The Chronicle of Philanthropy
Photo: Times Union

Former Gates Foundation Official to be U.S. Budget Director

sylvia-burwell-former-gates-foundation-official_opt
It was announced on Monday that President Obama will nominate a former Gates Foundation official, Sylvia Burwell, as the next budget director. The announcement comes at a time of severe administrative budgeting issues and strong disagreement between the parties over how best to fix them. In the role, Ms. Burwell would assist the White House in developing its overdue 2014 budget proposal.

Sylvia Burwell’s background in economic policy and non-profit administration qualifies her for the position. She was president of the Gates Foundation Global Development program from 2006 to 2011, and served as the organization’s chief operating officer from 2001 to 2006. She has run the Walmart Foundation, the company’s philanthropic and charitable branch, since 2011.

The fact that Obama will nominate a former Gates Foundation official for the position of budget director is encouraging for those engaged in the fight against global poverty.

The Gates Foundation, headquartered in Seattle, WA, is a $36 billion national organization dedicated to improving health and fighting poverty worldwide. The Global Development division is devoted to finding and implementing solutions to extreme global poverty in the areas of agricultural development, family health care, and many more.

Founded by Bill and Melinda Gates, the Gates Foundation shares many of the same goals as the Borgen Project and the Millennium Development Goals.

– Kat Henrichs

Sources: Seattle Times, New York Times
Photo: Gates Foundation