Africa - INTER PRESS SERVICE

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, May 20 2019 (IPS)

The UN’s longstanding mandate to promote and protect human rights worldwide –- undermined recently by right-wing nationalist governments and authoritarian regimes – has taken another hit.

The Geneva-based Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) says six of the UN’s 10 treaty bodies are being forced to cancel their sessions this year due to financial reasons.

The situation has been described as “an unprecedented consequence of some UN member States delaying payments due to the Organisation.”

Anna-Karin Holmlund, Senior UN Advocate at Amnesty International (AI), told IPS: “Amnesty is deeply concerned by member states’ delay in paying their assessed contributions, which will have a direct effect on the ability of the UN to carry out its vital human rights work.”

Without these funds, the UN’s human rights mechanisms and International tribunals could be severely affected, she warned.

By 10 May, only 44 UN member states – out of 193 — had paid all their assessments due, with the United States owing the largest amount.

“Unfortunately, this is only the latest in a worrying trend of reduction in the UN budget allocated to its human rights mechanisms. To put this in perspective, the budget of the OHCHR is only 3.7 % of the total UN regular budget,” she pointed out.

In addition to the possible cancellation of sessions of the treaty bodies, mechanisms created by the Human Rights Council such as Fact-Finding Missions and Commissions of Inquiry may be hampered in carrying out their mandate of investigating serious human rights violations.

The OHCHR said last week the cancellations meant that reviews already scheduled with member states, as well as consideration of complaints by individual victims of serious human rights violations — including torture, extra-judicial killings, enforced disappearances -– will not take place as scheduled.

“The cancellation of sessions will also have numerous other negative consequences, and will seriously undermine the system of protections which States themselves have put in place over decades,” said a statement released by the OHCHR.

The chairpersons of the 10 Committees are deeply concerned about the practical consequences of cancelling these sessions and have sent a letter to the UN Secretary General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights, requesting they, together with Member States, explore ways of addressing this situation, “as a matter of urgency.”

Alexandra Patsalides, a Legal Equality programme officer at Equality Now, told IPS that it is deeply concerned that UN Treaty body review sessions have been postponed for financial reasons, including the Committee to Eliminate Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), with its focus on ending all forms of discrimination again women and girls.

She said the crisis comes particularly at a time when women’s rights are continuously being undermined and eroded around the world– and civil society organisations are operating in a space that is increasingly under attack and shrinking.

The UN should strongly call on state parties to prioritise their international human rights obligations, she added.

“The UN treaty bodies are vital to holding states accountable to their commitments on women and girl’s rights — and now is the time to increase the international response, not cut back,” said Patsalides.

These review sessions offer civil society organisations a vital opportunity to hold their governments to account for their international human rights commitments and raise awareness of human rights violations in their countries.

But with the backsliding on women’s rights across the globe, it is now more urgent than ever that the various mechanisms stand up to defend hard won gains, she noted.

“The UN treaty bodies are often the only mechanism for women and girls to hold their countries to account for violations of their rights. We cannot allow these voices to be silenced and call on the UN to prioritize the protection of women and girls’ rights and ensure these treaty bodies have appropriate and sustainable funding.”

The 10 UN human rights treaty bodies are: the Human Rights Committee, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Committee against Torture, the Committee on Migrant Workers, the Committee on Enforced Disappearances, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities And the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture.

Meanwhile the budget cuts come at a time when the UN is battling a series of setbacks in the field of human rights.

The UN Human Rights Office in Burundi was closed down last February at the insistence of the government, with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet expressing “deep regrets” over the closure, after a 23-year presence in the country.

A UN Commission of Inquiry has called on Eritrea to investigate allegations of extrajudicial killings by its security forces, including torture and enslaving hundreds of thousands, going back to 2016.

And under the Trump administration, the US has ceased to cooperate with some of the UN Rapporteurs, and specifically an investigation on the plight of migrants on the Mexican border where some of them have been sexually assaulted—abuses which have remained unreported and unprosecuted.

The government of Myanmar has barred a UN expert from visiting the country to probe the status of Rohingya refugees.

On the setbacks in Colombia, Robert Colville, Spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said May 10: “We are alarmed by the strikingly high number of human rights defenders being killed, harassed and threatened in Colombia, and by the fact that this terrible trend seems to be worsening”

“We call on the authorities to make a significant effort to confront the pattern of harassment and attacks aimed at civil society representatives and to take all necessary measures to tackle the endemic impunity around such cases.”

In just the first four months of this year, he pointed out, a total of 51 alleged killings of human rights defenders and activists have been reported by civil society actors and State institutions, as well as the national human rights institution.

The UN Human Rights Office in Colombia is closely following up on these allegations. This staggering number continues a negative trend that intensified during 2018, when our staff documented the killings of 115 human rights defenders.

According to a press release from the OHCHR, the 10 United Nations human rights treaties are legally binding treaties, adopted by the UN General Assembly and ratified by States.

Each Treaty establishes a treaty body (or Committee) comprising elected independent experts who seek to ensure that States parties fulfil their legal obligations under the Conventions.

This system of independent scrutiny of the conduct of States by independent experts is a key element of the United Nations human rights system, supported by secretariats in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@ips.org

The post UN’s Mandate to Protect Human Rights Takes Another Hit appeared first on Inter Press Service.

A Palestinian family on the street in Beit Lahia in north Gaza. According to a new Save the Children report, 72 percent of child deaths and injuries across the world’s deadliest conflict zones are caused by landmines, unexploded ordinance, air strikes, and other explosives. Credit: Mohammed Omer/IPS.

By Tharanga Yakupitiyage
UNITED NATIONS, May 17 2019 (IPS)

Too many children are dying as a result of explosive weapons, and the international community must step up to protect and declare children off limits in war.

In a new report, Save the Children documented the devastating toll that armed conflicts have on children psychologically and physically and is urging further resources and political commitment to protect them.

“International law makes clear that everyone has a responsibility to make sure children are protected in war. Yet explosive weapons continue to kill, maim and terrorise thousands of children every year,” said CEO of Save the Children International Helle Thorning-Schmidt.

“Every warring party – from armed groups to governments – must do more to protect children and abide by this important moral principle to protect children,” she added.

“We are calling on governments to adhere to the humanitarian laws and norms and human rights provisions that are there to protect children. We have been underestimating the harm done to children by explosive weapons in densely populated urban areas. And attacks that cause disproportionate civilian harm are illegal under international law,” echoed Kevin Watkins, CEO of Save the Children UK.

According to the report, 72 percent of child deaths and injuries across the world’s deadliest conflict zones are caused by landmines, unexploded ordinance, air strikes, and other explosives.

In fact, children are seven times more likely to die from blast injuries than adults involved in fighting.

In Afghanistan, explosive weapons were the cause of death in 84 percent of child conflict fatalities over a two-year period compared to 56 percent of civilian adult deaths.

In Gaza in 2014, all reported child fatalities were the result of explosive weapons.

Just earlier this week, Saudi-led coalition airstrikes in Yemen’s capital Sana’a killed four children.

Children are also 50 percent more likely to be victims of a blast injury after conflicts are over as they are finally able to go outside and play again.

Mahmoud, a 12-year-old from Gaza, was playing in the street when he was hit by an explosive weapon and lost his eye.

“I heard an explosion and I felt something go into my eye. I touched my eye and began to run. I felt blood pouring out,” he told Save the Children.

Not only do such experiences leave an emotional scar, but also injured children are more likely than adults to suffer more complex internal damage as their underdeveloped skulls and muscles offer less protection to the brain and other organs.

For instance, the different make-up of children’s bones and tissue means that amputated limbs must be managed carefully. Bones continues to grow as the child grows, so wounds must be regularly tended and bone shaved down.

Without care or the necessary knowledge, children will live with life-lasting consequences, noted former Director General of British Army Medical Services and member of the Paediatric Blast Injury Partnership (PBIP) Major General Michael von Bertele.

“The sad reality is most medics just haven’t been trained to treat children injured by blasts. Nearly all the textbooks and procedures we have are based on research on injured soldiers, who are usually fit adults,” said von Bertele.

“We know children’s bodies are different. They aren’t just small adults….without [highly specialised knowledge], children are left with even worse disabilities, and often intractable pain for life,” he added.

For example, Iraqi 9-year-old Hassouni was severely injured by a car bomb as shrapnel penetrated his skull. One of his hands was paralysed and Hassouni lives in constant pain.

Medical manager of Syrian Relief Dr. Malik Nedam Al Deen echoed similar comments, stating: “For more than eight years we’ve seen children dying on the operating table from wounds that adults have survived. The tragedy is these deaths could have been prevented with basic training.”

Now, PBIP, a coalition of doctors and experts founded by Save the Children, has developed the world’s first guide to help doctors treat and save more children’s lives. It provides child-specific knowledge and treatments geared towards those who have suffered blast injuries. 

“In a war zone, you’re mentally prepared for the adults. You expect to treat injured soldiers, and even civilian adults. But the sights and sounds of a young child torn apart by bombs are something else,” said lead author of the manual Paul Reavley.

“Until this manual, there really hasn’t been anything to prepare doctors for dealing with the horror of children injured by blasts. For the first time it tackles psychological, as well as the physical, challenges. It’s not just a guide to practical procedures – it’s a crucial emotional crutch,” he added.

In May, Save the Children’s partner Syria Relief began distributing the manual to emergency units across northwest Syria including Idlib and Aleppo. The guide will later be dispersed to other conflict zones such as Afghanistan and Yemen.

“This manual is designed for anyone with a medical degree and a scalpel. I’m excited this is going to doctors in Syria. It’s a simple solution that will undoubtedly save lives,”said Al Deen, who helped co-author the guide.

Alongside the manual, Save the Children launched a new campaign to #StopTheWarOnChildren and a 10-point charter which was presented at the Hague in the Netherlands to United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet and Dutch Princess Viktoria. 

The charter highlights the need to ensure parties to conflicts adhere to international law and standards, including the suspension of arms sales where there is a risk of killing or injuring children, hold perpetrators to account, and provide children with necessary, practical assistance.

“This manual is a practical step that will save countless lives. But prevention is the best option. Even in war, children have a right to protection,” said Watkins.

“The bottom line is that all governments and armed forces need to stop treating children as though they are adults in miniature. Evidence on blast injury shows they are more vulnerable, and this should be reflected in how those using explosive weapons assess risk – and how agencies responsible for investigating possible war crimes review evidence,” he added.

Related Articles

• Do We Need a Global Convention of Common Principles for Building Peace?
• Cameroon Crisis “More Alarming Than Ever”
• As Fathers Die, Kashmir’s Children Become Breadwinners

The post Stop The War on Children appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres

By Margot Wallström
STOCKHOLM, May 17 2019 (IPS)

I want to talk about peacebuilding and inclusive peace. My main point is that peace begins in the minds of people, and people, communities, societies must be allowed to participate in peace for it to be sustainable. Peace means a lot more than just the absence of war.

I want to highlight the need for this perspective in three aspects of peacebuilding – conflict prevention, crisis response and peace processes. But before going into those aspects, let me begin with the example of Colombia.

As you know, the war between FARC and the government had been going on since the 1960’s, with hundreds of thousands of victims.

The peace process that was initiated around 2012 was in a way unique. It included in different ways victims and local communities, the private sector, civil society, LGBT organisations. And of course, there was a strong presence of women.

The peace deal that was signed in 2016 (one of few good news that year) included agreements on much more than just the laying down of arms – it mentions land reform, political participation, guarantees for social movements, a strategy to tackle drug trafficking and much more.

We keep on being reminded that the implementation is often the most complicated part of a deal. But even that is part of the point I want to make. That – just as with democracy – peace is something you have to work on and conquer every day.

And even if there have been and are challenges related to the peace in Colombia, I maintain that this process was remarkable, because it put the Colombian people at center, and today both parties, the former guerilla FARC and the Colombian government are jointly working on sustainable peace in their country.

1) Going back to the three aspects of peacebuilding, let me start with conflict prevention. We seldom get the credit we deserve for the conflicts that didn’t happen.

And unfortunately, it is often easier to get support for interventions once there actually is a fire. But how many tears would not have been saved, if we had been able to prevent Rwanda? Bosnia? South Sudan?

My conviction is that societies that are democratic and inclusive, with gender and social equality, with a strong civil society have are strongly vaccinated against conflict.

This is one of the reasons why the global backslide of democracy that we experience right now is worrying me. Growing authoritarianism together with growing social inequalities has often been a prelude to conflict.

And this year, for the first time in decades, more people live in countries with growing authoritarian tendencies, than in countries that are making democratic progress.

There is still hope. I recently visited the Tunis Forum on Gender Equality, where I met with a lot of young civil society activists. And coming back to inclusive peacebuilding, I heard one interesting example of how women’s grassroots organisations took part in conflict early warning mechanisms.

They did so by reporting local peace and security risks and threats to the community, the government and international bodies.

2) Let me continue with a second aspect of peacebuilding, which is crisis response, including peacekeeping and stabilization.

Here, a security approach is often needed to save lives. But also, in interventions to stabilise we can help steer the course to a more inclusive process. Women in peacekeeping operations is an example.

When we plan for these interventions, we must think of inclusion and gender from the start. There is no conflict between the need for a quick end of violence, and the long-term aim of creating peaceful, just and inclusive societies. All interventions can be designed to contribute to this.

3) Thirdly, peace processes. Here, an inclusive approach means focusing more on women; less on men with weapons.

It is understandable that, at crunch time, a hasty deal between leaders of conflicting parties might seem attractive. But sometimes; easy come, easy go.

A peace where the voices of communities, of victims, of women have been heard – in preparations, in negotiations and implementation – will be more deeply rooted and has a greater chance of lasting longer.

Coming back to the example of Colombia – it was women that brought issues of land restitution and victims to the agenda; that ensured that confidence-building measures were implemented, that child soldiers were released.

There are other processes where women are less visible, but still make critical contributions. In Libya and Afghanistan, women, young people and local peacebuilders have done important work, with their local knowledge and commitment.

Conflicts are not linear. You can never draw a straight line from a beginning to an end. Their dynamics often look more like a child’s drawing, with strokes forward, backward, to the sides, in all possible directions.

As I said in the beginning, sustaining peace is an ongoing process, of constantly strengthening factors that underpin peace – such as confidence, reconciliation, institutions, equality, democracy.

And in a way, conflict, in a broader sense, is an inevitable part of life in a society. For a democracy, I would say, conflict is vital.

The challenge is to find ways to handle conflicts in a peaceful and constructive way. Strong, well-functioning institutions – be they national, or in the shape of multilateral cooperation, are the way of managing this.

And this is another reason why today’s backsliding of democracy and questioning of international cooperation is such a worrying threat, To conclude, let me get back to the main point about peace beginning in the minds of people.

You might recognize the source of this: the first words of the constitution of UNESCO, which I want to return to, since they so well summarize what peacebuilding is about:

“Since wars begin in in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed”.

In other words – putting people at the center of our thinking.

I’m glad that we are doing that today and tomorrow, and I hope that we can keep on doing it in our daily work for peace and development.

*Excerpted from an address to the SIPRI Forum on Peace and Development

The post Growing Authoritarianism, Social Inequalities Often a Prelude to Conflict appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

Margot Wallström is Foreign Minister of Sweden*

The post Growing Authoritarianism, Social Inequalities Often a Prelude to Conflict appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Sweden’s Minister for International Development Cooperation Peter Eriksson

By Thalif Deen
STOCKHOLM, May 17 2019 (IPS)

When the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) concluded a three-day forum on “Peace and Development” on May 16, the primary focus was the daunting challenges threatening global security, including growing military interventions, spreading humanitarian emergencies, forced migration, increasing civil wars, extreme weather conditions triggered by climate change and widespread poverty and conflict-related hunger.

For many decades, said the Swedish Minister for International Development Cooperation Peter Eriksson, the rules of war were designed by the Geneva Conventions.

“Do we need to develop and adopt common principles for building peace?,” he asked, before a gathering of more than 400 high-level policymakers, researchers and practitioners in the Swedish capital during the opening session of the sixth annual Stockholm Forum on Peace and Development

The United Nations, he pointed out, is currently implementing reforms for improved delivery on crisis response, sustaining peace and sustainable development while the World Bank has initiated the development of a new strategy for “Fragility, Conflict and Violence.”

At the same time, the European Union (EU) is implementing its “Integrated Approach to Conflict and Crises” while the African Union (AU) is stepping up its “engagement beyond crisis response.”

And the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC) has developed new recommendations on the Humanitarian-Development-Peace nexus.

Are there sufficient mechanisms in place for bringing actors in crisis-response together with peace building and development actors? If not, what is needed?, Eriksson asked.

Jan Eliasson addressing the SIPRI Forum

Addressing the Forum, Jan Eliasson, chair of the Governing Board of SIPRI and a former UN Deputy Secretary-General, said over the past five years the Forum has shaped global discussions, developed innovative policies and built crucial bridges.

He said SIPRI has a Sahel programme focusing on local perspectives on peace and security, and local perspectives on international interventions in Mali and the region.

The Forum was co-hosted by SIPRI and the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

SIPRI, in cooperation with the UN World Food Programme (WFP), has been embarking on a project to better understand the linkages between food security and hunger and help improve the conflict-sensitivity of one of the most important crisis-response programmes, he noted.

“Our work on gender and social inclusivity in peace processes continues to move forward as we advance the knowledge-base and linkages between the SDGs.

SIPRI’s Deputy Director has joined the newly launched Lancet–Sight Commission, evaluating how health and gender equality contributes to peaceful, just and inclusive societies.

The global challenges can never be overcome in isolation but can only be tackled through dialogue and cooperation, Eliasson declared.

Asked for a response, Susan Wilding, who heads the Geneva Office of CIVICUS, the global alliance of civil society organisations (CSOs), told IPS: “The answer to the Minister’s question should be yes, we do need to develop common principles for building peace.”

She said the OECD/DAC recommendations speak about ‘prevention always, development wherever possible, humanitarian action when necessary’ and the ‘humanitarian, development and peace nexus’.

But what they fail to take into account, especially with regards to the prevention portion, is the nexus with human rights.

“How can we expect to prevent conflict if we do not first focus on the prevention of human rights abuses? How can we expect to achieve the SDGs at a national level while human rights abuses and civic space restrictions prevail?,” she asked.

“If we do not start to see the link between human rights, civic space and the humanitarian, development and peace agenda, we will surely fail in our endeavours to reach any of the goals.”

Alex Shoebridge, Oxfam Novib’s Peacebuilding Advisor, told IPS that while the World Bank, the UN, and some donors have sought to reflect on and rework their contribution to building peace, there is a need for a more fundamental shift in international support.

Sustainable peace can only be achieved by locally-led efforts that are inclusive, interconnected, and go beyond Governments alone, he noted.

This is especially the case in contexts where Governments themselves are part of the conflict, as we see in an increasing number of contexts, including Middle Income Countries, Shoebridge pointed out.

“Women and young people must play a key role in shaping peaceful futures for their countries, and not be side-lined or involved in a tokenistic way.”

He said it also requires that external support to peacebuilding go beyond the project cycle and beyond technical solutions focussing on reform of state led institutions.

Research shows that it takes at least two decades for a country to emerge from and transform legacies of conflict. Conflicts are relational, with deep seated inequalities, historical grievances and negative gender norms sustaining and perpetuating conflicts between groups.

And 60 percent of conflicts take place in countries that have experienced conflict before, meaning that development and humanitarian assistance must do more to ensure peacebuilding outcomes are supported in the short, medium, and longer-term, he added.

“We can’t take our eye off the ball, when structural causes of conflict such as inequality and marginalization remain unaddressed,” declared Shoebridge.

The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@ips.org

The post Do We Need a Global Convention of Common Principles for Building Peace? appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Haider A. Khan
DENVER, May 17 2019 (IPS-Partners)

With the further recent escalations involving US and Saudi accusations of Iran’s involvement in damaging four commercial carriers in the Persian Gulf, and the US military plans to send 120, 000 troops, the US has raised the stakes in the dangerous game of trapping Iran to take steps that can justify US attack on Iran. Some US politicians like the Republican senator Tom Cotton from Arkansas talk about “two strikes—the first strike and the last strike,” that will presumably lead to the end of the current detestable rulers of Iran. How plausible is this scenario and what is likely to happen geopolitically if and when the US belligerence leads to an actual military confrontation with Iran? Furthermore, even if an Iraq-like initial scenario results— not a sure bet, to say the least— will ordinary Iranians greet the North American invaders as liberators?

Haider A. Khan

Politics of pacification through the winning of hearts and minds aside, even in purely military terms, Iran would be much more difficult in operational terms than Iraq was. Iran is more than three times the size of Iraq with a population that is also more than three times that of Iraq. Its topography is very different from Iraq’s. The invaders will face a rugged mountainous terrain; but the bigger factor will be political. The Battle of Baghdad could be avoided because instead of leading the urban resistance Saddam Hussein fled ignominiously. Consequently, the infamous police and the army also did not resist. Indeed, the repressive as well as the ideological state apparatuses all simply disintegrated. This made the initial takeover more of a cakewalk than it might have been. Even so, the “peace” was never won by the US forces The people in Iraq on the whole resent the US presence. Politically, the Shias have gained and are in a tacit alliance with Iran.

Although many Iranians hate the regime of the Islamic Republic, the threat of a foreign invasion with memories of 1953, will present them with a cruel dilemma at best. To support the US invaders with the prospects of a long civil war, or to resist the invaders as patriotic citizens of Iran will put them between the rock and a hard place, or for those who prefer classical analogies—- between Scylla and Charybdis.Given Iran’s history and the cruel record of perfidy of the US, many will choose the latter option.Thus a US invasion will most probably result in a bloody Battle of Tehran, resembling the battle of Stalingrad, or at the very least, the battle of Algiers.

Furthermore, although it may not be so clear to Bolton, Pompeo or Trump and neocon chauvinists, the US power relatively speaking is in decline. It is highly unlikely that US will get any diplomatic leverage over Russia or China. More likely, these two powers will support Iran diplomatically, logistically and behind the scenes even militarily.

With this further escalation using not just bullying rhetoric but also accompanying military moves by the US fleet and semi-lunatic invitations to Iran to make conciliatory telephone calls to the White House through the Swiss intermediaries, the situation is likely to worsen. If the most recent episodes are accurate indications of things to come , then there will soon be other manufactured incidents and allegations. No proof will be offered by the US rulers even to the allies or responsible committees in the congress.

Senator Sanders and a few other voices are so far the only voices of sanity in the US legislature. Will the Trump administration be transparent? Will Bolton allow an open debate before manipulating the administration to launch a strike against Iran? His record with Iraq and his consistent support for the neoconservative program of regime change can not be very reassuring for those who support a more pragmatic US foreign policy.

Any sane person would wish things to be different from what they appear to be in Washington. But as matters stand, the above is pretty close to the scenario we have now with potential for rapid deterioration. It is a reasonably good guess that the Iranian hardliners are also doubling down and are preparing for an asymmetric war—something they have announced already as a possible scenario. Given Iran’s military weakness vis- a- vis the US and its regional allies, such a response will seem to these military minds to be eminently rational in terms of military tactics. Anyone familiar with the recent developments in non-cooperative game theory will be able to understand this response as a logical deduction in the environment that the US has created with the series of moves that began with the US unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. One can only hope that Iran will not make the first move inviting disaster for the Iranian people and the region.

And what will the US, Israel or Saudi Arabia really gain geopolitically from a war with Iran? A long drawn out bloody war will destabilize all. Saudi Arabia is much weaker than Israel. So is UAE. These polities will face severe internal strains and external threats. Israel may be able to contain things better in the short run; but it too will face problems with many of its adversaries in the region. Thus, it is hard to see a clear geopolitical winner once a shooting war begins even if Iran is invaded and partially occupied by the US troops.

The writer is a Professor of Economics, University of Denver. Josef Korbel School of International Studies and former Senior Economic Adviser to UNCTAD. He could be reached by email hkhan@du.edu

The post The US Strategy for Regime Change in Iran: A Dangerous Game appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Masana Ndinga-Kanga
JOHANNESBURG, May 16 2019 (IPS)

Does the name Ihsan Al Fagiri ring a bell? How about Heba Omer or Adeela Al Zaebaq?

It’s likely that these names, among countless others, are not known to the average news consumer. But their tireless and dangerous work, however, has made news headlines as protests led to historic political change in Sudan.

To the communities of protesting women in Sudan, these names represent the valiant efforts to defy the authoritarianism of the Omar Al Bashir regime.

The sustained efforts of these women include mass mobilization, calling people to the streets of Sudan through ‘Zagrouda’ (the women’s chant) in response to rising costs of living amidst the country’s worst economic crisis.

These rallying calls of #SudanUprising, have been led by Sudanese women who are teachers, stay-at-home-mothers, doctors, students and lawyers. And yet, when President Al Bashir stepped down on April 11, the names of the women who spearheaded this political shift, were largely missing from the headlines.

This erasure is not uncommon. Women Human Rights Defenders (WHRDs) are often erased or slandered in efforts to intimidate them into quitting continuing their human rights work. In Egypt, Guatemala, Saudi Arabia, Uganda or the Philippines they are often called agents of international interests.

In Kenya, the United States and South Africa, their sexuality is called into question and they are harassed online. In China and the United Arab Emirates, they are detained for reporting or highlighting endemic levels of harassment. And yet, they refuse to be silenced.

These women are not alone at the interface of sustaining justice in sexual and reproductive health, environmental rights, economic accountability and conflict areas.

In spite of restrictions against them, WHRDs have campaigned boldly in the face of mounting opposition: #MeToo #MenAreTrash, #FreeSaudiWomen, #NiUnaMenos, #NotYourAsianSideKick, #SudanUprising and #AbortoLegalYa are just a few social campaigns that represent countless women at the coal face of systemic change for equality and justice. More and more WHRDs worldwide are working collectively to challenge structural injustices and promote the realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

But there is a stark absence of knowledge on their work. Media reporting on the courageous work of women defenders tends to focus more on the challenges they face. Awareness of their restrictions is critical to the push for justice but equally important is knowledge about the work they do to sustain women’s rights globally.

Combined with the risks of ostracization and assault from relatives, community members and the state, WHRDs defy these risks to sustain social justice. Recognizing them only for their restrictions further contributes to the erasure they experience daily from state and others.

One way the narrative on WHRDs can shift is by focusing on the critical role they play in pushing forward a progressive agenda of change for all.

In Ireland last year, activists working in sexual and reproductive health and rights achieved a landslide referendum victory in which two thirds of voters chose to legalise abortion, after many years of pro-choice campaigning.

In the southern African kingdom of eSwatini, formerly known as Swaziland, the first ever Pride march was held last year in support of LGBTQI rights. LGBTQI groups in Fiji also scored the same first that year – the country’s inaugural Pride event, a victory of freedom of assembly for LGBTQI activists around the world.

The power of collective action was also on display in January when five million women formed a human chain across the southern Indian state of Kerala. The massive protest was organised in response to experiences of violence against women attempting to enter Kerala’s Sabarimala temple, a prominent Hindu pilgrimage site.

In Iran, a small women’s movement challenging the compulsory rule that requires women to fully cover their hair, has been developing. While in Colombia, activist Francia Marquez organised a 10-day march of some 80 women to protest against illegal mining on their ancestral land in the east of the country.

This activism is often thankless and dangerous work. Indeed, 2017 was the deadliest year on record for environmental women human rights defenders, with 200 environmental campaigners murdered.

WHRDs are at increasing risk of harassment not just from state actors, but also from multinational corporations, their communities and in some cases, their own families. International policy frameworks have tried to keep up with the heavy-handed crackdown from states on environmental WHRDs.

Last September, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet launched the For All Coalition to integrate human rights and gender equality throughout all major multilateral environmental agreements, including the Paris Agreement under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The Coalition is an important step in highlighting the ways in which climate change disproportionately affect WHRDs, and also recognises the role of local and indigenous communities of women in the realisation of environmental protection.

These policy gains are the first step in creating an enabling environment for WHRDs working in remote areas on land, indigenous rights and climate justice. They are often labelled as ‘anti-development’ for calling for accountable and transparent change.

In South Africa and Honduras, the gains of environmental women campaigners have been some international recognition of their work, but at high costs: for some, these costs sometimes include their lives. Since 2001, 47 human rights workers in the Philippines have been killed for their work of attempting to document environmental violations.

In order to take seriously the work of women human rights defenders, the mechanisms for protecting them have to begin to adapt to respond to their nuanced needs as women. They need to be sensitive to other dimensions that affect WHRDs such as sexual orientation, gender, race, class and indigenous status. Adequate institutional and policy support must be built on intersectional feminism which is consultative and responsive.

What will create a more favourable policy environment for women activists? That answer should include decriminalizing sexual and reproductive rights, for example, and removing restrictions on the registration of associations supporting WHRDs.

Governments should also conduct training and sensitisation programmes for law enforcement agencies, members of the judiciary and staff of national human rights institutions on the challenges faced by WHRD, and develop a national action plan for the protection of WHRDs.

To this day, resources do not reach WHRDs in remote areas and on the frontlines, and not because they are not applying! Gender-sensitive resourcing is critical to address the gap.

These suggestions are a smaller part of a larger need for systemic change but point to the need for consistent global activism to support women human rights defenders at all times – oftentimes before crises emerge.

The victory of Sudanese women, and the ensuing capture of the end of dictatorship this year, should give us pause to remember particularly the women who push on through layers of repression, risking all, to demand basic rights.

The post Women Human Rights Defenders Face Greater Risks Because of their Gender appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

Masana Ndinga-Kanga is Crisis Response Fund Lead with global civil society alliance, CIVICUS.

The post Women Human Rights Defenders Face Greater Risks Because of their Gender appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Patrick Amir Imam and Kangni Kpodar
WASHINGTON DC, May 16 2019 (IPS)

The notion of citizenship has evolved over time. Historically, allegiance was typically to an ethnic group or a feudal lord. With the birth of the nation-state in the 19th century came the need to distinguish between those who belonged to the state and those who didn’t, and therefore to create a legal distinction between nationals and foreigners.

Most countries established then, or at independence, a “code of nationality” whose basic principles are still intact today. This code, in most cases, defines who is a national and how citizenship can be acquired.

Citizens benefited from such rights as voting, the ability to move freely within the country, and the eligibility to work. They also had responsibilities, such as serving in the military, paying taxes, and voting.

The modern notion of citizenship contrasts two visions. One vision, based on the declaration of human rights, is inclusive and can extend nationality to anyone meeting certain conditions. The other view, more exclusive, defines a nation more as an ethnic community. Specifically,

The inclusive vision is reflected in the law of the soil (jus soli), the principle that a child born within a country’s territory automatically acquires that country’s nationality. In this view, often found in the New World, bonds of citizenship extend beyond blood ties and encompass people of different genetic and geographic backgrounds.

This provides the basis for an inclusive system, which ensures that newcomers and their children are assimilated and can easily obtain citizenship.

The exclusive vision of the law of blood (jus sanguinis) is based on the principle that children acquire nationality from their parents, regardless of their place of birth. This is commonly the case in much of Asia and Europe and in parts of Africa.

This form of citizenship is more ethnocentric and by definition less inclusive: citizenship derives meaning, in part, by excluding noncitizens from basic rights and privileges. In such cases people can belong to a family that has lived in a country for generations and still not be citizens of their native land.

A growing number of countries are adopting citizenship laws that are a mix of the two. Whereas countries often initially adopted either jus soli or jus sanguinis rules, many countries have recently changed their policies to move toward the other vision.

In 1999, Germany significantly reformed its jus sanguinis–based citizenship law, making it possible for foreigners residing in Germany for years—particularly foreign children born there—to acquire German citizenship.

On the other hand, countries such as the United Kingdom have tightened the rules of jus soli and do not automatically grant citizenship to people born on its soil. The chart (next page) illustrates the distribution of citizenship laws across the world.

In continental Europe, jus soli has historically been the dominant choice, a reflection of the feudal tradition linking people to the lord on whose land they were born (Bertocchi and Strozzi 2010).

Most European nations drafted citizenship laws according to this model during the 19th century, as did Japan, which modeled its constitutional law on that of continental Europe.

France is an exception. The French Revolution broke this feudal link, and jus sanguinis prevailed. At the end of the 19th century, France reverted to jus soli to beef up its population, after losing the war against Prussia, and to integrate foreign communities, a step that would make for a strong military. The British, however, kept jus soli at home and throughout the British Empire.

Countries such as the United States chose jus soli, as would be expected in a country of immigrants. With the specific aim of protecting the birthright of black slaves, the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment in 1868 encoded the jus soli principle.

The relatively limited benefits of US citizenship versus US residency— a topic relevant to more than the United States, which deserves separate consideration—also meant limited fiscal costs of providing citizenship to a newcomer and the potential upside of an extra worker. (The cost of education fell on the migrant’s home country; see Bertocchi and Strozzi 2010).

Similarly, Canada, a large and sparsely populated country, welcomed immigrants with a jus soli citizenship law.

In colonized countries, citizenship laws were in general initially transferred from the colonial power (Bertocchi and Strozzi 2010). Countries with a strong national identity, such as China, Egypt, and Japan, typically make it hard to acquire nationality or obtain a second passport.

Other countries— particularly newer Western Hemisphere countries—typically make it easier to be naturalized.

Many African countries, formed by British, French, and Portuguese colonial powers, lacked national cohesion. At independence, citizenship laws were revised: most former French colonies initially stuck with jus soli; former British and Portuguese colonies tended to switch to jus sanguinis, driven by ethnic considerations.

Because many countries were artificially formed without consideration for local ethnic diversity, leading to political instability, jus sanguinis was thought to bolster national identity.

Such was the case in Sierra Leone, for instance, where the 1961 Constitution limited citizenship to transmission by descent, and only for those with black-African fathers and grandfathers. But in a heterogenous ethnic environment with forced migration the law excluded various ethnic and tribal groups, causing alienation and conflict, especially in the context of weak institutions.

The Congolese Constitution of 1964, for instance, in an effort to exclude Rwandan immigrants, recognized as citizens only those whose parents were members of tribal groups established within the territory before 1908 (see Bertocchi and Strozzi 2010). Predictably, the marginalization of certain groups—and in some cases the creation of de facto stateless people who would later rebel—was a consequence.

How do citizenship rights affect economic development? The data vividly illustrate the striking difference in the average real GDP per capita in jus soli countries versus non–jus soli developing economies.

In 2014, income per capita in the former group was 80 percent higher than in the latter. Splitting the sample of non–jus soli and jus sanguinis countries confirms that jus soli countries are richer, but there is no clear pattern when comparing mixed regimes with jus sanguinis countries.

Why the difference? Citizenship laws can be thought of as conflict-resolving or conflict-generating institutions. If inclusive, they can provide positive social capital, raising trust, cutting transaction costs, and reducing the probability and intensity of conflict.

This is especially true when other conflict-resolution institutions lack teeth (for example, government is corrupt or the courts are weak), as in most developing economies. In principle, jus sanguinis makes integration more difficult and hence hurts economic development.

There are several channels:

Distorting (and reducing) investment: Investors who lack the prospect of obtaining citizenship have shorter time horizons, are mindful of excessive exposure to one country, and become wary around election times—they are particularly vulnerable in countries with weak institutions.

In addition, their investment is distorted. If people’s property rights are not well protected because they lack local citizenship, the focus will be on investment with a quick payback or requiring limited capital. In Cambodia and Madagascar, for example, foreigners may not purchase land, which restricts investment.

Political instability and corruption: Minorities without citizenship are often at polar extremes—either excluded from economic life or playing a disproportionately significant role in the local economy. Without citizenship, the marginalized minority cannot vote or impact public life through democratic means. One way for disenfranchised groups to draw attention to themselves is through protests or violence.

This may spur governments to suppress these minorities, possibly increasing military spending and weakening growth as a result. Conversely, when a nonnational group plays a disproportionately significant role in economic life, its lack of protection by the state is a source of concern.

Because of their vulnerability, influential minorities are motivated to influence the political process and may resort to bribes, which encourages corruption and weakens institutions.

Reducing public sector efficiency: Studies have documented how divisions—whether ethnic, religious, or linguistic—often undermine public sector performance, increasing patronage, lowering trust among the population, and ultimately hurting economic development (see Easterly and Levine 1997).

Distorting the labor market: Under jus sanguinis, noncitizen local minorities may be excluded from parts of the labor market. In many countries, immigrants are barred from entire professions. For instance, in Thailand foreigners cannot become hairdressers or accountants.

In France, people from outside the European Union are not allowed to become directors of funeral companies. In these cases, jus soli expands the labor market in a way that jus sanguinis law does not—potentially broadening the labor pool and boosting the economy’s efficiency.

Our empirical results confirm that the difference in citizenship laws affects economic development, even after controlling for potential internal factors. We first compiled a new data set of citizenship laws and then estimated whether citizenship laws can explain in part the significant differences in income per capita across countries.

We found that in developing economies, particularly when institutions are weak, citizenship laws matter: jus soli, which is more inclusive in nature and encourages assimilation and integration, has a statistically significant and positive impact on income levels.

Per capita income in countries that switched to jus sanguinis was lower in 2014 (by about 46 percent) than it would have been if they had kept jus soli after independence, our results suggest.

Moreover, our research found that in jus sanguinis countries, the income gap with jus soli countries could be reduced by easier access to citizenship through marriage and naturalization. This suggest some substitutability among the paths to citizenship.

The debate over citizenship laws has been raging for the past few years—not just in developed economies but in those that are developing as well. We illustrate that such laws have a more material impact on development in lower-income countries, partly because their institutions are weaker and don’t necessarily counterbalance the negative impact of exclusive citizenship laws.

The policy implications are clear, though nuanced. At a time when developing economies increasingly send emigrants and receive immigrants, integrating these populations effectively can spur economic development.

In former colonies in particular, jus sanguinis has hurt development. All else equal, switching from jus sanguinis to jus soli can potentially enhance integration and boost economic growth.

The post Citizenship & Growth: Inclusive Citizenship Laws Tend to Foster Economic Development appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

Patrick Amir Imam is the Resident Representative of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Zimbabwe & Kangni Kpodar is Deputy Division Chief in the IMF’s Strategy, Policy, and Review Department and senior fellow at the Foundation for Studies and Research on International Development in Clermont-Ferrand, France.

The post Citizenship & Growth: Inclusive Citizenship Laws Tend to Foster Economic Development appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Minette (38) and her family fled their home in Cameroon’s English-speaking regions after their home was burned down. They have received some plastic sheeting and utensils from the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), and built a temporary kitchen at their new place in Buea. Photo: Tiril Skarstein/NRC

By Tharanga Yakupitiyage
UNITED NATIONS, May 16 2019 (IPS)

The United Nations must act to prevent further devastation from the escalating crisis in Cameroon, human rights groups said.

Since 2016, worsening violence in Cameroon’s Northwest and Southwest regions has killed almost 2,000 people and displaced over 430,000 people.

For years, the UN has remained largely silent about the crisis. Finally, however, the Security Council held an informal meeting on Monday to address the situation in the Central African country. Still, more needs to be done.

“Security Council members should call on the government of Cameroon and leaders of armed separatist groups to end abuses against civilians in the Anglophone regions and hold those responsible for abuse accountable,” said Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) Central Africa director Lewis Mudge.

“This…is an opportunity to remind abusers that the world is watching,” he added.

Norwegian Refugee Council’s (NRC) Secretary-General Jan Egeland made similar comments to the Security Council, lamenting on the lack of attention and humanitarian response: “When brutal fighting displaces hundreds of thousands of civilians, it usually sets international alarm bells ringing. But, the shocking unmet needs of tens of thousands of people fleeing violence in South-West and North-West Cameroon has resulted in no systematic mediation efforts, no large relief programme, little media interest and too little pressure on the parties to stop attacking civilians.”

“The collective silence surrounding the atrocities is as shocking as the untold stories are heart-breaking,” he added.

What started as protests against the growing dominance of the French language in anglophone regions in 2016 has turned into a conflict between the government and English-speaking separatists who demand a new independent state of “Ambazonia.”

Cameroonian forces have since allegedly cracked down on separatists and local communities, killing scores of civilians, burning homes, and using torture and incommunicado detention with near total impunity.

For instance on Apr. 30, soldiers killed a 16-year-old boy in the Northwest village of Kikaikelaki. According to witnesses, security forces entered the village and started to shoot indiscriminately.

One man also told HRW that authorities burned down and looted 11 homes in the village, stating: “When the military came, I hid for safety. I watched them steal gallons of fuel from a store and set my entire compound on fire. All I had is gone.”

A few days earlier, soldiers raided a health center in the in the Northwest region of Wum in search for wounded separatists and beat some of the medical staff, forcing the clinic to temporarily close.

“As they didn’t find any boys [separatists] they started beating us. I was hit so bad that I could not eat or swallow,” said one nurse.

The armed separatists have also been complicit in the crisis with reports of assaults on soldiers and kidnapping of people, including students and teachers.

In the past three years, at least 70 schools have been destroyed and over 80 percent of schools remain closed, leaving more than 600,000 children out of school in the country’s English-speaking regions.

As Cameroon becomes one of the fastest-growing displacement and humanitarian crisis in Africa, the UN humanitarian chief Mark Lowcock noted that the level of the crisis is “more alarming than ever.”

“Both the humanitarian and the security situation continue to deteriorate and run the risk of spiralling out of control,” Lowcock told the Security Council.

According to the Under-Secretary-General, the number of people in need of humanitarian assistance has increased 30 percent since 2018 to 4.3 million people today. This means one in six Cameroonians need aid, more than half of whom are children.

In the anglophone Northwest and Southwest regions alone, there are more than 1.3 million people that need aid, eight times as many as the year before.

At the same time, Cameroon’s East and North regions are hosting refugees who fled violence from the neighbouring countries of Nigeria and Central African Republic.

Among the biggest challenges is the lack of funding, Lowcock noted.

In 2018, Cameroon’s humanitarian response plan was just 44 percent funded. This year, only 13 percent of its appeal is funded.

Lowcock highlighted the need to increase awareness of the humanitarian situation, improve financing, and address the underlying causes of the crisis.

Egeland echoed the humanitarian chief’s sentiments, stating: “A group of displaced and disillusioned women I met told me that they felt abandoned by the international community, as well as by the conflict parties. They asked me, where is international solidarity? Where are the African organisations, the donor nations? Where is Europe? This conflict has roots in generations of interference from European powers.”

“The absence of a humanitarian response commensurate to the hundreds of thousands of people in great and unmet need is striking. We are too few humanitarian actors on the ground, and we are gravely underfunded,” he added, noting that the UN country team should be given the necessary financial and human resources.

HRW urged the Security Council to make Cameroon a formal item on its agenda and to press an investigation in order to prosecute those responsible.

Mudge also pointed to the need for the country to allow access and cooperate with international human rights organisations. In April, the Cameroon government denied a HRW researcher entry into the country after documenting a deadly attack by security forces in the Northwest region.

“Cameroon’s move to block a human rights researcher and observers shows its determination to conceal its brutality…the UN Security Council should encourage the country to allow access to international human rights organisations and cooperate with them,” Mudge said.

UN Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet, who recently visited Cameroon, also raised the issue of the lack of access for international and national humanitarian actors and highlighted the need to act before the situation spirals “completely out of control.”

“I believe there is a clear – if possibly short – window of opportunity to arrest the crises that have led to hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people, as well as the killings and brutal human rights violations and abuses that have affected the northern and western areas of the country,” Bachelet said.

“It will take significant actions on the part of the Government, and substantial and sustained support from the international community – including us in the UN….the stakes are high, not just for Cameroon itself, but for the whole region,” she added.

Related Articles

• “A Map and Plan”: When Greener Pastures End in a Blazing Desert
• Refugees from Boko Haram Languish in Cameroon
• Stories of Hope from a Cameroon Refugee Camp

The post Cameroon Crisis “More Alarming Than Ever” appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Migrants picked up by the Greek coastal guard in the Mediterranean. The European Union plans to expand its armed border guards from 1,500 to 10,000 by 2027 to patrol its land and sea borders. Credit: Nikos Pilos/IPS.

By Ida Karlsson
BRUSSELS, May 16 2019 (IPS)

The European Union plans to deploy 10 000 armed border guards by 2027 to patrol its land and sea borders. The force will have the power to use armed force on the EU’s external borders.

The European Border and Coast Guard agency, Frontex, currently employs 1 500 border guards and works alongside national border control agencies. The plan is to significantly strengthen the existing force.

The EU guards would intercept new arrivals, stop unauthorised travel and accelerate the return of people whose asylum claim have failed. The guards could also operate outside of the bloc — with the consent of the third country governments concerned.

"The agency will better and more actively support member states in the area of return in order to improve the European Union’s response to persisting migratory challenges,"

Dimitris Avramopoulos, European Commissioner for Migration and Home Affairs

According to the spending plan for 2021 to 2027 proposed by the European commission, the bloc will increase spending on migration and security by 20,3 billion euros.

The plan to strengthen the European Border and Coast Guard agency was announced by European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker in a speech in Strasbourg in September last year.

“External borders must be protected more effectively,” he said.

“The agency will better and more actively support member states in the area of return in order to improve the European Union’s response to persisting migratory challenges,” European Commissioner for Migration and Home Affairs Dimitris Avramopoulos says.

Migration has been a divisive issue within EU since the big influx of refugees in 2015. Fears and concerns over migration have led to right wing parties gaining traction and being elected to government in a number of member states.

However European borders are under much less pressure than they were a couple of years ago. The number of arrivals to the EU fell from a height of over 1 million in 2015 to just 144 000 in 2018, according to the International organization for migration, IOM.

Rights groups have warned against creating a “Fortress Europe” with external processing camps and border guards able to use force.

Philippe Dam, Human Rights Watch’s advocacy director for Europe and Central Asia, says they see a clear shift from asylum and protection to border management and returns.

“The EU strategy is to push asylum seekers and refugees away from EU borders. It raises the question what will be the legal pathways for people in need of protection. This is not going hand in hand with improvements of the asylum system. People are sent back to situations of abuse,” he told IPS.

Human Rights Watch have documented unnecessary violence by national border guards in Greece, Bulgaria and Croatia. Hungary is also locking up people at its border and depriving them of food.

“It is unclear how abuses by the new EU borders are going to be investigated. We see the risk of accountability gaps, ” Dam says.

The post Frontex Mandate Expanded appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Katja Iversen
NEW YORK, May 15 2019 (IPS)

This June, thousands will flock to Vancouver for a global dialogue on how to accelerate progress for girls and women under the banner of power, progress and change.

At the Women Deliver 2019 Conference, the largest in the world for gender equality, delegates will come together to unlock power at three levels: individual, structural, and collective. They will plan for action around how to pull these levers to drive gender parity, especially with regard to women’s economic empowerment.

And not a day too soon. Just last December, the World Economic Forum reported that while the global gender gap is slowly narrowing, the economic participation and opportunity gap stands at 58 percent. Put simply, it will take around 202 years for women to reach economic equality.

The costs of inequality are all of ours to bear. The World Bank estimates that nations leave as much as $160 trillion on the table when women don’t fully participate in national economies.

And we also know the opposite to be true. Research shows that women reinvest more of their income in their families, including in their children’s health and education, than men do—creating a ripple effect that benefits present and future generations.

All this raises an urgent question for decision-makers: If equal economic opportunity is a clear economic and social win for all, why wait 202 years to reap its benefits?

Fortunately, we do not have to wait, provided we take action. The economic gender gap is deep rooted and long standing, which means we have had some years to cook up and test out solutions. The results?

We have learned that if we leverage the power of individuals, structures, and movements to push for girls’ and women’s equal economic participation, we get ourselves a step closer to a gender equal world—along with its dividends.

At the individual level, women around the world are resilient economic agents, overcoming gender-based roadblocks to economic security for themselves and their families every day. Policies and investments that increase their agency over career and finances could go a long way to boost women’s economic empowerment.

And what does a woman with individual agency over career and finances look like? First, she must have access to sexual and reproductive health and rights, including modern contraception and safe abortion—because when a girl or woman can decide whether and when to have children, the chance that she will finish school, get and keep a job, and participate in the economy is much greater.

She also has access to free quality education, including at the secondary and tertiary level. And she has a legal right to resources, including but not limited to the right to access, control, own, and inherit land and capital.

At the structural level, we have also seen tangible progress when governments and corporations move beyond lofty statements on gender equality and reflect their commitments in their budgets and policies.

In 2017, Canada launched its Feminist International Assistance Policy, which targets gender equality in the global fight against poverty. Gender budgeting of this sort—or the practice of earmarking money towards policies that are explicitly mindful of their impact on girls and women – is gaining momentum globally.

Today, gender assessments inform policy decisions and funding allocations in countries like Finland, Ethiopia, and Ecuador.

Corporations have also taken steps to leverage their structural power to lift women up. Global giants like Procter & Gamble, for example, have implementedpay equality across all levels, from junior-level employees to top executives.

Unilever and Nike are showing their strength as in changing the gender narrative through their Unstereotyping and Dream Crazier campaigns. Merck offers flexible work locations, job sharing, compressed workweeks, and back-up childcare.

Companies investing in family-friendly, gender-responsive policies have been rewarded with high returns on their investments, including better worker attendance and increased productivity.

Finally, in an era when women-led and women-focused movements are shaking up the status quo, we have seen the ‘power of the many’ rise to demand work environments and conditions where women can thrive. Movements such as MeToo, #BalancetonPorc, Ni Una Menos, and many others have exposed the magnitude of sexual harassment, misogyny, and gender-based violence in workplaces globally.

Through critical debates, these movements have sparked energy and action to end harassment in the workplace, pay women their fair share, and push for family-friendly policies that allow half the workforce equal rights and opportunity as both workers and earners.

Meanwhile, projects like Girls Who Code, W2E2, and Samasource—and initiatives like International Day of Women and Girls in Science—have surfaced globally to secure a place for women in the future of work. This call to action to nurture female talent in Science, Technology, Education and Math (STEM) is vital, since the fields expecting the most growth are known for low female representation.

For example, girls and women make up only 22% of the AI workforce, lag behind men in digital fluency, and are less likely to study science, technology, engineering, and math. This comes with serious consequences for women’s ability to enter, remain, and advance in the workforce of today and tomorrow.

Every day, women all over the world show that they can build informal and formal businesses out of limited capital and resources. The benefits of investing in their access and control over economic opportunity are immense.

The reforms to help women get there are very much on the table—our job is now to create the momentum to scale them up.

This year’s Women Deliver conference will ask participants to reflect on how they can and will use their power for good. The world will be watching. How will you use yours?

*The original article appeared in Finance and Development published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF)

The post Unlocking the Power of Women appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

Katja Iversen is the President and CEO of Women Deliver*

The post Unlocking the Power of Women appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Droughts are not new to East Africa. However, abnormally high temperatures in the region are linked to climate change and proving deadly for livelihoods and livestock. Credit: Petterik Wiggers/Oxfam

By Siddharth Chatterjee
NAIROBI, Kenya, May 15 2019 (IPS)

There is barely a corner of human life that will not be affected by climate change, and some of its impacts are already being felt. Consider this, 821 million people are now hungry and over 150 million children stunted, putting the hunger eradication goal, SDG 2, at risk.

Today 15 May, is the United Nations International Day of Families and the theme for this year is, ‘Families and Climate Action’.

The wellbeing of families is central to healthy societies, but is threatened by climate change, especially in the poorest parts of the world.

Across the world what we understand by ‘family’ takes many forms, but it remains the fundamental unit of society. It is where from our earliest days we learn to share, to love, to reason, to consider others, to stand up for ourselves and to take responsibility.

But families face challenges on many fronts and – particularly in the developing world – climate change is perhaps the greatest of these as it is exacerbating hunger and food insecurity.

The focus on families and climate has most resonance in Africa, where it is estimated that climate change could reduce yields from rain-fed agriculture by 50 percent by 2020, jeopardizing the welfare of seven in ten people who depend on farming for a living.

“Environment is the foundation of development,” said Kenya’s President, Uhuru Kenyatta when he launched the government’s 1.8 billion tree-planting campaign in May 2018.

When crops are wiped out by flood or drought, families are robbed of livelihoods and food security. Parents who are already financially vulnerable then struggle to meet the costs of housing, feeding and schooling their children, and of paying for medicines when they are sick.

The greatest killers of children – malnutrition, diarrhoeal disease and malaria – will worsen because of climate change. Children living in developing countries face the greatest risks of all, not always because climate change effects will be worse there than in other countries, but because poverty limits their ability to respond.

Nowhere is this truer than in Bangladesh, with its overwhelmingly young population and almost unparalleled vulnerability to the repercussions of a changing climate. A recent report by UNICEF looked at the impact of climate change on families and children in Bangladesh.

“Climate change is deepening the environmental threat faced by families in Bangladesh’s poorest communities, leaving them unable to keep their children properly housed, fed, healthy and educated,” said UNICEF Executive Director Henrietta Fore, who visited Bangladesh in early March 2019.

Increased competition for dwindling natural resources results in political instability, social upheaval, conflicts, forced migration and displacements and once again, children are the main victims. Forced from their homes, many are denied an education, further denting their prospects and threatening social and economic development in some of the poorest areas of the world.

An FAO study says that almost 57% of Kenya’s population lives in poverty, particularly female headed households who are largely reliant on climate-sensitive economic activities including rain fed subsistence or smallholder agriculture.

With Kenya’s considerable advances in mobile technology penetration, important information can be delivered to agricultural actors along the value chain, including weather information and availability and prices of inputs.

With proper investments and policy, Kenya’s youth can spur the transformation of agriculture from subsistence, hit-or-miss propositions to robust commercial operations that can withstand the effects of climate change.

Africa’s biggest threat from climate change will remain the inter-generational downward spiral into deeper poverty that is brought on by decreased farm yields.

Increasing resilience to climate-related shocks in Africa’s agriculture will result in a rise in farm productivity. It will mean women, who make up the largest share of the continent’s small-holder farmers, will have better incomes. Women allocate more of their income to food, health and education for their families, therefore it would also translate into greater gains for children and future generations.

Ending hunger and poverty is the prime mission of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, and will demand dramatic shifts in what and how we consume, and above all it will demand cooperation and collaboration on a regional and global scale.

It will not be easy, but for the sake of every family, everywhere, we cannot fail.

A version of this article originally appeared in Reuters

The post Global Hunger Is Threatening Families Because of Climate Change appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

Siddharth Chatterjee is the United Nations Resident Coordinator to Kenya.

The post Global Hunger Is Threatening Families Because of Climate Change appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Luis Felipe López-Calva
UNITED NATIONS, May 15 2019 (IPS)

Development is a very uneven process, accompanied by heterogeneity in outcomes across sectors, across regions and across income groups. Such process, Albert Hirschman elegantly established about 60 years ago, constantly generates tensions and demands for redistribution of resources and power. In this sense, conflict is inherent to development.

Long term outcomes in terms of prosperity, equity and peace will always depend on the way in which such tensions are processed. Indeed, it depends on the way in which actors interact to solve these tensions; it depends on effective governance.

If tensions are solved by excluding some groups systematically, inequity and violence are more likely to characterize societies. Indeed, we see in Latin America and the Caribbean that violence has become a mechanism to adapt to these tensions and to process conflict.

The Regional Human Development Report 2013-2014 “Citizen Security with a Human Face” showed the ways in which crime and insecurity undermine development in Latin America and the Caribbean. Crime erodes the well-being of citizens and deters economic growth (Enamorado et al, 2013).

Despite recent progress in citizen security and marginal reductions in violence, LAC remains the most violent region in the world. Indeed, a recently released report by Igarape Institute states that while Latin America is home to 8 percent of the world’s population, 33 percent of all homicides take place there.

Moreover, 17 of the 20 countries with them most homicides in the world are in LAC. While, WHO classifies 10 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants as an epidemic, the average in LAC was 24 in 2016, marginally reduced to 21.6 in 2018.*

We see in the figure below that homicide rates in the region, in particular for some countries in Central America and the Caribbean, are much higher than those of countries with similar levels of GDP per capita.

For example, Honduras and Congo have similar GDP per capital rates, however Honduras suffers 56.5 homicides per 100,000 people, while Congo suffers 9.3. Similarly, while Mexico has close to 20 homicides, Montenegro, with a similar GDP per capital, only has 4.5.

The homicide rate in Colombia is over to 25, while in Lebanon it is 4. What explains these high rates of violent crime in LAC?

Villalta, Castillo and Torres offer an overview of existing theories to answer this question in the region. The economic perspective argues that individuals weight the costs (of eventual punishments) and benefits to decide whether they engage in crime or not.

The social-structural perspective views fluctuations in crime and violence as a result of changes in societal structures, culture and institutions; it supports the idea that rising trends in criminality are a consequence of changing labor market conditions, exclusion, and economic crises.

The political perspective argues that recent processes in LAC countries, such as transitions towards democracy, shifts in political agendas or even the “War on Drugs”, have weakened state control and left inefficient local governments in charge of public safety.

Finally, social disorganization theory argues that, similarly to language, roles and social expectations, antisocial and criminal behaviors are socially learned.

According to this view, areas within cities with low low-income levels, racial heterogeneity, and residential instability are more likely to experience social disorganization. Depending on the country context, a combination of these theories helps explain crime in LAC.

Empirical research offers support for the different theories: the sense of impunity in some countries encourages law offenders to engage in criminal activities; the lacks of confidence in police and justice systems sometimes prevent victims from reporting crimes (moreover, it’s not rare that corrupt police collaborate with organized crime in some countries, for money or fear); support for extralegal violence is significantly higher in societies characterized by little support for the existing political system; and the lack of economic opportunities also plays a role as a strong correlation between crime and youth unemployment has been found.

Evidence also demonstrates the effect of inequality in crime (the case of Mexico is discussed by Enamorado et al, 2016).

As I have mentioned in the past, the pavement of development in LAC requires effective governance as pre-condition to improve productivity, inclusion and resilience. That is, effective governance is about creating socio-economic opportunities, strengthening institutions and enhancing citizen security.

These are challenging tasks as these figures show. Fact-based initiatives such as INFOSEGURA which aims to promote and improve the quality of information on citizen security in the region, are critical public policy instruments to address this challenge.

*Homicides rates are expressed per 100,000 inhabitants throughout the post.

The post Devastating Epidemic of Crime & Insecurity in Latin America & Caribbean appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

Luis Felipe López-Calva is UN Assistant Secretary-General and UNDP Regional Director for Latin America and the Caribbean

The post Devastating Epidemic of Crime & Insecurity in Latin America & Caribbean appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Attila Mong
SOFIA, Bulgaria, May 14 2019 (IPS)

Crammed in the small studio of TVN, a regional station in Ruse, north eastern Bulgaria, journalists share stories about their colleague, Viktoria Marinova. Barely six months ago, Marinova was raped and murdered not far from the station, while jogging on the banks of the Danube.

Her colleagues still struggle to accept the loss, but they all agreed that Marinova, who presented mainly lifestyle shows, was not killed because of her journalism. “This is just a tragic coincidence,” said Ioanna Angelova, the chief editor of TVN.

Marinova’s closest colleagues and ex-husband, Svilen Maximov, who owns the TV station and an internet provider in the region, told me they thought that the investigation was professional, and agreed with the prosecutor’s assessment that it was not motivated by her work. However, some journalists said they think there were unanswered questions.

Their skepticism is perhaps understandable in an environment where investigative reporters are harassed, threatened, or subjected to smear campaigns, and where, according to EU polls, 70 percent of people do not trust law enforcement and the judicial system.

“You don’t need to kill or physically attack a journalist here in order to achieve your goals, there are broader, more systemic threats to press freedom,” said Boryana Dzhambazova, a freelance journalist and member of the Association of European Journalists–Bulgaria. Genka Shikerova, an investigative journalist for a national privately owned station, Nova TV, said, “The situation is getting so much worse, that whatever happened, we simply wanted to believe she was killed for her reporting.”

A few days before her death, Marianova hosted “Detektor,” which was intended to be a weekly flagship news program for TVN. The show aired just once–on September 30–broadcasting an interview with Bulgarian and Romanian investigative journalists who were briefly detained by the Bulgarian police while looking into allegations of fraud involving EU funds.

“Viktoria was the face of the show, but the interview was my idea and I recorded it,” her producer, Ivan Stefanov, said. “If somebody could have been killed, that is me.”

A vigil for TVN host Viktoria Marinova, in Sofia, in October 2018. Prosecutors ruled her murder was not related to her work, but the case highlighted the risks for Bulgaria’s investigative journalists. (AFP/Nikolay Doychinov)

I met one of the show’s guests–Bivol reporter Dimitar Stoyanov–in a secure location in downtown Sofia, rather than at the outlet’s offices. The location of Bivol‘s premises remains unknown to outsiders “for security reasons,” Stoyanov said.

He told me that in Bulgaria, the threat of physical violence is considerably greater for local journalists and reporters like their team members, who work outside the country’s big media companies.

The experiences of Georgi Ezekiev, the publisher of Zov News in Vratsa, backs up that view. His outlet published a joint investigation with Bivol in 2017 that implicated police officers in an alleged drug trafficking ring. Afterwards, he said, he and the chief editor Maria Dimitrova were threatened on social media and in text messages, and someone destroyed his car tires.

“One morning, I discovered that the entrance of my house was decorated as a funeral home with flowers, which was clearly a threat,” he said. On November 22, 2017, Bivol published video of man who was allegedly part of the ring, telling the reporters that his former mafia bosses were planning to eliminate Ezekiev. The publisher said that police denied the allegations made in their report.

“There is a real threat of physical violence for journalists who dig into possible links of between organized crime, law enforcement and politics,” Ezekiev said.

A June 2018 statement from Bulgaria to the Council of Europe’s platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists said that the Vratsa district prosecutor’s office rejected Ezekiev’s and Dimitrova’s complaints.

In Ezekiev’s case, the prosecutors ruled that the messages he received “could not in any way be classified as a threat,” and in Dimitrova’s case, “the collected data does not prove that there is threat of murder … the messages contain only obscene words and insults and not threats to her or her relative’s lives or health.”

A spokesperson for the prime minister’s press department did not immediately respond to CPJ’s emailed request for comment.

Despite the risk of threats and harassment, not all investigative journalists are deterred. Sofia was abuzz during my visit with details from a joint investigation by the Bulgarian branch of the U.S. government-funded Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty(RFE/RL) and local non-governmental organization, the Anti-Corruption Fund.

In a scandal referred to as “ApartmentGate,” the outlets reported on allegations that at least six politicians and civil servants with links to the ruling GERB party had bought luxury flats for below-market prices.

The story resulted in Bulgaria’s prosecutor-general launching an official investigation, and four politicians resigning. [They all denied wrongdoing, the Financial Times reported.]

Prime Minister Boyko Borissov said during a press conference on April 8 that the reports proved, “We have absolutely free media. Nothing is left hidden, no matter who is involved.”

However, local journalists pointed out that is it easier for those working for foreign-funded outlets to take on such investigations.

“We have the resources and the freedom to investigate, which is not the case for most of the Bulgarian media outlets,” said Ivan Bedrov, director of RFE/RL’s Bulgarian service. Bedrov said that with the exception of four to five newsrooms, most lack either the freedom or the resources.

Bedrov received me in their office, an apartment in a quiet street in downtown Sofia. “No insignia, just come upstairs,” he told me. When I asked whether they needed to remain hidden, he responded, “Better to be cautious.”

Bedrov told me that after the story was published, they were targeted by a smear campaign in pro-government media that tried to discredit the reporting by presenting conspiracy theories that the journalists were American agents, or that Russians had infiltrated the American-funded organization to attack the Bulgarian government.

When I met Polina Paulova, the investigative journalist who uncovered the scandal, however she seemed relaxed, greeting me with a broad smile. On a cafe terrace in Sofia, overlooking the president’s office and a little further up, the government building, she explained that such an investigation would have been impossible in a purely Bulgarian-funded media outlet.

“You need grants and independence,” she said, arguing that conditions for free reporting have largely deteriorated in recent years. She said she doubted that the judiciary investigation would come to anything “Finito,” she said bitterly, adding that she thinks the case will soon die out as most scandals do.

“The ApartmentGate is a unique case and a lucky coincidence,” said Konstantin Pavlov, a sociologist and researcher at Sofia University. Had it not been for European Parliamentary elections in May, local elections in autumn and the relaunch of RFE/RL, he said, the implications of the scandal could have been different.

“The story has quickly become too big to conceal and the government could not control anymore,” said Pavlov. Big commercial stations picked up the story and even pro-government media outlets covered the political reactions, he said.

However, he said, most Bulgarian media are owned by businessmen who buy outlets not as a financial investment, but to buy favors with the political elite, and journalists working for such outlets may follow their owner’s wishes to keep their jobs. “This is an oligarchic pluralism, at best,” said Pavlov.

A lack of media plurality was highlighted in a 2018 report by the non-governmental organization, Union of Publishers in Bulgaria. Its “White Paper on Media Freedom in Bulgaria” detailed how a conglomerate that it referred to as the “Peevski media empire,” controls an array of national and regional newspapers, television channels, news portals, publishing house, digital television broadcast, and 80 percent of the newspaper distribution market.

It is controlled by Delyan Peevski, the former head of the intelligence services and MP for the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (DPS), an opposition party that mostly support the government, as does his media empire, according to the White Paper.

CPJ sent an email to Peevski for comment through the press department of the DPS and his parliamentary office, but did not immediately receive a reply.

Another challenge for the independent media is smear campaigns. Ivo Prokopiev, publisher of the weekly Capital and the daily Dnevnik, is a regular target of what he and international organizations including the OSCE have described as administrative harassment: record fines for investigative reporting into financial irregularities, ramped up investigations into the publisher’s business dealing, and authorities freezing his assets.

Rossen Bossev, an investigative journalist for Capital, told CPJ that his weekly is often qualified as “fake news” by pro-government newspapers, and that smear campaigns target him and his family, referring to him as an anti-Bulgarian conspirator or U.S. agent.

“Sometimes I feel like a most wanted criminal in the country,” he said, smiling as he recalled how the police showed up one Saturday morning last year at Capital’s newsroom, with a subpoena related to an ongoing defamation lawsuit.

Irina Nedeva, the president of the Association of European Journalists in Bulgaria, told me the that the country was experiencing “the gradual return of political pressure, the type of pressures which characterized Bulgaria, during the 1990s, the early transition years from communism to democracy.”

A 2017 report by the association highlighted pressures from owners and advertisers, and found that 26 percent of journalists admitted to restricting their criticism toward the government and the powerful to satisfy owners. “We expect that our upcoming report in 2019 will record deteriorating conditions,” said Nedeva.

*Attila Mong is a former John S. Knight Journalism Fellow and a Hoover Institution research fellow, both at Stanford University. He was awarded the Pulitzer Memorial Prize for Best Investigative Journalism in 2004 and the Soma Investigative Journalism Prize in 2003.

The post Bulgaria’s Press Navigates Harassment & Threats in Pursuit of Stories appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

Attila Mong* is a freelance journalist and Berlin-based correspondent for the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Europe

 
In October 2018, Viktoria Marinova, a host for TVN, was raped and murdered near the station's studios. When CPJ's Europe correspondent, Attila Mong, spoke with her colleagues and other journalists during a trip to Bulgaria last month, they said that while they don't believe the attack is linked to Marinova's work, it has highlighted the dangers and pressures for investigative reporters.

The post Bulgaria’s Press Navigates Harassment & Threats in Pursuit of Stories appeared first on Inter Press Service.

In order to make the case for privatizing state-owned enterprises, their real problems were often exaggerated in order to make the case for privatization from the 1980s.

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, May 14 2019 (IPS)

Privatization has not provided the miracle cure for the problems (especially inefficiencies) associated with the public sector. The public interest has rarely been well served by private interests taking over from the public sector. Growing concern over the mixed consequences of privatization has spawned research worldwide.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Adverse economic consequences
Both Bretton Woods institutions have long been aware of the adverse impacts of privatization. For example, IMF research acknowledged that privatization “can lead to job losses, wage cuts and higher prices for consumers”. Similarly, World Bank research on Argentina, Bangladesh, Chile, Ghana, Malaysia, Mexico, Sri Lanka and Turkey found huge job losses when big SOEs were privatized.

In the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Chile, Sweden, Russia, Poland, Ukraine, Bulgaria, China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, the Philippines, South Korea, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh in 1999-2004, privatization more adversely affected women workers. IMF and World Bank safety net or compensation proposals were either too costly for the public treasury or too administratively burdensome.

Diverting private capital from productive new investments to buy over existing state-held assets has actually slowed, rather than accelerated economic growth. This significantly diverts funding from productive new investments, augmenting economic capacities, to instead buy over already existing assets. Instead of contributing to growth, this simply changes asset ownership.

Listing privatized SOEs on the stock market subjects them to short term managerial considerations, typically to maximize quarterly firm earnings, thus discouraging productive new investments for the longer term. This short-termist focus tends to marginalize the long-term interests of the enterprise and the nation.

Thus, stock market listing implies the introduction, perpetuation and promotion of a short-termist culture. This is often inimical to the interests of corporate and national development more generally, and improving economic welfare more broadly.

Private ownership not in public interest
Both evenly distributed as well as concentrated share ownership undermine the corporate performance of the privatized enterprise, whereas SOE ownership could overcome such collective action problems. Where the population has equal shares following privatization, such as after ‘voucher privatization’, no one has any particular interest in ensuring the privatized company is run well, worsening governance problems.

Thus, public pressure to ensure equitable share ownership may inadvertently undermine corporate performance. As shareholders only have small equity stakes, they are unlikely to incur the high costs of monitoring management and corporate performance. Thus, nobody has an incentive to take much interest in improving the corporate operations.

This ‘collective action’ problem exacerbates the ‘principal-agent’ problem as no one has enough shareholder clout to require improvements to the management of the privatized enterprise due to everyone having equal shares and hence modest stakes. Conversely, concentrated share ownership undermines corporate performance for other reasons.

Fiscal challenge
Privatization may postpone a fiscal crisis by temporarily reducing fiscal deficits with additional ‘one-off’ revenues from selling public assets. However, in the long-term, the public sector would lose income from profitable SOEs and be stuck with financing and subsidizing unprofitable ones. More resources would also be needed to finance government obligations previously cross-subsidized by SOE revenue streams.

As experience shows, the fiscal crisis may even deepen if new owners of profitable SOEs avoid paying taxes with creative accounting or due to the typically generous terms of privatization. For example, Sydney Airport paid no tax in the first decade after it was privatized even though it earned almost A$8 billion; instead, it received tax benefits of almost A$400 million!

Typically, investments in SOEs do not show up as government development expenditure or debt. Instead, they are hidden away as government-guaranteed debt, which accrue as ‘contingent liabilities’. Thus, the government remains ultimately responsible. Problems arise when government ministers force SOEs to undertake projects, make investments, or buy overpriced equipment or services, especially when not even needed.

Adverse public welfare impacts
Privatization tends to stoke inequality. Due to the macroeconomic consequences of privatization, reduced investments in the real economy would mean less job growth, stagnant wages, or both.

Diversion of available funds to buy existing assets diminishes resources available to expand real economic capacities and capabilities. Thus, by diverting private capital from productive new investments to privatize existing public sector assets, economic growth would be slowed, rather than enhanced.

Privatization gives priority to profit maximization, typically at the expense of social welfare, equity and the public interest. In most instances, such priorities tend to reduce jobs, overtime work opportunities and real wages for employees besides imposing higher user fees or charges on customers or consumers. Thus, privatization, tends to adversely affect the interests of public sector employees and the public, especially poorer consumers.

Short-termist developmentalism?
Investments by the new private owners are typically focused on maximizing short-term profits, and may therefore be minimized. Profit-maximizing commercial or ‘economic’ costing has generated various problems, often causing services and utilities, such as water and electricity, to become more inferior or expensive.

Without subsidies, privatized companies typically increase living costs, e.g., for water supply and electricity, especially in poorer, rural and more remote areas. Thankfully, technological change has reduced many telecommunication charges, which would otherwise have been much higher due to privatization.

Privatization was supposed to lead to fair competition, but private owners have an interest in retaining SOEs’ privileges. Hence, there has been concern about: (i) formal and informal collusion, including cartel-like agreements; (ii) privileged bidding for procurement contracts and other such opportunities; and (iii) some interested parties enjoying special influence and other privileges.

Costs of living have undoubtedly increased for all. Privatization has often resulted in dualistic provision of inferior services for the poor, and superior services for those who can afford more.

The implications of dual provision vary greatly, and may well be appreciated by those who can afford costlier, but better, privatized services, especially as many resented cross-subsidization of services to the needy.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram, a former economics professor, was United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development, and received the Wassily Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought.

The post Privatization Solution Worse than Problem appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

In order to make the case for privatizing state-owned enterprises, their real problems were often exaggerated in order to make the case for privatization from the 1980s.

The post Privatization Solution Worse than Problem appeared first on Inter Press Service.

One in three people in the UK changed their attitude towards disability thanks to the London 2012 Paralympic Games. Employment for persons with disabilities in the United Kingdom grew by nearly one million since June 2013. Pictured here is an athletics event from the London 2012 Paralympic Games. Credit: Nick Miller/CC By 2.0

By Tharanga Yakupitiyage
UNITED NATIONS, May 14 2019 (IPS)

The power of sport can help make global sustainable development a reality, and such power transcends cultural, linguistic and even physical barriers.

In recent years, disabled athletes have gained greater visibility—an essential step in recognising their talent, abilities, and importance.

In December, the United Nations General Assembly formally recognised the power of sport as an “enabler” of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including the “invaluable contribution” of the Paralympic Movement in promoting peace, development, and greater inclusion.

“[The Resolution] reaffirms the universality of sport and its unifying power to foster peace, education, gender equality and sustainable development at large,” International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) President Thomas Bach said.

“Thanks to the UN, we now have a strong tool that encourages states and sports organisations to work together and develop concrete best practices,” he added.

Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed reiterated these sentiments recently, noting the important role that sport has played in all societies throughout history.

“Sport can help promote tolerance and respect, contribute to the empowerment of women and young people, and advance health, education and social inclusion,” she said on the International Day of Sport for Development and Peace.

“Let us intensify our shared efforts to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and truly recognise the power of sport to change the lives of individuals, communities, countries and beyond,” Mohammed added.

Just last week, a campaign by the International Paralympic Committee was awarded with the UN Sustainable Development Goals Action Award.

The ‘Transforming Lives Makes Sense for Everyone’ campaign features three short films which reveal the impact of the London 2012 Paralympic Games on employment for persons with disabilities which, in the United Kingdom, grew by nearly one million since June 2013.

The group also found that one in three people in the UK changed their attitude towards disability thanks to the London games.

However, such work starts at the grassroots level.

In Nepal, the National Women’s Blind Cricket Team won the First International Women’s Blind Cricket Series held in Pakistan in February 2019, proving that women with disabilities can be successful competitive athletes.

“People living with disabilities often undermine their ability to play sports due to mobility restrictions and negative stereotypes and perceptions towards people living with disabilities. But despite these challenges, my team and I persisted,” said team captain Bhagwati Bhattarai-Baral.

“I feel proud to have represented my country in an international platform. It has also boosted my confidence and sense of leadership. People in my community have now started believing that blind players are as capable as anyone else. If provided with opportunities, women and girls with disabilities can also demonstrate competence,” she added.

Similarly, at the age of 12, Mohamed Mohasin’s passion for cricket grew as he started playing the sport with his classmates, despite having had polio as an infant which damaged his legs.

The sight of a batter in a wheelchair often drew his local community of Morkun in Bangladesh to watch him play.

Mohasin’s ambition did not stop there. Since wheelchair cricket players are excluded from Paralympic cricket, he asked himself, “Why not start a wheelchair cricket team?”

After a long road full of obstacles, including lack of funding and misperceptions, Mohasin finally established the Wheelchair Cricket Welfare Association Bangladesh (WCWAB) in 2010 and became the captain of the National Wheelchair Cricket Team to help ensure the participation of physically challenged youth as well as to showcase their talents.

“Earlier the scenario was too difficult as people very rarely imagined that the disabled can play outdoor games in Bangladesh. But we have proved through wheelchair cricket that this is possible,” Mohasin said.

“Things are now changing, and we are getting lots of interested people and players,” he added.

The team, which was formed with 26 players, has grown exponentially to around 200 players, 170 of whom are registered wheelchair cricketers.

They organised the first ever National Wheelchair Cricket Tournament in Bangladesh in 2016, and have since participated in major tournaments such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) International Cricket Tournament in Bangladesh, Asia Cup in India, and won the Taj Mahal Trophy in 2014 as well as the International Bilateral Wheelchair T20 Cricket Series. Young Bangla, the largest youth forum in Bangladesh, also recognised Mohasin and WCWAB as one of the top 10 youth initiatives in the country.

Despite obstacles, Bhattarai-Baral and Mohasin both continue to inspire others and promote a future where disabled persons are recognised.

Related Articles

• Accessible Public Transportation and Housing, a Need for People with Disabilities in Major Cities
• Disabled Caribbeans Find Freedom in Technology

The post Spotlighting the ‘Abilities’ in ‘Disabilities’ appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Haider A. Khan
DENVER, May 13 2019 (IPS-Partners)

With the most recent spat between China and the US—not uncharacteristically if unintentionally engineered by Trump’s announcement of increasing tariffs from ten per cent to twenty five percent unless China agrees to his “deal”whatever that may be we seem to be back to the drawing board in the ongoing US-China trade war. Last week I received news from many experts including our own China watchers that a deal was imminent. Although my esteemed colleague Prof. Zhao was also in this group, he sagely pointed out even such a deal and seeming end of the trade war will not resolve the fundamental rivalries between US, the status quo power and China, the rising power. Now it seems that he had left out of the equation the unpredictable nature of Trump’s behavior.

Haider A. Khan

James Massey, a former FBI crisis negotiator, may be closer to the truth than my academic colleagues in this instance. Massey is not convinced that US President Donald Trump has the ‘discipline or patience, or an appreciation for the strategic instruments that successful international relations require’ I confess I am only an economist. But unlike many other economists I have made the well-confirmed findings of the rapidly advancing field of cognitive science and cognitive psychology the cornerstone of my microanalysis of human economic behavior. Although this new 21st century science is no guarantee for certainty—quite the contrary, in fact— a cognitive analyst would point to the tendency of Trump to bully people into submission. But what may work with relatively powerless underlings will almost certainly not work with even an opponent in the international arena much weaker than the US in economic and military terms. The crucial factors on the other side are minimum defense capability and political will to withstand pressure.

China is not a weak opponent. It also has more than a minimum defense capability and plenty of political will to withstand pressure from bullies like Trump and his cronies. Trump and his gang may have met more than their match in Chinese leadership under Xi. Such is also the verdict of experts in psychological warfare.

According to them Trump’s default negotiating style that consists of bombast, threats and litigation domestically may be largely ineffective internationally against leaders like Xi. All evidence also points to another major difference between Trump and Xi. While the latter seems to be good at focused listening that may be the key to dealing with tense negotiations, Trump seems inattentive to details, narcissistic and intent on humiliating his adversaries. That is not the surest path to global leadership when the relative power of the US is nowhere near what it was immediately after WW2. A reality-check should suggest working multilaterally with other global leaders in mutually respectful and beneficial partnership. Unfortunately, that is not the art of the deal that Trump administration cares about very much.

So, what is likely to happen? I am not so eager to predict possibilities especially in light of how wrong my colleagues have been in this fraught area. But if I had to bet, I would put my money on the proposition that China will keep the doors open for negotiation, but will never submit to bullies like Trump. There must be analysts in Washington and in the US universities and think tanks who have read the history of the Chinese revolution and the role both nationalist and anti-imperilalist ideas played in this process. The Chinese fought patiently a long political and military anti-imperialist war to liberate their country. Whatever differences may exist among the leadership and within the people, they will be united against foreign bullying and pressure. Meaningful negotiations with China can begin only if the US and other powers recognize this historically based cognitive reality.

The post Trump and China: The Art of Deal or Clumsy Bullying? appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Andrew Norton
LONDON, May 13 2019 (IPS)

The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’ report on the global state of biodiversity is shocking but not entirely surprising. The question is, how much more evidence and repeated warnings will it take for governments, companies and financial institutions to wake up to the urgency and act?

The accelerating destruction of nature and climate change are the twin emergencies threatening humanity today. There is no more time for inaction or delay ― the report’s findings are loud and clear.

The report lays out the scale of the unfolding crisis. Around one million animal and plant species are threatened with extinction, many within decades. Three-quarters of the land-based environment and about two-thirds of the marine environment have been significantly altered by human actions.

With new areas such as the high seas and Arctic increasingly accessible due to technological developments and climate change, this will increase if urgent and effective action is not taken.

We are all dependent on the rich diversity of nature for our quality of life – and ultimately for our survival. But our actions, from over-fishing to the pursuit of monocrops and the destruction of natural forests, are undermining the complex natural world at an unprecedented rate.

This is everybody’s problem. For years, the issue of biodiversity and its fate have been treated as niche subjects. But without stopping the acceleration of its destruction, none of the environmental and development challenges – from tackling climate change and upholding the Paris Agreement to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals – can be achieved.

Radical, comprehensive changes are needed to save the diversity of life on which we all depend. The climate crisis amplifies the threat to global biodiversity in multiple ways.

The accelerating die-back of coral reefs due to rising ocean temperatures is a striking example. Acting with urgency to get to net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible is absolutely key to protecting nature and people alike.

Governments must act immediately to end the destructive subsidies, including for fossil fuels and industrial fishing and agriculture, which are driving us towards ecological collapse. These encourage the plundering of the land and ocean at the expense of a clean, healthy and diverse environment on which billions of women, children and men depend now and in the future.

The money saved should be used to support sustainable industries that provide livelihoods for men and women living in poverty, such as small-scale fisheries and give incentives for the preservation of the natural world on a global scale.

Such resources could be used to support a green jobs guarantee whereby people can be supported to work on both the energy transition and on maintaining landscapes that are carbon and biodiversity-rich, safeguard key habitats, and provide the multiple benefits to human society that come from healthy ecosystems.

Importantly, the report highlights the key role that indigenous peoples and local communities’ play in the fight to save nature. Although biodiversity is declining in their areas due to land being under increasing pressure from extractive industries, infrastructure development and agriculture, it is declining more slowly, reflecting the valuable role they play in the stewardship of the natural world.

It is imperative that greater attention is given to strengthening indigenous and local communities’ rights to manage their land and resources sustainably. They must be able to play an active part in all efforts to conserve biodiversity, while their right to use nature is protected.

People who are living in poverty are being disproportionately hit by the destruction of nature, which as the report shows, is accelerating faster than at any other time in human history. From rural women in poor countries who have the responsibility to gather wood for fuel, to people in informal settlements who are becoming more vulnerable to storm damage due to the loss of such natural barriers as mangroves, poverty goes hand-in-hand with precarious lives that are extremely vulnerable to ecological collapse.

It is crucial the progress that has been made in development is not undone by the interconnected crises of biodiversity loss and climate change.

The contribution that diverse nature and natural ecological systems make to development ― for both rich and poor ― needs to be included in economic decisions made by governments and business. Without it, development gains will increasingly be lost and ultimately, the foundations of our economies and societies will be threatened.

The post Urgent Action Vital to Stop Twin Crises of Nature’s Destruction & Climate Change appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

Andrew Norton is Director of the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)

The post Urgent Action Vital to Stop Twin Crises of Nature’s Destruction & Climate Change appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Jan Lundius
STOCKHOLM / ROME, May 13 2019 (IPS)

On 25 April, Joseph Biden announced his candidacy for the US presidency, declaring that his decision was based on fears of Trump being re-elected:

• ”He will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation, who we are, and I cannot stand by and watch that happen.”1

Joe Biden´s statement mirrors rising concerns that Trump´s agenda, characterized by isolationism, xenophobia and anti-multilaterism is threatening not only the US, but the entire world. Our biosphere, the absolute fundament of human existence, is on the verge of collapsing, while petty ”national interests” are sabotaging an international unity that might reverse a catastrophic development.

A blatant example of the Trump adminstration´s refusal to engage in crucial inititives to save the planet was when the US on the 10th of May refused to sign an amendment to the UN Basel Convention.2 The agreement that was signed by 187 countries intends to restrict an ongoing dumping of hard-to-recycle plastic waste to poorer countries.

Can the world afford to watch the Trump administration withdraw US participation from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the UN Human Rights Council, as well as less known treaties such as the Universal Postal Union? US representatives have walked out of negotiations on the Transpacific Partnership Trade Agreement and the UN Global Compact for Migration, as well as renouncing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), i.e. the Iran Deal. Furthermore, the Trump administration has announced the US withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Agreement with Russia and ended cooperation with UN rapporteurs on human rights violations within the US, while cutting down funding for UN Peacekeeping and UN agencies dealing with human rights, Palestinian refugees, population control, sustainable development and global warming.

Contempt for multilateralism and cynical exploitation of fears for negative impacts of immigration are being expressed by the slogan America First, which Donald Trump in March 2016 declared as a theme for his administration.3 He used the phrase in his inauguration address and it was part of the title of the federal budget for 2018,4 referencing to increases to the military, homeland security and cuts to spending towards foreign countries. The history of this specific slogan may expose some of the xenophobia and isolationism lurking behind Trump´s politics.

The phrase was first used in the summer of 1915. The Committee for Immigrants in America had by the beginning of the last century been founded by Francis Kellor, who during social work in teeming tenements of New York had been shocked by immigrant women´s victimization. She decided that the only way to amend the appalling situation would be a solid, governmental effort of Americanization of all immigrants, i.e. forcing them to learn English and as soon as possible integrate them into The American Way of Life. Kellor´s views came over a number of years to have a great influence over US politics. However, the social objectives soon faded away, overtaken by fears that harmful influences brought from abroad by unwanted immigrants would eventually erode the American nation from within. The Committee for Immigrants´ original motto was thus changed from Many Peoples, But One Nation to America First.

The slogan became a common feature in populist harangues by the media tycoon William Randolph Hearst, the model for Orson Welles´s famous movie Citizen Kane and an unscrupulous manufacturer of fake news. America First also became a salient propaganda feature during election campaigns of both Woodrow Wilson and Warren G. Harding. How could a battle cry for isolationism and xenophobia develop in a nation constituted by people from all over the world, which leaders furthermore tend to present their political system as a beacon of freedom and tolerance?

Already by the 17th century, several European settlers had through the Reformation become convinced that Catholicism was steeped in the moral depravity of tyrannical popes. Anti-Catholicism became a fundamental conviction among Anglo-Saxon puritans who dominated colonial settlements. From England and Germany they had brought with them a strong belief in constant threats from Catholic conspirators. Such fears later fed into an aversion against Irish and Italian immigrants. Concerns that soon were coupled with suspicions that migrants coming from countries suppressed by popes, emperors and other despots were likely to nurture dangerous, radical ideas, entirely different from peaceful notions of ”orderly and hardworking” Anglo-Saxons, who had inherited their moderateness from freedom-loving, imaginary Goths. This ”primitive tribe” became a collective designation for Angles, Saxons and Jutes, considered to be the ancestors of English, Dutch, Scandinavian and German immigrants. When radical refugees and persecuted Jews appeared from Europe, such befuddled notions merged with The Red Scare, a conviction that desperate politics emerging from a class-ridden Europe, like anarchism and Bolshevism, would eventually destroy American democracy.

In 1916, these fears were by Madison Grant in his influential book The Passing of the Great Race mixed up with racism. Grant warned that hereditary traits, radicalism and religious beliefs of “inferior white races” would mingle with those of “third-rate people” already present in the US, by whom he meant people of African descent, and “mongrelize” the “Nordic man” into “a walking chaos, so consumed by jarring heredities that he is quite worthless.”5

After World War I, when immigration was resumed after a low ebb and combined with the onset of economic depression, a wave of crime, wrangling in the Congress and the scandalous consequences of prohibition, Anglo-Saxonism, anti-radicalism, anti-Catholicism and racism flooded public opinion. Several US citizens came to believe that social troubles were caused by the tenacity and secret cunning of alien influences, combined with a lack of solidarity and resistance among ”true Americans”. The battle cry of America First echoed through a nation that began to withdraw into itself, while the Government established a nationality quota system, officially based on the pre-existing composition of the American population, but in reality a racist scheme to effectively ban immigration from Asia and Africa and limit migration from countries like Italy, Poland, Russia and Romania. An example – during the first weeks of quota implementation more than a thousand desperate Italians were confined to a ship anchored in the Boston harbour, before being released and repatriated. Later on, the system became better organized and unwanted immigrants were routinely blocked from entering the US.6

Considering this history, the battle cry of America First seems to be an apt slogan for the Trump administration. An anti-immigration stance combined with fears of foreign-inspired terrorism, where ”Catholicism and Judaism” have been superseded by Islam as a threat to the ”American Way of Life”. Where East and South Europeans, Asians and Africans have been superseded by Mexicans and Central Americans as dangerous invaders. Where ”circling the wagons” no longer means protecting settlers from the native population, but support to contempt of multilateralism that makes the policymakers of an entire nation prepared to expose the whole world to lethal danger. A more apt slogan than America First and Let´s Make America Great Again would probably be the French President Emmanuel Macron´s alternative motto Making our Planet Great Again.

If Joe Biden sincerely means that ”climate change is an existential threat to our future and that remaining in the Paris Agreement is the best way to protect our children and global leadership”7 combined with his experience of and support to international cooperation, he might become an able president, in spite of his advanced age and occasional gaffs. Let us hope that he and the many well-intentioned and rational US citizens will be able to restore faith in their institutions and their capacity to engage in mulitareal cooperation.

1 Burns, Alexander and Jonathan Martin (2019) “Joe Biden Announces 2020 Run for President, After Months of Hesitation” The New Times, April 25.
2 The Covention intends to control transboundary movements of hazardous waste and their disposal
3 Haberman, Maggie and David E. Sanger (2016) “Transcript: Donald Trump Expounds His Foreign Policy Views” The New York Times, March 26.
4 America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again.
5 Quoted in Higham, John (1981) Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860 – 1925. New York: Atheneum, p. 272.
6 Most of the information above is based on Higham´s book.
7 Joe Biden´s twitter on May 31, 2017.

Jan Lundius holds a PhD. on History of Religion from Lund University and has served as a development expert, researcher and advisor at SIDA, UNESCO, FAO and other international organisations.

The post America First as a Threat to Mulitlateralism appeared first on Inter Press Service.

The girls were promised jobs in Malaysia and brought from refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar. – AFP/File

By Editor, Dawn, Pakistan
May 12 2019 (IPS-Partners)

(Dawn) – Twenty-three teenage Rohingya girls were rescued after being brought from refugee camps to the capital Dhaka to be sent to Malaysia by air, Bangladesh police said on Sunday.

Dhaka police also arrested four human traffickers including a Rohingya couple and recovered over 50 Bangladeshi passports from them on Saturday.

Police spokesman Mokhlesur Rahman said they raided a residence in the northern part of the city and found the teenagers hiding in a room behind a tailoring shop.

“They were promised jobs in Malaysia and brought from refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar,” he told AFP, referring to the Rohingya settlements in Bangladesh’s southeastern coastal district.

The girls — aged between 15 and 19 — could have been potential victims of forced prostitution, the official said.

“We have filed cases against the four arrested persons and sent the girls back to their camps in Cox’s Bazar,” Rahman said.

Abul Khair, local police chief of Ukhiya, where Kutupalong, the largest refugee camp in the world, is situated, said he received the girls and would send them to their homes in the camps.

Some 740,000 Rohingya Muslims fled a brutal military clampdown in Myanmar in August 2017 and arrived in Bangladesh to join another 300,000 already living in the refugee camps.

Desperate for a better life and an economic future, the refugees, including in particular teenage girls, easily fall prey to human traffickers roaming in the overcrowded camps.

Thousands of the refugees have risked their lives travelling to Malaysia and Thailand — mainly by boat — when the Bay of Bengal is calm before monsoon season sets in at the end of May.

Bangladeshi authorities have stopped over 300 Rohingya this year alone from attempting such perilous boat journeys on rickety fishing boats.

Many have also attempted to fly to Malaysia and Middle Eastern countries by procuring Bangladeshi passports and travel documents.

Jishu Barua, an aid worker specialised in human trafficking prevention, said he dealt with 100 cases of human trafficking in the camps in the last six weeks.

“But this figure represents only a small portion of what is actually going on,” he told AFP.

This story was originally published by Dawn, Pakistan

The post Bangladesh rescues 23 Rohingya girls from traffickers appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Gul Jan, 90, and her family fled their village in Ab Kamari district and went to Qala-e-Naw in search of drinking water and food during the 2018 drought in Afghanistan. When this photo was taken in 2018, she, her son Ahmad and her four grandchildren had been living in a makeshift home in the Farestan settlement for internally displaced people for at least four months. Courtesy: NRC/Enayatullah Azad

By Tharanga Yakupitiyage
UNITED NATIONS, May 11 2019 (IPS)

More people are displaced inside their own countries than ever before, and only higher figures can be expected without urgent long-term action, a new report found.

Launched by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center (IDMC) of the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), the new Global Report on Internal Displacement examines trends in internal displacement worldwide and has found a dismal picture.

“This year’s report is a sad reminder of the recurrence of displacement, and of the severity and urgency of IDPs’ needs. Many of the same factors that drove people from their homes now prevent them from returning or finding solutions in the places they have settled,” said IDMC’s Director Alexandra Bilak.

“The findings of this report are a wake-up call to world leaders. Millions of people forced to flee their homes last year are being failed by ineffective national governance and insufficient international diplomacy. Because they haven’t crossed a border, they receive pitiful global attention,” echoed NRC’s Secretary-General Jan Egeland.

According to the report, over 41 million people were estimated to be living in internal displacement as of the end of 2018, 28 million of which were new displacements.

A majority were due to natural disasters and just three countries accounted for 60 percent of all new disaster-related displacements.

While many were saved, many are also still without homes.

“Of course, evacuating people saves their lives but doesn’t mean that they don’t remain displaced after the crisis ends particularly if their houses have been destroyed,” IDMC’s Head of Policy and Advocacy Bina Desai told IPS.

For instance, the Philippines alone recorded almost four million displacements, more than any other country worldwide. A significant portion were displaced as a result of pre-emptive evacuations to mitigate the impacts of typhoons between July and December 2018.

Desai expressed concern that despite investment in disaster risk reduction, communities continue to be highly exposed and remain vulnerable.

“Displacement is becoming not a one-off issue but more and more cyclical and repeated experience for people,” she said.

Displaced families receive household items in North Kivu province, Democratic Republic of the Congo. Photo: Norwegian Refugee Council/Martin Lukongo.

The report also found that internal displacement is an increasingly urban phenomenon, both as communities become displaced from conflict in cities such as Hodeidah in Yemen to IDPs seeking refuge in urban centres such as Mogadishu in Somalia.

Desai also noted that those in search of safety in cities are often at risk of displacement again.

In Somalia, authorities have forcibly evicted thousands of IDPs who often live in informal settlements and have even demolished houses, leaving them homeless again.

Among the worst mass eviction incidents occurred in December 2017 when 35,000 people living in 38 IDP settlements were evicted after a dispute about land ownership.

As cities continue to be a sanctuary and grow exponentially in size, local residents also face heightened risk of displacement as a result of natural disasters.

IDMC calculated that approximately 17.8 million people worldwide are at risk of being displaced by floods every year, 80 percent of whom live in urban or periurban areas.

Desai highlighted the need for long-term investment in long-term measures in order to help prevent displacement in the first place including disaster-resilient infrastructure and resilience-building. Understanding displacement risks must therefore be an essential component in development plans.

“Any investment decision you make in development planning, be it in education or health infrastructure or security measures, will have an impact on future risk which will go either up or down,” she told IPS.

“It is not like an external event that actually pushes people out of their homes, but it is the way that they are exposed or vulnerable to that hazard event that will determine whether they are at risk of displacement,” Desai added.

However, funding for disaster risk reduction (DDR) remains woefully insufficient.

According to the Overseas Development Institute, just 0.4 percent of the total amount spent on international aid went to DDR in the last two decades.

But at the end of the day, the solution is largely political.

“Ultimately, if national governments do not have an interest and do not have an incentive in investing in and reducing internal displacement, it won’t happen,” Desai said, pointing to the need to provide strong data and evidence that relates to political priorities and provide incentive to act.

While most governments continue to be concerned with refugee flows, it is imperative to also focus on IDPs who often turn into refugees when there are no solutions or options left for them. 

“We do think IDPs deserve much more visibility…the urgency is clear because we have seen those places where we do have strong data that not just people themselves are immensely affected but also development gains are being eroded,” Desai said.

“Host communities and countries that have high levels of internal displacement are not going to be able to achieve their national development goals or the international sustainable development goals,” she added.

“All displaced people have a right to protection and the international community has a duty to ensure it,” Egeland echoed.

Related Articles

• 1m Rohingyas at severe health risk
• West Africa’s Fine Line Between Cultural Norms and Child Trafficking
• Education for All—Refugees Too

The post Internal Displacement “Deserves Visibility” appeared first on Inter Press Service.