In case you’ve been busy studying (as I know many of you are) Democracy Now! offers incredibly articulate coverage of the tension over proposals at the COP15 in Copenhagen this week.

Interviews with Bolivian and Uruguayan negotiators, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, 15 year old climate ambassadors from the Maldives and more!  Check it out!

http://www.democracynow.org/

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and human rights.” - UN Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

Thursday, International Human Rights Day, Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) hosted a special screening of The 800 Mile Wall.  The film highlights the impact of new walls along the U.S.-Mexico border on migrants trying to cross into the U.S. and the communities that receive them.

The Tohono O’odham Nation, for example, has seen an unprecedented number of bodies recovered on their tribal territory in Arizona.  The wall funnels migrants directly onto the reservation.  Tohono O’odham Tribal Members, Mike Wilson and David Garcia, have spent the past year filling water stations for those who crossing the desert.  Though Tohono O’odham tribal leaders have approved water trucks for horses and cows in the same area, they have prohibited Mike and David’s water stations.

In California’s Imperial Valley, hundreds drown in the current of the All American Canal.  Despite repeated appeals for improved safety features on the canal, the Imperial Irrigation District Board of Directors ignored the human coast and focused instead on relocating the canal’s carp and bass.

Then, there’s the mistreatment and human rights abuses committed by U.S. border patrol during apprehension, at processing centers, and during the repatriation process.

Violations include: 1) failure to inform migrants of their rights, 2) failure to respect basic dignity of migrants, 3) failure to provide or denial of food, water and medical attention, 4) verbal and physical abuse, 5) inhuman processing conditions and more.  For a comprehensive (and shocking list) see:  Crossing the Line Report Findings & Recommendations by No More Deaths.  According to No More Deaths volunteer, Sarah Roberts, deportees are dumped back across the border into what honestly looks like a refugee camp.  The vast majority of them, she says, will try to cross again.

The film’s message:  U.S. border strategy has not succeeded in stemming undocumented migration; it has succeeded in increasing the number of husbands, wives, grandmothers, and grandaughters who die each year as they try to cross into the United States in search of work.  More than 5,000 migrant bodies have been recovered in U.S. deserts, mountains and canals in the past ten years.  Knowing that many bodies are never found, some put the death toll as high as 10,000.

Congressman Grijalva closed the film by stating: We can no longer afford to dehumanize the question of migration to the United States.  The deaths of undocumented migrants cannot be seen as “collateral damage” of our national security strategy.  The deaths at our nation’s border are systemic.  Ignoring this fact, refusing to deal with the problem at its root (our economic and immigration policy with respect to Mexico; NAFTA anyone?) raises fundamental questions about the United States’ ability to respect and protect human rights.

Human rights should be the guiding principles of national and international law, not get lost in it.  Senator John McCain has been quoted as saying that those who believe that a wall is the answer to our country’s immigration problem do not fully understand the conditions of the human heart.  Not until I sat down to write this post did I discover that non-discrimination was the theme of this year’s International Human Rights Day.

Something to think about…

“Discrimination lies at the root of many of the world’s most pressing human rights problems. No country is immune from this scourge. Eliminating discrimination is a duty of the highest order.” – Navi Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

The 800 Mile Wall is currently touring the United States.  If interested to find or host a screening, please visit their website and contact the film’s director, John Carlos Frey, at john@gatekeeperproductions.com.

It was the beginning of my fifth and final year at the University of Missouri, I had just tacked on a new major, and the majority of my friends had graduated and moved away. How was I going to take an active role in my new department; how was I going to fill this new void in my social calendar; and importantly, how was I going to get a better grip on what I wanted to do after graduation (because this time around I planned to actually do so)? I could… launch a ‘zine. A sexy ‘zine. Yeah! A ‘zine on sexuality and reproductive health, if executed well, would be a seemingly perfect way to engage my peers in a collaborative project that was interesting, meaningful and activating. It would also allow me to explore my interest of sexual and reproductive health. And even better: I may even build a new friendship or two (or thirty).

So, that’s what I did. Last month, I launched an e-zine called BODYTALK at the University of Missouri. BODYTALK is a completely student produced publication that focuses on issues of sexuality, bodies, and reproductive health and is rooted in the belief that cooperative, judgment-free discussion of our own experiences is key to achieving equality and freedom.

The first issue was entitled The Virgin Issue and aimed to start near the beginning of students’ sexual narratives with their first sexual experiences (whether they have had one or not). The next issue, The Medical Issue, is scheduled to release this week and encompasses experiences in which sexuality/sexual bodies and medicine intersect.

Overall, the goal of BODYTALK is to normalize conversations about sexuality at the University of Missouri and to illustrate that our sexual experiences are diverse and all valid. It is a step towards raising students’ consciousness about the complexity of sexuality and seeks to engage young people in the movement to fight for the protection, equality, and freedom of individuals from all sexual narratives. So far, BODYTALK has received a lot positive feedback. I think the subject matter is particularly relevant to young people in and of itself, but its fresh look (thanks to the incredible graphic artists and designers I work with) and diverse voices have definitely helped catch people’s attention. We were even featured in one of the university newspapers!

Furthermore, BODYTALK grounds itself not only in discussion but also in action. So, to concretely illustrate how campus level sexual and reproductive health issues raised in BODYTALK can translate into political action for global sexual and reproductive health and rights, BODYTALK will host a Reproductive Health Forum March 2010 in collaboration with Americans for Informed Democracy and Advocates for Youth. As part of the International Youth Speak Out Tour, the two-day forum will feature international youth from Ethiopia, Nigeria and Jamaica and train students to effectively speak with policymakers. The Forum will give us the opportunity to learn about the sexual and reproductive health experiences of our global peers and speak to policymakers about what we, as young people, think the US can do to help increase access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information and services for young people worldwide.

Wanna take a peek? Check out the first issue of BODYTALK here and become a fan of BODYTALK on facebook here. The second issue will be out this week; link will be shared on our facebook page as soon as it is launched! For more information about the International Youth Speak Out Tour and Reproductive Health Forums contact Priti@aidemocracy.org.

With the December 6 news that it plans to build twenty new uranium enrichment facilities, Iran has dealt a serious blow to hopes of peacefully resolving its nuclear standoff with the West. After months of courtship by the international community, Iran’s announcement appears to be both a rejection of the West’s advances and a signal of its intent to step up its pursuit of a nuclear program. With the US running out of cards to play, many fear that the two countries are on a collision course to military confrontation.

Much like North Korea, the consequences of an Iranian possession of nuclear bomb are dire. The Obama administration has sought to right the wrong of American Cold War policy, when the US provided its then-ally Iran with nuclear reactors in an attempt to curry favor. Preventing proliferation is a priority for the Obama administration and confirmation that Iran has a nuclear bomb would trigger an arms race in the Middle East, with heavyweights such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia seeking to counter Iranian domination in the region. An Iranian nuclear bomb would also bring Israel and Iran closer to war. Iran’s anti-Semitic leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publicised his hatred of Israel so often that Israeli leaders deem a nuclear-armed Iran an existential threat. Just last year an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear sites was narrowly averted after George W. Bush refused to give Ehud Olmert the green light. The Obama administration has since tried to convince the Israelis of the virtues of diplomacy with Iran, but the latest setback means that hawks in Israel and the US will be circling Iran with greater intensity.

Despite the apparent futility of diplomacy, war mercifully remains a distant prospect. The US will not be eager to wage war in another Muslim nation while it remains hamstrung in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel will be aware that, unlike its attacks on Syrian and Iraqi nuclear sites, a rapid strike on Iran carries more danger, as it will not be enough to fully destabilize Iran’s advanced nuclear program. Thus, sanctions are the next logical option, given Iran’s continued obduracy towards the international community. Of course sanctions have already been imposed and have only served to embolden the Iranian government, yet there is still hope. Obama’s involvement of Russia and China in negotiations has helped project an image of international unity. Hitherto, both countries have been reticent to back more serious measures, but with the stakes increasing, strong trade sanctions supported by the US, Russia and China seem like the most tangible chance of jolting the Iranian government into re-thinking its nuclear strategy while avoiding the need for force.

There are two arguments in favor of Iran’s nuclear program. The first centres on the claim that it is designed solely to generate power. Yet Iran’s dismissal of a UN proposal to take low-enriched uranium (for which it has no practical civilian use) out of the country shows that Iran has more than megawatts in mind. The second argument is comprised of myopic but understandable questions: What about Israel’s nuclear weapons? What about all the other nuclear states? Why can’t Iran have a nuclear bomb too? In reality, any responsible citizen should be advocating for a world free of nuclear weapons, and in fact President Obama has laudably urged India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Ultimately though, as world leaders gather in Copenhagen this week to tackle climate change, Iran must recognize its responsibility to prevent a man-made catastrophe of a different nature.

Michael Collins, December 2009

michael.mc.collins@gmail.com

Want to have an impact on the Copenhagen climate negotiations (but still study for finals?)  Join the Copenhagen Rapid Response Team!

Dec. 7-19, the Energy Action Coalition, its partners, and youth delegates in Copenhagen will be coordinating rapid response team of hundreds of people so that on a moments notice we can generate thousands of phone calls, get our message out to the media, and effectively mobilize together.

The goal of this rapid response team is no small task: to affect the U.S. negotiation position. But if enough of us engage in a timely way together, we can do just that by:

- Using the media to paint a picture of Copenhagen and our expectations for the negotiations and the Obama Administration
- Demonstrating grassroots support for bold action

To find out more and to sign up, visit: http://www.powershift09.org/rapidresponse

Also, if you’re looking for the latest youth generated media around the negotiations, check out the following blogs:

http://www.sustainus.org/

http://www.willstegerfoundation.org/

http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/

http://adoptanegotiator.org/

http://copenhagenperspective.wordpress.com/

And OneWorld.net is broadcasting live! Check out their site and web portal here: http://us.oneworld.net/

Post by Amanda Young, American University ‘13

Last Tuesday, President Obama unveiled his new strategy for the war in Afghanistan at West Point Military Academy. During his speech he announced plans to deploy 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. These troops will have the task of securing major cities and populations so the United States can then begin turning over responsibility to the Afghan forces in 18 months. Finally, there is a light at the end of an eight year long tunnel that cost millions of dollars and hundreds of American and Afghan lives.

As we draw closer to the end of American military presence in Afghanistan, I have to wonder, was it a success? Only time will tell, but if nothing is done to build and strengthen Afghanistan’s infrastructure you can bet these eight years will have been in vain. History has seen it before with World War I. Germany had a huge debt, lacked infrastructure, and had few to no jobs. In such a climate people turned toward extremism and twenty years after the Treaty of Versailles the world would once again find its self amidst a World War. The United States and her allies may have won World War I, but we did not keep the peace. The same idea lies behind Afghanistan. After decades of war and a poor standard of living the people have looked to the only paying jobs; the drug trade and al Qaeda. We were able to stop this vicious cycle in Europe after World War II by rebuilding Europe, creating infrastructures and jobs with the Marshall Plan. Logic tells us that the same thing needs to be done to ensure successful peace in Afghanistan.

On the White House website there are a few lines on“…implementing a civilian-military agriculture redevelopment strategy to restore Afghanistan’s once vibrant agriculture sector”. The White House must implement plans like this immediately after securing the area, so as to give hope and a future to the Afghan people. It is extremely important that the American public and international community stay active and aware even after all the troops are gone. Only then will Afghanistan continue to grow; ensuring lasting peace and we do not find ourselves fighting the same war again in twenty years.

You can find an in-depth break down of his strategy at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/way-forward-afghanistan and the full transcript of the West Point speech at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-address-nation-way-forward-afghanistan-and-pakistan

The election of Porfirio Lobo on November 29 represents a giant leap backwards for Honduras and Latin America as a whole. After months of protracted negotiations, the U.S. government suddenly threw its weight behind the illegitimate coup government of Roberto Micheletti and supported elections under its authority. The shameful episode damages Obama’s credibility in Latin America and sets a dangerous precedent in a region with a chequered past.

Last June, Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was ousted from power at gunpoint by armed soldiers, and the speaker of Congress Roberto Micheletti was installed as interim leader. Zelaya’s “crime” was to plan a public consultation on moves to change the constitution. The coup was roundly condemned by world leaders, with President Obama calling the coup “illegal”. Yet five months later, the U.S. government has changed tack, backing coup-sponsored elections and grossly damaging the democratic process in Latin America.

The role of the U.S. in the Honduras crisis has been pivotal since day one. Obama’s initial condemnation of the coup was welcomed by many pundits, especially since the U.S. has a history of backing right-wing coups in Latin America. The Obama administration’s early strategy focused on returning President Zelaya to power and restoring democracy, while the coup government’s strategy was to hold onto power until it held elections for a new president. The U.S. responded by cutting aid to Honduras and threatened the military-backed regime with continued international isolation until it negotiated a plan that would enable Zelaya to return to the presidency.

Following months of tense standoffs, which involved President Zelaya clandestinely returning from exile to seek refuge in the Brazilian embassy, there was a breakthrough. On October 30, an agreement was brokered by the U.S. State Department that included the restitution of Zelaya to the Honduran presidency. Unfortunately, the U.S. did not enforce a timeframe on restoring Zelaya and coup government was prepared to run down the clock on his term (which ends in January), thus negating the agreement. Then, to the anger of other Latin American leaders, the U.S. decided to back coup-sponsored elections. The stunning volte-face was linked to a state department deal with Republican members of the U.S. Congress (vocal supporters of the coup) wherein the Obama administration recognized elections in exchange for Senate confirmation of its cabinet nominations.

The decision to support the coup completely undermines Obama’s Latin American policy. How can the U.S. lecture Cuba on the merits of democracy when it continues to support coups in the region?  How does Obama expect to repair relations with countries like Venezuela and Bolivia who are already suspicious of U.S. behaviour in the region? Has the Obama administration inadvertently given the green light to other coup attempts? The harsh reality is that Latin American relations do not feature on Obama’s replete radar. A senior staffer in the Senate recently described the role of Obama’s Latin America advisor in the National Security Council as that of “keeping Latin America away from the president at all costs.” If the Obama administration continues to practice this brand of duplicitous diplomacy, then democratic Latin American governments will be the ones advised to keep their distance from the White House.

Michael Collins, December 2009

michael.mc.collins@gmail.com

This December, I’ll be one of a handful of students from Iowa who’ll be attending the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.  World leaders will attempt to put together a climate change agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol, and I’ll be there to observe and report on the proceedings. In Copenhagen I’ll join thousands of young people from all across the world who’ll form the first officially recognized youth delegation – youth who will be advocating for an effective international climate change treaty.

I decided to create The Road to Copenhagen blog as a way to chronicle and share my experiences, but also to open up the process to the widest audience possible.  The Road to Copenhagen, will follow the most recent developments leading up to Copenhagen and highlight perspectives that often get overlooked in the media—those of youth, delegates from developing countries (who disproportionately suffer the worst effects from global warming), and other activists.

The COP15 might possibly be the most important and the most challenging international gathering of our or any other generation.  Despite efforts to undermine the scientific consensus behind global warming, the facts are clear; the earth’s temperature is rising and human activity is driving it.  While most leaders acknowledge that fact, we still aren’t sure what type of agreement Copenhagen will produce.

World leaders and delegates of 192 nations will be in attendance, but what happens in Copenhagen—its successes or failures—will impact the world’s six billion people.

Power concedes nothing without demand.  While blogs alone won’t solve the world’s problems, they offer spaces for people-generated media.  So keep an eye on what’s happening, join the conversation, post a comment and, if interested, author a post.

It’s time to shed the dirty energy economy of the past.  It’s a new day, and long past due.  Let’s get to work!

I hope to hear from you soon!

Article by Candace Y. A. Montague, The Examiner

“OBAMA! FENTY! CAN’T YOU SEE? FUND THE FIGHT! STOP HIV!” — They were young, loud, bodacious, and angry. A collective body of AIDS activists in conjunction with DC Fight Back, Act Up Philadelphia, The Campaign to End AIDS, Health GAP and a plethora of other non-profit organizations electrified the streets of downtown DC on Tuesday. The DC Fights Back rally and protest was held between two main statues of power in DC, the White House and the John Wilson Building (city hall). On lookers were stunned to see more than 150 protesters, advocates, and activists holding up traffic while making their message known.

“WHAT DO WE WANT? HOUSING! WHEN DO WE WANT IT? NOW!!” — The message was more than just a plea for housing. It was a wakeup call for President Obama to keep his campaign promise of providing funding for HIV patients and to Mayor Fenty to fix a “broken system”.

It began as a mock funeral to symbolize the funerals of the 5,500 people who will die from AIDS in a day.

Representative John Conyers of Michigan stopped by to show his support. “We are here to keep President Barack Obama on the right track and to not be influenced by outside forces.” The procession carried coffins from the north end of Lafayette Park in front of the White House to Pennsylvania Ave, which symbolically had the AIDS red ribbon hanging between its front pillars. In traditional funeral fashion, religious songs were sang and eulogies were delivered about how AIDS has taken many lives already and will take many more until a solid plan is in action. Reverend Jeffrey Jordan of Metropolitan Community Church in Philadelphia and Reverend Carolyn Boyd-Clark of Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ in DC officiated the service. Activists and followers took to the streets following the funeral to march to Freedom Plaza, directly across the street from the Wilson Building.

Barack Obama, in a campaign speech on World AIDS Day in 2007, promised to provide $50 billion by 2013 to fight the pandemic and contribute to the Global Fund. He also pledged to, at least, double the number of HIV positive people on treatment. He backed this pledge with legislation passed before the 2008 Presidential election. Now the people of DC Fights Back are demanding answers. Sylvester Dobbs, Executive Director of Phoenix II Drug and Alcohol Recovery in Philadelphia stated, “There are a lot of homeless people with HIV and AIDS. It’s easy for someone to say that he [President Obama] needs to focus on the recession if they have a house. But if you’re homeless and all you got is to live outside, you feel that he should be focused on your needs.”

The rally continued at Freedom Plaza where protest leaders went inside to present Mayor Adrian Fenty with their demands.  The demands of DC Fights Back and their coalition of activists were to have a Washington DC Comprehensive HIV & AIDS plan that identifies the gaps, the services and targets and doubling of the city resources allocated for HIV/AIDS. Mayor Fenty was not in his office at the time. Insatiable leaders, Larry Bryant of DC Fights Back and Matthew Kavanaugh of Health GAP, blocked the doors to the office in a modern day sit-in. The two were arrested and released later on in the evening.

The mayor’s office has agreed to have a meeting with DC Fights Back to discuss their demands but no date has been set. But a message has been sent to the leaders of the capital of the United States. Now more than ever, the importance of funding and housing must be addressed. In the words of President Obama, the protesters of World AIDS Day in Washington DC are “embracing the fierce urgency of now.”

A friend of mine recommended this book to me a while back, but I never got around to it.  Today it showed up on William Easterly’s Aid Watch.  Sound like a good winter break read to me!  =)

Post by Laura Freschi, Aid Watch

When Jacqueline Novogratz, founder of the Acumen Fund (and author of The Blue Sweater), was in her early twenties, she turned down a promotion on Wall Street and went to the Cote d’Ivoire to open a new branch of the African Development Bank focused on microfinance for women. But the West African women she was supposed to work with shunned her. They talked about her derisively in her presence, letting her know exactly what they thought of an untested, unmarried, American woman with poor French skills being sent to lead them. They intimidated her, locked her out of the office, and (Novogratz suspects) actually gave her food poisoning to scare her away. It worked.

On her next assignment, in Nairobi, she spent hundreds of hours analyzing the loan portfolio of a young microfinance organization. Presenting her results, she recommended a drastic restructuring. A week later, she found her handwritten report had been “lost,” and all her work destroyed.

Any other 24-year-old might have gone home. For Novogratz, these heartbreaking episodes led to some profound revelations:

“I wanted to help,” she writes, “but that didn’t matter to anyone but me.” “Donors could convince themselves to give to nonperforming organizations based on a few good stories. The world needed something better than that.”

But the failures didn’t end there. She spent two months reviewing a UNICEF-funded loan program for income-generating projects in Kenya. She found hundreds of broken maize mills, empty schools and unsold baskets: countless “well-intentioned projects gone wrong,” a system riddled with kickbacks, and no accountability. In the end, government officials found her report “too pessimistic.” A World Bank official in Gambia rejected her proposal to lend to small businesswomen instead of giving them grants, using then-conventional wisdom that the very poor couldn’t pay back loans.

As Tom Watson, the founder of IBM, famously said, “if you want to succeed, double your failure rate.”

Because eventually Novogratz found big successes, like the bakery in Kigali where she helped a group of unwed mothers wean their operation off charity and become a real business. And Duterimbere, a micro-lending organization strong enough to survive the genocide in Rwanda.

Not to mention the success of the eight-year-old Acumen Fund, which Novogratz calls a “nonprofit venture capital fund for the poor.” Just as Acumen absorbs the depth and breadth of her experiences and the advice of her mentors, the strength of this deeply personal book lies in its rejection of simplified narratives, easy truths and personal dogma.

Novogratz has emerged as a leading voice of a “middle way” in development thinking: “Philanthropy alone lacks the feedback mechanisms of markets, which are the best listening devices we have; and yet markets alone too easily leave the most vulnerable behind.” She writes:

I’ve learned that many of the answers to poverty lie in the space between the market and charity and that what is needed most of all is moral leadership willing to build solutions from the perspectives of poor people themselves rather than imposing grand theories and plans upon them.

So read this book! It documents in wonderful detail this resounding and inspirational conclusion.