Post by Kristen Hewitt, Intern for the Afghan Women’s Writing Project and student at The Salt Institute for Documentary Studies

Credit: Kathleen Rafiq

Art can be a powerful activist tool. As a poet and aspiring documentarian, I‘ve come to see that a single voice telling the story of a life changing, emotional experience can be enough to spark of compassion—to move people to act.

The Afghan Women’s Writing Project was created to give women in Afghanistan a direct voice in the world, unfiltered by male relatives or the media. Volunteer writing teachers from the US hold classes online, and help the women to develop their voices by writing stories and poetry in English. The women then upload their work, parts of which are published on a blog.  These women document their hopes, fears, struggles, and victories, opening a window for readers on what women’s lives were like growing up under the Taliban, and what they feel about conditions in their country now.

The project is about fostering good will and understanding between the Afghan women and their readers. It is both an opportunity to empower these women, and for readers to gain perspective on Afghanistan, thus forging a link between America and Afghanistan.

Because of the increasing danger for women to visit an internet café by herself, our goal is to provide laptops and jump drives, so that they can write in their home and then have a male friend or relative upload their work for them. We are also beginning fundraising to build the first women-only internet café in Afghanistan.

This opportunity for women in Afghanistan to tell their stories is also a chance for readers to connect to citizens of Afghanistan—to listen to other human beings with compassion. These are not arguments about government policy, military action, or aid, but personal experiences of the people that these things directly affect. This project shows the impact of conflict on these women’s lives, and allows them to tell about it for themselves. When those who support violent actions understand the human cost or identify with a victim, they become more reluctant to support such violence.

Voices of people directly impacted by war and violence are so easily lost. As socially engaged human beings, we should always seek out those voices that will move us and change our awareness.  Democracy dies without the voices of the least powerful. Despite overwhelming circumstances, the women in this project create beautiful poetry and moving stories. And once those reach the ears of the world, they may just be able to change it.

Original post by Carol Hansen, Intern, USLEAP

Honduran unions are helping lead popular resistance to the June 28, 2009 coup when democratically- elected Honduran President Zelaya was dragged out of bed, abducted, and forced to fly to Costa Rica. The union movement immediately called a national strike, joined by, among others, Chiquita banana worker union members who gave up a day’s pay and more to participate. Teachers unions, the largest in the country, continue on strike, shutting down the education system while thousands of workers have joined peaceful protests that have been met with teargas. Also, members of the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) have refused to load or unload Honduran cargo ships in resistance to the coup.

While mediation by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias has so far yielded little progress, the situation in Honduras continues to worsen with reports of hundreds of human rights violations and four political assassinations, including one trade unionist.  The International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers’ Federation (ITGLWF) stated in a July 14 press release: “since the coup there has been growing concern at the threat to trade union and popular leaders, and it appears there is a list of leaders who are threatened with detention and whose personal safety is at risk.”

Take Action!

Somewhat unexpectedly for many Africans, America’s first African American president offered the continent rather tough love in his first official visit. Amidst the usual political fluff, President Obama’s recent speech, delivered in Ghana this Saturday, contained some very pointed comments, including a controversial assertion that the time to blame colonization and Western exploitation for Africa’s problems has ended.

While the development crisis in Africa can be difficult to talk about in the United States, no matter how well-informed, traveled, or racially-sensitive one might be, President Obama leveraged his African background to tell Africans point-blank that their problems stem from weak government structures, traditions of corruption and nepotism, and the people’s failure to insist upon accountability. Though I personally feel that colonial policies and institutions have plenty to do with modern African instability, corruption, and ethnic conflict, I’m pleased to hear Obama demanding more of Africans—especially young Africans. Such demands from John McCain or Hillary Clinton could not have held the same weight.

Obama’s controversial statements have, somewhat predictably, inspired bickering and finger-pointing on countless internet forums. I can’t help but feel that something has been lost amid these arguments. In all likelihood, Obama is more acutely aware of the historical injustices Africa has suffered than any of his predecessors. His speech in Accra was not meant to deny these, but to signal that the time has come for Africa to move forward. Unending arguments about historical responsibility aside, Africa and the West should be able to agree on one point: African development solutions must come from Africans from here on out.

As I learned while living in Kenya last year, African artists, entrepreneurs, and civil society organizations are ready for that responsibility. The question then becomes, “How do we empower these solutions?”

Like many politicians before him, President Obama lamented the failure of decades of foreign aid to improve living conditions or fuel sustainable development in Africa. In an interview with AllAfrica.com, just before his departure to Ghana, Obama described U.S. foreign assistance policy as fragmented and unfocused: “Our aid policies have been splintered among a variety of agencies, different theories embraced by different people depending on which administration, which party, is in power at any given time. Trying to create something steady and focused—and always basing our policies on what works and not on some ideological previous position—is going to be very important.”

Whether these statements will translate into concrete foreign assistance policy reform has yet to be seen. The President, now six months into his administration, has offered up few concrete plans for reform and is yet to name a top USAID administrator.

“Aid is not an end in itself,” Obama said on Saturday. “The purpose of foreign assistance should be to create the conditions where it’s no longer needed.” Healthcare infrastructure, education, support for small- and medium-sized businesses and technical assistance for farmers and workers are all examples of investments long-term sustainable growth. Slowing the brain drain on African medical staff, empowering people through worker-owned cooperatives, increasing aid for climate change adaptation, and allowing room for regional political and economic structures to develop are a few more. Though with little more than rhetoric coming from the administration, whether or not these initiatives actually emerge in the form of concrete U.S. policies is largely up to us and the pressure we put on our legislators to write them.

Obama has proposed a system of mutual responsibility in Africa’s development efforts, promising America’s continued assistance if Africans hold their leaders accountable and create a positive investment environment for US aid funds. But there’s much to be done on our own end, as well, in terms of figuring out what types of assistance are effective in supporting Africans to meet their own development objectives and what other policies we might have at play (ie. trade) that might adversely affect this development process.

In today’s hyper-connected world, issues of health, peace, and development in the developing world should be at the forefront of US policy discussions. As Obama puts it: “The 21st century will be shaped by what happens not just in Rome or Moscow or Washington, but by what happens in Accra as well.” Perhaps it’s time we started paying closer attention to the intricacies of our relationships with the developing world.

Watch the speech and read Obama’s interview with AllAfrica.com.

              The United States has taken a big step in U.S.-Muslim relations… we hope.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed the very first State Department envoy to Muslim communities—Farah Pandith. [1]   This follows President Obama’s promising speech in Cairo, Egypt which was lauded by Muslims, Europeans, and many Americans. People continue to have high hopes in this administration’s dedication to reach out to the naitonal and worldwide Muslim communities. 

For what it’s worth, the following is my wish list for Ms. Pandith; I hope she does not let this awesome opportunity slip away.  She could do an outstanding job by doing this and more:

1. I encourage Ms. Pandith and the rest of the State Department to engage American youth in outreach.  The State Department does some great work involving students, so this shouldn’t be a problem.  She has a unique opportunity to create dialogue and understanding between American youth and Muslim youth, especially between Muslim-American youth and their foreign peers.  True change will occur when communities are interacting, not just governments.  In a recent special press briefing by Ms. Pandith, a reporter expressed concern that the heart of the problem lies with American foreign policy.[2]  Ms. Pandith seemed confident saying that Muslim youth are more eager to think about their interaction with the United States and within their communities.  I hope that she and the rest of the State Department recognize that many of these students are likely eager to interact with American youth, and vice versa.  Interacting with the U.S. government is enchanting and exploring sustainable futures for Muslim students is essential but lasting relationships between communities end prejudices, reflect positively on foreign policy, and raise awareness of any existing problem.

2. I hope that Ms. Pandith uses a lot of local art and music in her attempts at communication with Muslim communities.  She has stated that she plans to use the town hall model and the round table discussion model for dialogue, but I hope she realizes that these events attract a unique elite who probably already have much communication with the U.S. in the first place.  Using music and art as tools and demonstrating the accessibility of American music can jump start conversation and enthusiasm. 

3. Ms. Pandith and the State Department should broach difficult topics, like increasing tension between Muslim immigrants and their adopted home countries in Europe.  Judging from her statements, it is safe to assume that she already realizes the numerous controversial issues she will have to address.  She should not shy away from things that might upset one party or another.  She should let talks be dictated by what is important to the people she is talking with and by those who are entrusting her to do the talking.  We have the potential to learn a lot here, so let’s make it meaningful.

4. Finally, she should be open and honest with the press.  Hiding the Department’s concerns only makes her work seem less hopeful and less encouraging.  She should advise the press on strategies she plans to pursue.  Involving the media in her missions demonstrates the best of what is achievable through open communication with the Muslims.  Press briefings are awkward and, at times, downright unfortunate, but she would really strive to make the most of her work in front of the press.  Avoiding questions creates more doubts and concerns.  As our special messenger to Muslims around the world, she has the opportunity to show Americans that while there are problems, misconceptions, and maybe some hard feelings, there is also a lot of hope that these issues can be dealt with reasonably and easily.  Involving the press opens up communication to the people.

Ms. Pandith has the good fortune to educate a great many Americans on Muslim communities.  She has a chance to do great work similar to AIDemocracy’s mission.  This administration holds a lot of promise, hopefully it will continue to live up to the hope it inspired.

[2] Special Briefing by Farah Pandith, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/july/125561.htm, 1 July 2009

Americans are having trouble believing it—their president is not making regrettable statements about the Iranian election.  Millions of facebook networkers, twitter users, and bloggers responded to what was immediately called an unfair election and its brutal aftermath.  Politicians and political junkies on both sides of the aisle chastised the great Obama for not taking a stand on the contested outcome and sequential outcome.  President Obama responded appropriately and thoughtfully.

As a huge Obama fan, I’m unapt to begin criticizing our President without all the facts.  He has responsibilities to his own people, to those who came before him, to the Iranian people, to the world’s people.  Completely isolating and insulting either Mahmud Ahmadinejad or his challengers could prove disastrous later in international affairs.  Illegitimating the unfavorable outcome of the election in Iran, a nation that had so hoped for a fair election, did not really feel right, especially while we were all still a little high on HOPE.  The appalled president condemned the actions of the Iranian government in a timely manner, but did not take the stand that so many Americans still thought was necessary

He still walks a “tightrope,” as CNN called it.[1] Jon Stewart joked that America can’t win and that seems to be true… or at least, Obama can’t win.  He was criticized by almost everyone when he didn’t say much and then was called a meddler and compared to President George W. Bush when he called for the violence to stop.  America got in trouble for meddling in 1953 and again in 1979, and now that we’re not meddling, suddenly we’re not doing enough.

I thought I was crazy or ignorant for being proud that Obama was taking the time to mull things over and react wisely.  My qualms were soothed after attending the June 22 New America Foundation forum on the Iran Election.  Most of the expert panel agreed that Obama was for the most part, doing the right thing:

Panelist Nader Mousavizadeh, whose story in The Washington Post can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061702800.html, proposed option “Ignore Ahmadinejad,” in which he advises President Obama to acknowledge Iranian’s democratic aspirations but to largely ignore the words and actions of President Ahmadinejad.  The Iranian people wanted hope and democratic change, and they received quite the opposite.  He said that Iran has changed, citing Mir Hossein Mousavi ignoring the Supreme Leader’s ruling, and the world view of Iran has changed; America’s diplomacy with Iran cannot remain the same.

Expert panelist and president of Terror Free Tomorrow, Ken Ballen, focused more on poll numbers but gave valuable insight into the opinions of the Iranian people.  In his CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/16/ballen.iranian.democracy/index.html?iref=newssearch), poll numbers indicated that a great majority of Iranians want more democracy and freedom.  Those who voted for President Ahmadinejad (most likely a majority, he says) and those who are not protesting wanted a free election.  The government’s actions only serve to isolate more than a majority of the people by completely denying free press and freedoms which should be guaranteed.  He served an important role on the panel, reminding us all that underneath the contested election, the genuinely open-minded Iranians want freedom.  As far as recommendations for America’s new direction, he advised that the Islamic republic of Iran may soon be unraveling with the younger generation holding different values.

Self-proclaimed realist Flynt Leverett seemed to be one of the most controversial on the panel, having written a Politico column with his wife, entitled, “Ahmadinejad won. Get over it” (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23745.html).  He writes with great conviction that Ahmadinejad won and that the Obama administration should engage the existing administration.  He also argued that Iran will not undergo system change nor collapse, a point that he pushed even further in another article “Will Iran be Obama’s Iraq?,” released after the forum, almost directly contradicted Ken Ballen.  Leverett seemed convinced that the “Iran experts,” as well as Mousavi, rushed to declare the election a fraud, without looking at actual public opinion in Iran.  He told the forum attendees that he was writing to an American audience who must accept Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Republic as legitimate.  Punishing Iran is not the answer.

Panelist Steve Clemons disagreed with Leverett on his quick dismissal of the election protests , but did agree that Iran is not a U.S.-like democracy and should not be treated as such.  He pointed out that the U.S. has a strong history of dealing with dislikable leaders.  President Obama, he agreed, has done a fine job so far and he encouraged the U.S. to “let it play out.”

The final panelist Afshin Molavi speculated that Iran would need a reconciliation period, of sorts.  President Ahmadinejad, and others, he said, had crossed the line by insulting important players of the 1979 Iranian Revolution.  Meanwhile, other elites had crossed a line by disobeying the Supreme Leader.  Despite actions of Mousavi and some protesters, Molavi emphasized the power of Supreme Leader Khamenei and the importance of engaging Iran.  Like the other panelists, he thought that the White House should direct efforts toward the Iranian people, for the time being.

While many of us take issue with President Ahmadinejad and his government’s recent actions, it is frankly not up to Americans to decide who runs Iran.  We can take a stand against human rights violations, like we have, but we cannot ordain a new leader.  At a June 23^rd White House Press Conference, President Obama boldly stated that “the Iranian people can speak for themselves.”[2] New America Foundation panelists, U.S. Congressmen and Congresswomen, even President Obama cannot speak for them.  The question remains: what do we say now and who will we be talking to?

[2] http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/The-Presidents-Opening-Remarks-on-Iran-with-Persian-Translation/

Americans are having trouble believing it—their president is not making regrettable statements about the Iranian election.  Millions of facebook networkers, twitter users, and bloggers responded to what was immediately called an unfair election and its brutal aftermath.  Politicians and political junkies on both sides of the aisle chastised the great Obama for not taking a stand on the contested outcome and sequential outcome.  President Obama responded appropriately and thoughtfully.

As a huge Obama fan, I’m unapt to begin criticizing our President without all the facts.  He has responsibilities to his own people, to those who came before him, to the Iranian people, to the world’s people.  Completely isolating and insulting either Mahmud Ahmadinejad or his challengers could prove disastrous. later in international affairs.  Illegitimating the unfavorable outcome of the election in Iran, a nation that had so hoped for a fair election, did not really feel right, especially while we were all still a little high on HOPE.  The appalled president condemned the actions of the Iranian government in a timely manner, but did not take the stand that so many Americans still thought was necessary

He still walks a “tightrope,” as CNN called it.[1] Jon Stewart joked that America can’t win and that seems to be true… or at least, Obama can’t win.  He was criticized by almost everyone when he didn’t say much and then was called a meddler and compared to President George W. Bush when he called for the violence to stop.  America got in trouble for meddling in 1953 and again in 1979, and now that we’re not meddling, suddenly we’re not doing enough.

I thought I was crazy or ignorant for being proud that Obama was taking the time to mull things over and react wisely.  My qualms were soothed after attending the June 22 New America Foundation forum on the Iran Election.  Most of the expert panel agreed that Obama was for the most part, doing the right thing:

Panelist Nader Mousavizadeh, whose story in The Washington Post can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061702800.html, proposed option “Ignore Ahmadinejad,” in which he advises President Obama to acknowledge Iranian’s democratic aspirations but to largely ignore the words and actions of President Ahmadinejad.  The Iranian people wanted hope and democratic change, and they received quite the opposite.  He said that Iran has changed, citing Mir-Hossein Mousavi ignoring the Supreme Leader’s ruling, and the world view of Iran has changed; America’s diplomacy with Iran cannot remain the same.

Expert panelist and president of Terror Free Tomorrow, Ken Ballen, focused more on poll numbers but gave valuable insight into the opinions of the Iranian people.  In his CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/16/ballen.iranian.democracy/index.html?iref=newssearch), poll numbers indicated that a great majority of Iranians want more democracy and freedom.  Those who voted for President Ahmadinejad (most likely a majority, he says) and those who are not protesting wanted a free election.  The government’s actions only serve to isolate more than a majority of the people by completely denying free press and freedoms which should be guaranteed.  He served an important role on the panel, reminding U.S. all that underneath the contested election, the genuinely open-minded Iranians want freedom.  As far as recommendations for America’s new direction, he advised that the Islamic republic of Iran may soon be unraveling as the disparity between the government and its people grows larger.

Self-proclaimed realist Flynt Leverett seemed to be one of the most controversial on the panel, having written a Politico column with his wife, entitled, “Ahmadinejad won. Get over it” (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23745.html).  He writes with great conviction that Ahmadinejad won and that the Obama administration should engage the existing administration.  He also argued that Iran will not undergo system change nor collapse, a point that he pushed even further in another article “Will Iran be Obama’s Iraq,” released after the forum, almost directly contradicted Ken Ballen.  Leverett seemed convinced that the “Iran experts,” as well as Mousavi, rushed to declare the election a fraud, without looking at actual public opinion in Iran.  He told the forum attendees that he was writing to an American audience who must accept Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Republic as legitimate.  Punishing Iran is not the answer.

Panelist Steve Clemons disagreed with Leverett on his quick dismissal of the election protests , but did agree that Iran is not a U.S.-like democracy and should not be treated as such.  He pointed out that the U.S. has a strong history of dealing with dislikable leaders.  President Obama, he agreed, has done a fine job so far and he encouraged the U.S. to “let it play out.”

The final panelist Afshin Molavi speculated that Iran would need a reconciliation period, of sorts.  President Ahmadinejad, and others, he said, had crossed the line by insulting important players of the 1979 Iranian Revolution.  Meanwhile, other elites had crossed a line by disobeying the Supreme Leader.  Despite actions of Mousavi and some protesters, Molavi emphasized the power of Supreme Leader Khamenei and the importance of engaging Iran.  Like the other panelists, he thought that the White House should direct efforts toward the Iranian people, for the time being.

While many of us take issue with President Ahmadinejad and his government’s recent actions, it is frankly not up to Americans to decide who runs Iran.  We can take a stand against human rights violations, like we have, but we cannot ordain a new leader.  At a June 23^rd White House Press Conference, President Obama boldly stated that “the Iranian people can speak for themselves.”[2] New America Foundation panelists, U.S. Congressmen and Congresswomen, not even President Obama can speak for Iranians, who have, in fact, done a remarkable job speaking for themselves.  The question remains: what do we say now and who will we be talking to?

[2] http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/The-Presidents-Opening-Remarks-on-Iran-with-Persian-Translation/

From Leah Williams, the New Internationalist Blog:

I went on the Put People First protest with my Dad, the oldest rocker in town, last month. He turned to me at one point, with genuine surprise in his voice, and said: ‘There are loads of young people here!’ I wasn’t surprised: I’m young and I was there, but I was quite inspired, as I jumped in behind the anti-war coalition banner and saw four teenagers leading the procession and organizing their protesters with the rallying cry of ‘what do we want? Jobs not bombs! When do we want it? Now!’

It is hardly surprising that the perception of young people is that they are not interested in politics. Sadly, some young people have been stupefied by Reality TV and a barrage of magazines about Britney Spears’ cellulite and Cheryl Cole’s fake eyelashes. Politicians occasionally take it down a notch or two and talk to us ‘yoof’ about The X Factor and Jade Goody (may she rest in peace). I wonder if the political classes had a peek at the protesters during the G20 protests and realized that among the ageing communists, concerned about the drop in the value of their houses, and the usual eccentrics, there were swathes of young people, for whom the G20 and the current economic mess is not just about money. For young people this is about a political system that doesn’t represent their views, where the issues they really care about are not even part of the political agenda. Are the political classes finally getting the message? It is not that we don’t care about politics, it’s you who don’t care about our politics.

Youth politics, through music, cartoons and other young people’s media, concentrates on the irony and hypocrisy of a world system that has created inequality, subjugated the developing world and reinforced racism, classism and poverty on a national and international level.

I can hear the sceptical middle-aged mind thinking ‘Yeah, right’. I am sure that you never imagined that the angry-sounding music blaring from your daughter’s room was anything other than depressing or offensive, just as you have probably raised your eyebrows and shaken your head in despair if you have ever witnessed your son watching South Park. Admittedly, 50 Cent and Girls Aloud aren’t deeply concerned with exploring racial tension or Third World debt, and I don’t mean to imply that there is a political reason that ‘they killed Kenny’ in every episode of South Park, but there is a reason that the only black child in South Park is called ‘Token’. Other cartoons, like the Boondocks – which covers the theme of racism and the modern world through the eyes of an inner city black boy, taken out of the ghetto to live in a rich white area with his grandfather – and American Dad - about a CIA agent with a socialist daughter, a Stepford wife, a talking fish and a pet alien – challenge their US audiences and expand their political horizons.

In music too, there are plenty of political messages. If you look past the ‘N’ word and the ‘F’ word, designed to deter anyone over the age of 30, Immortal Technique is one politically opinionated and interesting rapper. As he explores the link between poverty-stricken post-colonial populations and the drugs trade, talks of revolution and states that ‘democracy and capitalism are not synonymous’, Immortal Technique smacks of communism. Just because I know the name of the theory, doesn’t mean that the inner city ‘yoof’ who listen to this music and feel strongly about its messages are less political than I am.

My generation are products of a pre-citizenship school system that never explored political theory and brought us up to assume that the British way (a shallow, unrepresentative democracy) is the only way. And therein lies the problem. The official, mainstream political agenda has become so narrow that the issues that concern young people are not recognized as political issues by those in mainstream politics, or even by us. And I don’t just mean the issues concerning urban youth. Even middle-class youngsters straight out of uni, turning away from corporate job opportunities to spend years working on terrible salaries in development organizations and charities, don’t recognize how their interest in alleviating world poverty and creating more equality at home and abroad is politics. It is politics, it is the new political agenda, but it is not making it onto the British political scene.

Young people, idealistic and hopeful for a better future, care about the horrendous state of many of Britain’s housing estates, where stabbings go unnoticed by the media and un-investigated by the police. We care about the continuation of protectionist trade policies that ensure the EU continues to perpetuate its extreme wealth, while Africa can’t stand a chance of competing, even with superior produce at a fraction of the price. We care that the arms trade, the drugs trade, the sex trade all continue under the nose of our political parties. We care that middle-class parents with cultural capital and the influence can get their children into good schools, while less well-off kids are left with the educational dregs. Young people care about ’stop and search’ and the anti-terror legislation that could see any one of us thrown into prison for several weeks without any charge. These issues never make it onto the agenda, or get swept aside when we start talking about the ever-so-important issue of falling property prices.

Of course, a lot of young people are very idealistic, and maybe not that realistic. However, many political élites are un-idealistic, rich and selfish. I’d rather have a bit more idealism back in politics than the continuation of this selfish status quo that has reigned since Thatcher. There needs to be a shift: not to engage young people in politics, for we are already engaged, even if we don’t realize that concern about getting stabbed or anger at the police hassling Black and Asian boys is politics. It is politicians who need to get engaged and start listening to us. We would get engaged in the mainstream, if the political élites bothered to engage with our politics.

Leah Williams is 24 and has been reading NI since she was about 17. “I got interested in it while studying Politics A Level. I went on to study Politics and East European Studies at University College London and always enjoyed reading the New Internationalist because it presents a refreshingly international perspective and addresses world issues that really concern me. I am currently writing a novel about the dual themes of integration and multi-culturalism in Britain and the flouting of justice under anti-terrorism legislation.”

While many the world over continue to celebrate the election of an African American to the highest post in U.S. government, participants in the IV People’s Summit  are waiting for more than rhetoric and token reformist changes.

While President Obama may be saying the right things, in the eyes of many, he has yet to confront the systemic oppression that U.S. foreign policy has afflicted on Latin America and the Caribbean for decades, if not centuries.

Easing the travel ban on Cuban Americans is not enough, they want an end to the blockade against Cuba and the state’s readmission to the OAS.  They want a foreign policy for the 21st century, not tired ideological battles of the Cold War.

Half a million in increased foreign aid and increased lines of credit will do little if economic and governmental structures are not changed to incorporate more active participation of the grassroots.  They demand a shift in objective from capital gains to human well-being and self-actualization.

New Energy and Climate Partnerships must be grounded in the lives and needs of everyday working people.  They demand sovereignty and systems that end poverty (not hand outs) over any form of corporate or state-led initiative at security.

Read for yourself. Is President Obama’s foreign policy grounded in structural changes that will prevent further crises, or is he working merely to advance an image of the United States and a failed form of capitalism for fear of exploration of true alternatives?  Or is he merely getting started, working within bureaucratic confines and the real change is yet to come?

Choosing a Better Future in the Americas
By President Barack Obama
16 April 2009

“As we approach the Summit of the Americas, our hemisphere is faced with a clear choice. We can overcome our shared challenges with a sense of common purpose, or we can stay mired in the old debates of the past. For the sake of all our people, we must choose the future.

Too often, the United States has not pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors. We have been too easily distracted by other priorities, and have failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas. My Administration is committed to the promise of a new day. We will renew and sustain a broader partnership between the United States and the hemisphere on behalf of our common prosperity and our common security.

In advance of the Summit, we have begun to move in a new direction. This week, we amended a Cuba policy that has failed for decades to advance liberty or opportunity for the Cuban people. In particular, the refusal to allow Cuban Americans to visit or provide resources to their families on the island made no sense – particularly after years of economic hardship in Cuba, and the devastating hurricanes that took place last year. Now, that policy has changed.

The U.S.-Cuba relationship is one example of a debate in the Americas that is too often dragged back to the 20th century. To confront our economic crisis, we don’t need a debate about whether to have a rigid, state-run economy or unbridled and unregulated capitalism – we need pragmatic and responsible action that advances our common prosperity. To combat lawlessness and violence, we don’t need a debate about whether to blame right-wing paramilitaries or left-wing insurgents – we need practical cooperation to expand our common security.

We must choose the future over the past, because we know that the future holds enormous opportunities if we work together. That is why leaders from Santiago to Brasilia to Mexico City are focused on a renewed partnership of the Americas that makes progress on fundamental issues like economic recovery, energy, and security. There is no time to lose. The global economic crisis has hit the Americas hard, particularly our most vulnerable populations. Years of progress in combating poverty and inequality hangs in the balance.

The United States is working to advance prosperity in the hemisphere by jumpstarting our own recovery. In doing so, we will help spur trade, investment, remittances, and tourism that provides a broader base for prosperity in the hemisphere.

We also need collective action. At the recent G-20 Summit, the United States pledged to seek nearly half a billion dollars in immediate assistance for vulnerable populations, while working with our G-20 partners to set aside substantial resources to help countries through difficult times. We have called upon the Inter-American Development Bank to maximize lending to restart the flow of credit, and stand ready to examine the needs and capacity of the IDB going forward. And we are working to put in place tough, clear 21st century rules of the road to prevent the abuses that caused the current crisis.

While we confront this crisis, we must build a new foundation for long-term prosperity. One area that holds out enormous promise is energy. Our hemisphere has bountiful natural resources that could make renewable energy plentiful and sustainable, while creating jobs for our people. In the process, we can confront climate change that threatens rising sea levels in the Caribbean, diminishing glaciers in the Andes, and powerful storms on the Gulf Coast of the United States.

Together, we have both the responsibility to act, and the opportunity to leave behind a legacy of greater prosperity and security. That is why I look forward to pursuing a new Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas that will help us learn from one another, share technologies, leverage investment, and maximize our comparative advantage. Just as we advance our common prosperity, we must advance our common security. Too many in our hemisphere are forced to live in fear. That is why the United States will strongly support respect for the rule of law, better law enforcement, and stronger judicial institutions.

Security for our citizens must be advanced through our commitment to partner with those who are courageously battling drug cartels, gangs and other criminal networks throughout the Americas. Our efforts start at home. By reducing demand for drugs and curtailing the illegal flow of weapons and bulk cash south across our border, we can advance security in the United States and beyond. And going forward, we will sustain a lasting dialogue in the hemisphere to ensure that we are building on best practices, adapting to new threats, and coordinating our efforts.

Finally, the Summit gives every democratically-elected leader in the Americas the opportunity to reaffirm our shared values. Each of our countries has pursued its own democratic journey, but we must be joined together in our commitment to liberty, equality, and human rights. That is why I look forward to the day when every country in the hemisphere can take its seat at the table consistent with the Inter-American Democratic Charter. And just as the United States seeks that goal in reaching out to the Cuban people, we expect all of our friends in the hemisphere to join together in supporting liberty, equality, and human rights for all Cubans.

This Summit offers the opportunity of a new beginning. Advancing prosperity, security and liberty for the people of the Americas depends upon 21st century partnerships, freed from the posturing of the past. That is the leadership and partnership that the United States stands ready to provide.”

10 a.m. I arrived at the University of the West Indies, St. Augustine campus, to collect my registration pass and program and join several hundred others for the 4th People’s Summit of the Americas.  The official title, “Cultural & Ideological Renewal for Social Justice & People’s Development in a Time of Global Crisis.”

The 4th People’s Summit coincides with the Fifth Summit of the Americas, with the premise that the outcome of the later engagement critically depends on the agenda set and actions taken by the region’s social movements.  Facing the most severe crisis since the Great Depression, we are presented with a real opportunity to advance the vision of another world–one not grounded merely in capital gains, but in human rights, communal prosperity and environmental sustainability.  The People’s Summit provides a space for working people, trade unions, non-governmental organizations, agricultural groups, human rights activists, cultural activists, students and their allies to analyze the nature of the crisis and identify the way forward.

Members of the Hemispheric Social Alliance, Assembly of Caribbean People, Federation of Independent Trade Unions and NGOs, Via Campesina, Grassroots Global Justice, Marcha Mundial de Mujeres, Center for the Study of World Economy, Food First and others kicked off the discussion, contextualizing the crisis within the struggles of their communities.

12 p.m. Standing on the steps during a quick break, 17 year old Safiya Reid approached me, “hablas español?”

She found out about the Peoples’ Summit through the Alliance Française, where she takes French, and decided to volunteer, thinking it might be a good opportunity to practice her French…or Spanish.  We soon transitioned into English as she told me more about her impressions of the day’s discussion.

While Caribbean Studies and Development is part of  public school curriculum in Trinidad, Safiya thinks her school should definitely increase practical opportunities like this one for young people to learn more about issue affecting the region and the perspectives of different communities involved.  She talked to me about the internet research she did, after finding out about the People’s Summit, and how it really opened her eyes to the place of the Caribbean and Caribbean struggles within the region.  She wonders why a her Prime Minister decided to host the OAS Summit in their tiny country and what concrete benefits will come of the talks among head’s of state.  She worries about implementation of their resolutions.

2 p.m. I suddenly found myself designated official interpreter for a session on Governance, Citizenship and Human Rights.  Rupert Roopnarine of the Working People’s Alliance in Guyana discussed the entrenchment of colonial forms of exclusion in governments of the English speaking Caribbean.  In his eyes, with a diminishing division of power between the 3 branches of national government, the only sure-fire way to enforce accountability is through a strengthening of village councils and other local powers.  Furthermore, these changes are necessary to the improved incorporation of grassroots principles and demands into our institutional bodies.

Adreiev Pinzon of the Inter-American Platform for Human Rights in Colombia provided a review of the historical proccess by which social movements in Spanish-speaking Latin America have pushed their governments for more inclusive models of democracy an the diverse and interesting ways in which countries like Boliva, Venezuela and Ecuador are responding.  While Adreiev’s expertise may have been in South America, questions flowed for over an hour about the English-speaking Caribbean context and how they could learn from the successes of the indigenous movement in Bolivia, for example, to elect a leader who lives by the phrase, “mandar obedeciendo.”

6 p.m. I headed out with Ravi Lutchman, executive member of the Trinidad Youth Council, for “doubles,” a caribbean twist on chana masala.  He confirmed much of what Rupert had proposed with regards to the entrenchement of colonial thought in Trinidad, but tried to put it in the context of his work with young people.  The most critical key to progress, Ravi said, is helping young people achieve a sense of self-worth (as opposed to identifying as “Third world”), the ability to express their ideas and the skills to recognize and address issues in their communities.  I think that bringing young Trinidadians from 10 districts and 5 Caribbean countries to the OAS Youth Forum, the People’s Summit and an assembly of their own–all in one week–is definitely a concrete step towards that goal.

Shortly after CNN declared Obama winner of the 44th US Presidential election, (just before 7am Kenya time on Wednesday), President Kibaki announced Thursday a national holiday to mark the historic ascension of “one of its own” to the most powerful office on Earth.  President Kibaki remarked that Obama’s unassailable victory (364 electoral votes) is clear testimony to the confidence of the American people not only in his leadership and vision for the United States, but for the world.  While there has been contention regarding Kenya’s claim to Obama’s ancestral identity (his father was predominantly absent from his life) and even criticism launched against the Kenyan government for the hypocrisy of such a celebration (erecting electronic billboards with the candidate’s image while children go hungry and its own democratic processes leave much to be desired), I think such reactions (regardless of their relevance) miss the much more important point.

Obama’s election has created a tide of renewed hope in the US, both as a democracy and as a global leader (See Reactions Around the World).  Raised in a multi-racial, non-traditional family.  Schooled in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Harvard Law.  Rooted in community organizing.  Now President-elect.  Obama defies most accusations against the US as a greedy, racist, isolationist country.  Yet, as Marceline stated in her post, our work it not over.  In fact, congratulating our progressive selves without a continued analysis of colonial history and its lingering impacts on development, peace, and the environment will not move us any closer to our ultimate goals of peace and prosperity for all (or at least for more than the select few that currently enjoy it).

Experts like Howard Wolpe, former House Representative and chair of the House subcommittee on Africa, state that Obama (due to his upbringing?) has a “general sensitivity about the nature of the economic, social and political challenges that are facing the so-called Third World” and that his administration will certainly adopt a different approach towards economic integration, peace building, and democracy (Source: Corey, America.gov).  Many of us have rallied behind this possibility.  But, we must continue to push ourselves to work together and think outside of the box if we are to make good on any of Obama’s campaign promises.  And don’t think that simply because you don’t hold public office you are exempt or powerless in this process.  If anything, this campaign has sparked a revival in the strength of ordinary people (remember Joe the Plumber?)

Senator Barack Obama’s election is indeed a victory, for the US and the world.  Now, let it be the beginning of a true paradigm shift.

The advancement of democracy throughout the world has always been uneven, and fraught with setbacks and false miracles. The last few years have demonstrated this powerfully.

Latin America is becoming, overall, more democratic. This is good news, but lamentable anti-democratic tendencies in Venezuela and elsewhere warrant close watching.

Democracy in Africa is a mixed bag, with failed states and entrenched poverty proving to be as much, if not more, of an obstacle to democratisation as authoritarian regimes. In countries such as the Democratic republic of Congo, free elections have not increased security. What Africa needs most at this time is not a rapid proliferation of free elections (which could actually do far more harm than good), but rapid stabilisation, regional cooperation, and pro-poor economic development.

In Asia, the minority of democracies seem stable for now, but so do the majority of non-democratic regimes. The Saffron Revolution in Burma failed to cause the collapse of that country’s brutal junta, despite the unfathomably brave actions of its long-suffering citizens. Pakistan has just been put under martial law, with opposition activists and lawyers being rounded up en masse and independent media severely curtailed. China, the region’s fastest rising power, continues to be a powerful refutation of the oft-espoused idea that market liberalisation naturally brings greater freedom for ordinary people.

The same can be said for Russia, where civil society has been marginalized in the public sphere and repeatedly bludgeoned by the ever more anti-democratic policies of the Government of President Vladimir Putin. 

Democracy is ailing in Russia’s "Near Abroad" as well, with Central Asia dominated by authoritarian regimes of varying degrees of brutality, and the Caucasus region remaining volatile, and largely un-democratic. Just the other day, it became clear that the OSCE will not be able to effectively monitor Russia’s upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections, and may have it’s election monitoring activities restricted or curtailed altogether in countries such as Armenia, increasingly swayed more by Russia’s anti-Western line than the European Union’s promises of closer ties.

If liberal democracy is entrenched anywhere, it is in Western Europe. But, even there, the forecast is not uniformly blue skies and sunshine. The rise of right wing parties is posing unprecedented social and political challenges in relatively tolerant countries (such as Switzerland and Belgium) and even the most tolerant, such as the Netherlands.

And now we come to the United States and Canada, to the majority Anglophone democracies North America. Canada, democracy-wise, falls more in line with Western European states than it’s nearest southern neighbor. With strong and independent institutions and a dynamic multi-party legislature, Canada isn’t perfect by any means, but its system is open, self correcting, and self-improving.

Tragically, this is no longer so in the United States. Eight years of unrelenting, unpunished corruption and law-breaking have badly damaged the United States’ democracy in reputation and in practice. Public faith in the legislative and executive branches are at historic laws. The Department of Justice, with its long string of corruption scandals and reputation for politically-tainted policy, can lamentably be now seen as neither as a pillar of the rule of law nor an independent branch of government. But the problem is even more severe than that: with more and more evidence surfacing of Justice Department officials –from the Attorney General on down– collaborating in criminal actions by the Bush Administration, the Justice Department itself is becoming the country’s most destructive underminer of the rule of law. To these alarming realities, American civil society has been slow to react, but rule of law organisations, most prominently the Center for Constitutional Rights and ACLU, are now, at this very late stage, working to together to strike back hard at the administration that has turned what was a flawed liberal democracy into something unrecognizable to its own citizens and the people of the world.