Author Archive

Ingrida Kerusauskaite speaks to Paul Collier, Flavia Pansieri and Carolyn Miller about Clinton’s role in coordinating relief and reconstruction works in Haiti.

Around a billion pounds in donations from around the world has poured into Haiti since the disastrous earthquake in January. Since then, around 1000 NGOS have registered with the UN, with perhaps just as many more operating in the country without having registered. However such rapid and committed response, despite the good intentions, may at times complicate rather than assist relief operations. Aid workers returning from Haiti have expressed frustration with the numerous NGOs “tripping over each other”, often duplicating other NGO and UN operations. The sheer number of organizations operating in the country also requires a certain degree of bureaucracy, which has slowed down or even jeopardized certain food and water distribution operations. Given such issues, the major task to coordinate relief and reconstruction efforts of the “zoo of different actors”, as the economist Paul Collier puts it, has been tasked to former US president Bill Clinton.

Yet many ask the question, why an American? Some might see the appointment of Clinton as clear evidence of the spread of US imperialism, asking why it is not an international body, such a UN agency, leading the relief operation. However, Ban Ki-Moon, the secretary general of the UN, has himself appointed Bill Clinton. “The UN is saying that Clinton is the right person,” said Collier. Flavia Pansieri, the UN Volunteers Programme Executive Coordinator, pointed out that Clinton had already been formally appointed as the UN’s Special Envoy for Haiti in March 2009, before the earthquake, “and in this capacity he would continue to support Haiti relief efforts”.

Paul Collier believes that the appointment, which will see Clinton forming a decision-making structure alongside senior Haitian politicians, will be ideal for the earthquake stricken country. Collier, who had previously worked for the UN in Haiti, noted that the disastrous collapse of the UN building in Haiti, in which senior ranking officials died, means “the UN is starting in Haiti from scratch again”.

Moreover, numerous UN agencies, as well as the World Bank and other organizations all believe that they should be the ones coordinating the relief and reconstruction operations. It is thus felt that a widely recognized public figure is required to cut through such departmental in-fighting. “So, in my mind, Clinton is ideal,” states Collier, commenting on Clinton’s involvement and popularity in Haiti. Clinton is “uniquely well-placed” to coordinate the private and public sectors in Haiti: via his role in the government, as well as with the ‘Clinton Global Initiative’, which encourages the private sector in the US to invest in Haiti. Far from representing US imperialism, Clinton’s public profile will be intended to boost the Haitian response internationally.

However, such a comprehensive foreign role raises questions about the sustainability of the development and reconstruction effort in Haiti. The troubled country’s infrastructure was extremely poor before the earthquake that has finally focused international attention there. “Haiti has not had a functioning government for as long as most of us can remember”, said Carolyn Miller, Chief Executive of MERLIN (Medical Emergency Relief International). For the past two decades, Haiti had been heavily relying on foreign aid to sustain basic services and infrastructure in the country. According to a 2006 World Bank study, 92% of Haiti’s schools and 70% of healthcare operations were undertaken by NGOs.

This historical reliance has raised concerns that in a couple of year’s time, when the unprecedented aid that is currently being donated to Haiti will cease, there will be a sudden abandonment of such comprehensive reconstruction and relief projects. “You all generously donated now, but will you still donate in three years’ time?” Miller asks. Indeed, how long will the international community need to “guide” Haiti’s politics and development until it can stand on its own two feet?

Collier deems Clinton’s and the international community’s involvement be necessary during the coming 3 or 4 years, and “to do practical things”, such as set up an efficient network of electricity and infrastructure. The fact is that “it’s not that [the power network] has fallen down, it was never there”. One of the most important lessons learned from previous disasters, according to Miller, is that “it takes a very long time to rebuild”, and early abandon of developmental projects could have devastating effects, as seen in Sierra Leone.

However, such statements point to the need for a lengthily international engagement with Haiti that many Western governments may not be keen to honour, despite the efforts of prominent diplomats such as Clinton.

All international responses to crisis manage a balancing act between the immediate need to act and issues of sustainability for the country that will soon be “yesterday’s news”. Despite the robust international response thus far, serious questions remain for Haiti.  How long will it take the country, which has been largely dependent on foreign aid for the past few decades, manage to successfully move away from NGO and international actors’ patronage? Only time will tell if the humanitarianism of the last few months will be sustained by aid donors and the recipient government alike.

The run-up to the election period was marked by numerous political debate and conference sessions, in a general public attempt to analyse the candidates’ stances, as well as present politicians with communities’ and individual groups’ own political priorities.

 “Party politics no longer seem to be about clear ideological differences, or indeed any kind of substantial debate reflecting competing visions for a better society,” stated the Institute of Ideas (IoI) during a -election public summit, the ‘Battle for Politics’, that the organisation held at the Goodenough College this April. During the summit, IoI put forward 21 ‘Pledges for Progress’, concerning freedom, civil liberties, economic development, the constitution and public services. The pledges will be presented to politicians, who in turn will be asked to clearly state their stance regarding the issues put forward. As put by Pam Giddy, the director of Power 2010, the pledges will prevent the MPs from being able to say “nobody ever asked me about that”. The pledges are also expected to generate political debate among the public, thus reengaging people in politics.

Participants of the summit were asked to think about ‘the kind of election and government we could have’. “This election has to be about opening up the structures,” said Pam Giddy, “about policies, not parties”. Wes Streeting, the president of NUS, explained that when students do not use their votes, politicians focus on the part of the society that is politically active, such as pensioners. [ à pullquote] Consequently, ‘politicians can afford to back university cuts and rising fees’ while supporting rising pensions, as it is more likely to get them voted into power.

During this election, however, the NUS and student activists are resolute to make themselves heard. Wes Streeting, NUS president, declared that the NUS is “determined to hold parliamentary candidates to account, and help students in every constituency to understand which of those candidates is prepared to back student interests – on the record, and on a clear promise.” The NUS has launched the campaign ‘Vote for Students’, asking MPs to support the NUS Funding our Future Pledge: “I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative”. NUS will subsequently offer students information about those standing for election in their local area, and highlight whether those standing for election have signed the NUS Vote For Students pledge to vote against a hike in top-up fees if elected. So far, 725 parliamentary candidates have signed the NUS Vote for Students pledge, among which are more than 175 Labour and 300 Liberal Democrat candidates, but only 10 Conservative candidates. Visit www.voteforstudents.co.uk  to find out more about and support the campaign.

The NUS campaign, however, focuses merely on university fees. Students in London on the other hand are also affected by other issues which have a significant effect on the quality of our education and university experience. The universities are facing large cuts in the upcoming years, and living costs in London are as ever high – affordable housing and cheaper transportation are crucial to attract the most talented and diverse student body to London universities. Join the facebook group ‘Support London Students’ or email the London Student politics editors at politics.editor@london-student.net to have your say regarding your priorities as a student, and what politicians could do about them. The final debated version of London Student stances will be taken to local parliamentary candidates. Moreover, as victories in certain constituencies in London are determined by student votes, these are likely to be taken seriously.

We propose these issues to start with:

• No to funding cuts in universities
• No to rising fees
• Yes to more scholarships and bursaries to home, EU and international students
• No to spying on international students
• Yes to creating conditions for affordable housing and cheaper transport
• Yes to more paid internship opportunities
• Yes to more graduate positions

During the ‘Battle for Politics’, it was strongly stressed that ‘if you don’t vote or get involved, then you can’t complain about the outcome’.  The reason that BNP won two seats at the European Parliament was indeed not massively increased support for the party, but rather low voter turnout. As quite bluntly put by Peter Tatchell, the Green Party human rights spokesman, “people engage when they’re pissed enough, and I don’t think that they’re pissed enough yet”. Get involved before you end up with an enormous debt you will be struggling to repay for numerous years. 

[ in a separate box in the article:]

21 PLEDGES FOR PROGRESS 2010

Re FREEDOM

1. Repeal hate speech legislation, in the interests of free speech, with no ifs, no buts.
2. Repeal the UK’s libel laws, in the interests of free speech, no ifs, no buts.
3. Stop bureaucratic CRB checks and vetting of adults who come into contact with children and vulnerable adults, in the interests of free association between generations and countering the climate of mistrust.
4. Repeal any equality legislation that interferes with the freedom of private organisations like churches and political parties to act on their beliefs, in the interests of free association.
5. Revoke unnecessary and nonsensical health and safety rules and guidelines in the interests of countering today’s risk-averse, safety-first climate of fear.
6. Allow pubs and clubs the option of permitting smoking, and get rid of the new ‘no drinking zones’, in the interests of countering the over-regulation of public spaces.
7. Scrap the ‘database state’, including the ContactPoint database which holds information about every child in the country and the DNA database which includes details of criminal suspects without convictions, in the interests of civil liberties, the privacy of families and the principle that we are innocent until proven guilty.
8. Limit the police’s power to detain people without charge to 24 hours rather than 28 days, in the interests of civil liberties and due process.
9. Declare an amnesty for all illegal immigrants presently in the UK, whether asylum seekers or economic migrants, in the interests of recognising the positive aspirations of those who seek to improve their lives by moving countries.
10. Open the borders, revoking all immigration controls, in the interests of the free movement of citizens.

Re CONSTITUTION

1. Get rid of police Tsars and unelected ‘experts’ from government decision-making in the interests of parliamentary sovereignty and democratic accountability.
2. Abolish the monarchy and the House of Lords in the interests of a fully elected legislature and executive.
3. Hold a referendum on the EU constitution and any subsequent treaties, in the interests of a national democratic mandate.

Re ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

1. Direct state expenditure into infrastructural projects such as power grids and telecommunications, increased facilities for road, rail and air travel, in the interests of productive economic growth.
2. Build new nuclear power stations across the country in the interests of ensuring we have more than sufficient energy to power a new round of economic growth.
3. Reduce the onerous regulation of new scientific and technological developments such as GM technology and biomedicine in the interests of increasing R&D and encouraging innovation.

Re PUBLIC SERVICES

1. Stop excessive centralisation and bureaucratic control of public services, enabling professionals to make judgements in the interests of those using the services rather than artificial targets.
2. Scrap the ‘impact statement’ demands on university research in the interests of valuing knowledge for its own sake and academic freedom from policy outcomes.
3. Support the arts financially, for their own sake, in the interests of liberating them from ever more prescriptive and politicised instrumental demands.
4. Direct state funding of health to biomedical research into cures, the latest drugs and equipment, rather than punitive campaigns to change individual behaviour, in the interests of public health and good cheer.
5. Direct state funding of schools into providing universal access to the highest standard of education in academic subjects, rather than politicised cross curricular themes like sustainability or citizenship, in the interests of passing on real knowledge to our children.

To support or comment on the pledges go to http://www.instituteofideas.com/election2010.html .

 

Ingrida Kerusauskaite reports from the inaugural ‘One Young World’ summit on how young activists, with the guidance Kofi Annan and Desmond Tutu among others, plan on “changing the world”.

They call themselves the ‘leaders of tomorrow’. 88 percent of over 500 ‘One Young World’ (OYW) delegates declared that they will change the world. ‘One Young World’ was the first global youth leadership summit held in London last week. The former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, Sir Bob Geldof, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Muhammad Yunus and other international luminaries all joined the exceptional under-25 year olds from all over the world.

Youth of the world state their case

The delegates, local community leaders and activists put forward six main resolutions, and debated them with prominent youth delegate speakers and the influential counsellors. The resolutions were designed to express the stance of the world’s on global business and its role in shaping society through the economy, the environment and its protection, and global health challenges among other issues.

The quasi world-wide representation enabled the resolutions and opinions to be formed in a uniquely culturally sensitive environment. “Africa is not a country, it is a continent. It has different cultures, languages and governmental systems,” exclaimed a Ghanaian delegate in response to others’ generalizations about Africa’s inadequate healthcare and education systems. In the plenary “The Changing Power of the Media”, it was noted that the media rarely covers the stories of people “who give back to society; the good side, the dignity of Africa”, a factor which has a negative influence on the rest of the world’s general perception of Africa. A Pakistani delegate asked the media to show stories that would bring people and nations together, rather than tear them apart.

The delegates, in addition to raising the big issues of world poverty, hunger and human rights abuse, also asked questions on how to achieve such goals. Delegates and counsellors called upon world leaders, talented youth and the media to work together, and make the world function as “one country, as one city, as one village, as one family”. During a panel session an Israeli and a Palestinian delegate shared their personal losses and grievances, and at the end asked: “If we, who suffered the most from this conflict, can sit here together and talk, why can’t everyone else do it?”

Committed to action

As naïve and idealistic as a conference of young and passionate people committed to changing the world might sound, the attendees often stressed their commitment to actions as well as delivering inspiring speeches. “So what can you do in your society?” was a frequently asked question. Microfinance projects, community support groups, training provision and peer counselling were just some of the responses mentioned. “We have for too long criticized Copenhagen and all those people who have not been able to implement their ideas,” OYW delegates said.

Simon Fowell, a British delegate asked what young people, students and those without financial resources do to help disaster-struck regions and global developmental projects in general. “There are people who can raise billions of dollars, but we need minds like yours to tell us what to do with it. I don’t need your money, I need your information and ideas!” answered the Haitian-American rapper Wyclef Jean. “The message to you is that somewhere in the world, around a table there are people who are taking decisions that will affect your future, and you don’t have a seat at the table. So my advice to you is that you get yourself a seat,” he added.

Michael Tio, a delegate from Malaysia, declared that social media has opened new platforms for the youth to express its opinion and challenge the status quo. “Welcome to the age of collaboration, where information is no longer filtered. Facebook and Youtube users – we are no longer ignorant, we have the power of the crowd; and businesses and governments can no longer ignore our views,” Tio said stressing the unique opportunities and tools that today’s youth has at its disposal. “The internet gives people access to education. We need to be leaders to spread this, this makes our generation unique,” said Lucian Tarnowski, a UK delegate.

Many delegates proposed innovative solutions to the world’s biggest problems. “Sports can bring peace,” said a Pakistani delegate, further explaining how it has in numerous occasions played a significant role in preventing internal conflict in the country. The delegate specifically stressed that fighting for mutual goals on a pitch eased political tensions amongst different civil groups.

Will it have an impact?

But what is the point of such debates, resolutions and ‘big words’? Some delegates did not seem to do more than deliver vague speeches about the importance of ‘universal values’, unity and the necessity to eradicate poverty; or spoke to simply flatter themselves for the projects they have conducted, proudly smiling and calling themselves the (future) “leaders of the world”. More realistic delegates, however, were there to remind everyone that “being a leader is not about helping your community; it’s about changing the world. We are not leaders yet.”

David Jones, co-founder of ‘One Young World’ said that the purpose of the summit was to “create a platform recognised all over the world, so that when ‘One Young World’ ambassadors speak, people will listen, leaders will listen. And now the delegates will be able to say: “If Kofi Annan and Desmond Tutu can sit and listen to the delegates in this room, then why can‘t you?”

Dawn Butler, the UK Minister for Young Citizens and Youth Engagement told the delegates: “You might not realize just how important your presence in this room today is. What we want to show the world that what you are doing today is changing the unfair representation of young people. With your presence and your speeches, you are making the world listen.” She also pointed out that by 2018 every local authority must spend 25 percent of its budget on young people, “that means that young people will have a voice and an authority”. Moreover, today’s youth represents a significant proportion of voters, whose voices need to be heard by those aiming for government posts.

Again, many would condemn it as just another one of the abundant international youth meetings. However, certain factors make “One Young World” stand out. The support of well-known names such as Kofi Annan, Desmond Tutu, Muhammad Yunus, international organisations such as the UN, media giants such as BBC, as well as the commercial sector, namely Euro RSCG/Havas Worldwide, lends credibility to the event, and attracts considerable public and media attention, which is not common for an inaugural summit. Indeed, a number of cities all over the world are already bidding to host the next ‘One Young World’ summit. “It’s now up to us not to make it Copenhagen number two,” said a delegate. The next ‘One Young World’ summit will invite this year’s participants, the ambassadors of OYW, to present their achievements and activities in between the two summits. “Today is a start, not the end,” said David Jones.