uhhhhhh....

Image: The Insider
Please tell me this is joke:

Noble Awards set to honour celebrity humanitarians?

It's going to be 2 hour awards show to honour celebrities that give up just that "little" amount of their time to a cause of their choice and have "really" made a difference.

Now don't get me wrong.

I've had this debate a number of times with friends about the merits of celebrity support for a cause. I'm on the pro-side. As long as it is done responsibly, celebrities can bring massive amounts of coverage to causes. Ambassadors such as Angelina Jolie and Alicia Keys highlight the plight of refugees or the disabled for organizations such as UNHCR, IRC and the amazing Best Buddies. They can meddle a bit too much, such as in the case of George Clooney and Darfur, or become so over exposed that we roll our eyes everytime they appear off-stage (eyes on Bono - but maybe thats more because people forget that he's not an expert on global poverty... but actually rock musician). I also have no doubt that many of these celebrities aren't doing this because it makes the look good to the public (although that does factor in) but because they genuinely believe that they should work for humanitarian causes because they can bring so much exposure.

But do they really need a 2-hour awards show?

This is going to sound whiney - but there are thousands of relif and charities workers globally who toil day in and day out, not just because its their career, but also because they want to work the greater good. There are even more volunteers that do this for free with little thanks. Occasionally they are trown big parties to give thanks and priase where it is due(the organization I work for has quite the star-studded event every year in new york, and regularly has event in which celebrities and people in the know attend)and they are useful tools to draw attention to causes, but if they get too crazy or extravagent they are scoffed at. The money, at least I believe, that goes into these events could and should be better spent on advocacy, campaigning, or back into program coffers so that we're less dependent on pandering to foreign policies of the US and EU, and more focused on exactly what is needed.

I really hope this is a joke.

Changing face of child protection

The UN's SRSG for Children in Armed Conflict released a report on changing affects of armed conflict on children, particularly noting the increase use of sexual violence against children. Topics such as child soldiers and the effect on a child's education wer discussed as well, but this report takes yet another move at highlighting the use of rape as a common tool of warfare - particularly against girls.

The relese date of the report to the General Assembly (August 6) coincided with Hillary Clinton's trip to the Democratic Republic of Congo where rape is endemic. It has been estimated that 3,500 women have been raped in the DRC this year alone. Men and children are not immune from this either. Attrocities are carried out by all sides, leaving the general population with nowhere to turn and few to trust. But will Clinton's outspokeness towards the Congolese government on the topic of sexual violence or papers released by the UN calling on the world to protect children from this form of abuse change anything?

Unlikely.

Rape was first declared a war crime after the Bosnian war in 1996 with the indictment of 8 Bosnian Serb Military Policemen for their connection with the rape of Muslim Bosnian women. It was the first time a sexual assault case was brought to the Hague as a war crime in its own right. Since then, rape has been included in war crime indictments, including that of Omar al Bshir's. This hasn't changed anything, in fact, the widespread use of rape as a weapon or even as a effect of conflict may be increasing.

Many of my female colleagues here in Iraq report that the lawlessness of the past few years has contributed in a rise of violence against women. What is more frightening is the number of deaths of young women due to sexual violence, either from honour killings, suicide or homocide. One former colleague, who splits her time between Mosul and Kirkuk, stated that because of the lack of rule of law men rape and kill women just because they are good looking. Coupled with a sexually repressive society, where shame for sexual violence falls on women and girls, one can only imagine the restrictions now placed on daughters, sisters and wives.

In the report, the UN calls on greater involvement of children in the peacemaking process and more importantly to mainstream child protection into all activities. But more is needed. From a young age education on gender equality is needed, and less separation of the sexes is reqired (I'm not a huge cultural relativist). Young women need to be encouraged into non-traditional roles such as the police force, law making, and even the army - such as in Liberia. Sex education is needed for children and young adults. And finally, and most importantly - gender-based violence programs are needed for everyone - children, adults, front-line workers such as police and health care workers - to remove the stigma of reporting and talking about sexual violence. To stop blaming victims and to empower survivors. This may just put a dent in the problem.

Two Posts in One Day!

I am actually quite busy - but this is cool, and sad, and anger inducing, and just very interesting.

It's an illustration of the world's needs for humanitarian crises in both monetary and human resources

Delayed Doom and Gloom

I may or may not have on here, or amongst friends, predicted that things will intensify in the north. I still hold my ground, although its taking longer than expected. Not to make that sound like I want things to intesify. I'm just mearly stating a fact. The US Army is moving more troops up here to hopefully reduce tensions between the Iraqi Army and the Kurdish Peshmerga, Kurdish leaders have walked away from the governing council in Mosul claiming that the Arab council members are allowing Al Qaeda to flourish, Al Qaeda may be flourishing in Mosul (altough most information has been pointing to a reduction in their presence in the country... however Mosul seems to buck the trand on all accounts), and now there is a severe drought in the north increasing tensions.

Now I'm being told that Aid-Workers' resilience is beng put to the limits the field... Al Humdeliliah Eid is coming! In the mean time... this is the picture I always look at whenever I'm stressed.
Gets me every time.

For more information on this, please refer to people who write better than I do.
- On US Army plans for northern Iraq
- On the problems in Mosul
- On the water shortage
- On Aid workers' mental health

...

Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not.- Ted Kennedy

Words to live by.

Farewell Sir.

This one's for the girls

The New York Times (and I want to say CARE - their ads are all over the thing!) is running a special called "Saving the World's Women". Not so sure of the title ("save us oh male knight in shining armour"), it is just a tad condenscending. Women can help in their own "saving". However, despite this, it highlights the importance of women in the world, the disadvantages they face, and how our involvement and equality is better for everyone. (Plans for global takeover was not discussed... mainly because its planned for when you least expect it).

Anyways - you can find the articles on the NYT website:
The Women's Crusade

Afghan School Girls vs. Jihadists

The Disappearing Girls Effect
Hillary Clinton's New Foreign Policy Agenda
And finally and interview with everyone's favourite female President, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf

Mixing Aid with Military

An interesting article in Slate Magazine from the Washington Post appeared this week, and continues my discussion on the mixing of military and civilian organizations in humanitarian aid work.

As per previous posts (namely the one where I went on and on about the humanitarian code of conduct vs. the USG plans to implement SPOT), I do not agree with the blurriness that continues between where military ends and the humanitarian work begins. This article, written by Anna Huskarska from the International Rescue Committee in Afghanistan further highlights the problems facing aid agencies in even receiving credit for their work or their committment to the communities and countries in which they operate.

Huskarska writes of a school opening of the CAI (famous from the book "Three Cups of Tea") depicted by Thomas Friedman of the New York Times in Aghanistan shows how the hard work of agencies can often be used as a means to show the "good donations" (=work) of the donors - and now in many cases in post-conflict settings, the military. This associations leads one to believe that without the US government (or any other donor agency)secular schools for children would not be built (and everything will go to hell in a handbag!), ignoring the longstanding relationships and commitment of the community and the aid agency to the project and the area.

This is not to say that some credit for donation is not due to a donor. However, activities such as this should be more of a celebration of the community rather than the aid aganecy or the donor agency - and it should most certainly not include the military.

The Afghanistan experience parallels that of Iraq, where military representative from Provincial Reconstruction Teams are often present at events. This gives the impression to the local community that none of this was possible without "us giving you freedom". If the military goes away - so do all these nice projects. Scary.

To move away from this, strict policies can be put in place to ensure that this association is not made. Low profile security in dangerous areas, strict rules about "no guns" (which are also applied to your donor), and refusal to work with the military (including PRTs). This helps to distance an agency from these associations, and to quote the title of the article - give "credit where credit's due".