Rightfully there is a lot of attention going to the Burma cyclone tragedy, and the attempts to get aid to those in need. Personally I like this article from the BBC, which gives a good rundown of the specific risks and the political wrangling that surrounds the issue.
At times like this it is helpful to remember the mantra: “The people of Burma do not deserve to die because they have a bad government.”
The Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria is considering starting a loan program for countries that can afford it, but still need help buying HIV meds. I guess it makes sense in a way, but it is a pretty stark change from the traditional wisdom on foreign aid loans, isn’t it? I thought the idea was that a country would develop and over time its economy would get better and it could repay the loan. Like taking student loans because you know you’ll make more money when you get out. Or buying a house because (cough cough) it’s a good investment.
I suppose the idea is that if you don’t take care of your HIV problem your economy will fall apart anyway, so by that logic it is a good investment.
This op/ed from the Times of India is worth a read. It discusses the rising wealth of many Indians, and argues that a rise in personal philanthropy is not coming along with it. India has 52 billionaires, the most in Asia. But it has only 4 people on the Forbes list of 48 top Asian philanthropists.
Of course, it depends a lot on how you measure philanthropy. A lot of Indian billionaires might be giving generously but unanimously, or giving to poor family members even. But it does indicate that India’s wealthy are not sharing their wealth. I wonder how much this is an Indian thing, though. The op/ed gives prominent examples of US philanthropists, but that isn’t statistically meaningful. There must be more US billionaires than Indian billionaires. A few examples of the generous doesn’t demonstrate a Western priority on giving.
But the author does give a great qute from US philanthropist Christopher Hohn, “‘A man who dies rich, dies disgraced”.
Reading this AP article about a Credit Suisse banker who was arrested in Brazil for helping rich Brazilians escape their own taxes reminded me of a panel discussion I heard last year. The link has audio for all the speakers, and I particularly recommend Raymond Baker’s presentation.
Basically there are a hundreds of billions of dollars that are stolen from the developing world every year and invested in the economies of wealthier countries. Legitimate financial systems are used for a lot of these investments, and the total figure is probably several times larger than all foreign aid funds. It’s a huge problem, and a commitment to development should include doing something to fix it.
The Global Philanthropy Forum (GPF) concluded its 7th annual conference in Redwood City, California earlier this month, featuring the Archbishop Desmond Tutu and other leaders, activists, and social investors engaged in global causes. Participants examined how their philanthropic efforts can strategically address issues including trafficking, child soldiers, hunger, education, and violent conflict. Looking to the future of philanthropy, attendees examined “web-based, purpose-driven social networking” and the broader intersection of technology and activism.
Singers Peter Gabriel and Annie Lennox, along with actress Julia Ormond (left), addressed the GPF community, serving as powerful examples of the influence of art and celebrity in advancing human rights. Ormond described her work in combating human trafficking, proclaiming that it is “time for the world to acknowledge that slavery still exists,” citing examples from Ghana, Cambodia, India, and the U.S.
The three-day program concluded with a panel featuring Gareth Evans, President and CEO of the International Crisis Group, and Samantha Power of Harvard University’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. Discussing the prevention of genocide and other mass atrocity crimes, Power recommended that more philanthropic resources be dedicated to advancing the rule of law. Also stressing the importance of social activism, Power pointed to GPF participants as examples of “up-standers,” as opposed to bystanders, who speak out and take action in the face of such violence and injustice worldwide.
Photo at Top: Brizio Biondi-Morra of Fundacion AVINA, Jeff Skoll of the Skoll Foundation, Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook, and musician Peter Gabriel of WITNESS and The Elders.
Note: Guest writer Rohini Gupta worked at the World Affairs Council during its launch of the Global Philanthropy Forum in 2001.
There’s a good, if somewhat long, article in the New York Times today about the fall of Australian rice production due to drought, and the effects that has had on world food prices. This is turning into an increasingly scary problem, and every major news outlet has covered examples of the scariness like the Haiti food riots over the past few weeks.
I agree that the idea of a sustained, rapid increase in food prices has terrifying implications, but it involves a nexus of so many complex subjects - including environmental science, agriculture, energy policy, and economics - that I don’t really know where to begin peeling it apart.
Next week I’ll be speaking with an expert on the subject, and hopefully will get a better idea what is really going on, and what we should really be afraid of. Until then I’d just like to point out that doomsday scenarios have been discussed but never seen for a lot of problems - bird flu jumps to mind. It isn’t that we shouldn’t think about this new catastrophe waiting to happen, but a level headed consideration of the problem is required.
Last week the Guardian ran an opinion piece by Julie Bindel on the use of female nudity to raise money for charities and causes. I have to admit that I hadn’t noticed this trend, but Bindel provides enough examples to demonstrate that it does indeed exist.
It seems to me that she describes two fundamentally different things as part of this trend. The first is the use of nudity in advertising and public events as part of awareness raising efforts - such as PETA’s “I’d rather go naked than wear fur” campaign. The second is the use of sexual imagery to actually raise money. The example Bindel gives of this is a Ryanair cheesecake calendar to raise money for a children’s charity. (You may have to be British to understand why that one makes sense.)
The people behind the specific cases Bindel notes show some pretty fuzzy-headed defenses of their work My personal favorite is this comment by Michael Korzinski from the anti-trafficking organization the Helen Bamber Foundation, regarding a nude campaign by Spice Girl Mel B. According to Korzinski, Mel B “is exercising her freedom of choice in going naked, unlike the enslaved, brutalised, trafficked women we work with” Seriously? Why can’t we at least be honest that Mel B naked brings a lot of eyeballs to the ads?
I haven’t seen any of the images Bindel describes, so I can’t comment on their sophistication and place on the scale of art or tawdry exploitation, or to what extent they really contribute to a misogynist culture. But this does raise a good question about how much responsibility an NGO has to maintain consistent values in its fund-raising and awareness campaigns. Personally I think that NGOs, especially charities, should follow a careful code or they risk losing their influence on the issues that matter.
The International Food Aid Conference (PDF) will take place next week in Kansas City. This is event the brings together leaders in food aid from 25 countries, including the leaders of the US Government’s chief food aid officials. They’ll be discussing some genuine issues in the field, including the rising price of food internationally and the President’s perfectly rational suggestion that 25% of US food aid be provided with food purchased locally.
I like this PSA for Charitywater, an NGO that builds water pumps in the developing world.
After posting about the upcoming NBC drama about a renegade, philanthropist billionaire I realized that I had some more to say. To be sure, the show does sound like an aid worker wish fulfillment fantasy. This guy gets to travel the world and really see his beneficiaries, and NEVER has to write a funding proposal, program report, or success story. He never has to manage a budget or decipher the Fly America policy. Who wouldn’t love that?
But obviously NBC doesn’t make TV hoping to appeal to the aid worker demographic. They make shows that they think will appeal to a broad US audience. I’m assuming that superhero stories are about wish fulfillment, and that the nature of the wish stems from what the audience feels it is lacking. If that common wisdom is correct, then I think NBC’s plan suggests that Americans are feeling trapped in a world full of war, poverty, and death. That there is so much suffering in the world that we can’t possibly change it, and the institutions set up for us are either ineffective or corrupt. In response, here is a man who has the power to skip past that system and really DO something. At least, that is what NBC is banking on.
I may be reading too much into this.