I happened to watch a part of Joe’s speech in UPENN Commencement 2013 this Monday, in which I heard the following:

“China is a great nation, and we should hope for the continued expansion. But ladies and gentlemen, their problems are immense, and they lack much of what we have. We have the best universities in the world. We have a legal system that is open and fair. We have the most agile venture capital system in the world. We lead the world in innovation and technology, all for a simple basic reason.”

I think it was very inappropriate for Biden, Vice President of The United States, to speak highly of America by depreciating another country, which in this context is China. Where did I find this quotation? In a social media site called Renren that most Chinese college students use every day in China, just as people in America use Facebook. Biden continued:

“Steve Jobs, speaking at Stanford, was asked by a young man ‘How can I be more like you, how I can become like you?’ And Jobs famously answered: ‘Think different.’ You cannot think different in a nation where you cannot breathe free. You cannot think different in a nation where you aren’t able to challenge orthodoxy, because change only comes from challenging orthodoxy.”

I used Google to search “Joe Biden UPENN Commencement 2013 China” and got the results along the lines of “Joe mentioned the rise of China” and “Keep betting on America.” Nothing expressing concerns similar to those of the paragraph on the Chinese website. It was so fascinating to look at two quite different sides of the story and how media manipulate the news in both countries. Biden’s speech can be interpreted in multiple ways; the victims of this game are the recipients who see the news and do not have enough information to judge for themselves what is fact. As global citizens and future leaders for young people, we should receive but not accept the interpretation from media and then use our own knowledge to search for the truth before passing judgment.

A recent New York Times article highlighted the public policy debate on the use of drones strikes versus captures in high level terror suspects. This debate is not new. Since the advent of the “War on Terror”, Human rights groups have expressed legal concerns with the detention or outright execution of individuals, “terror suspects” without a trial. The induction of drones into the US foreign policy has defined a new, but arguably more controversial era in US foreign policy and only served to broaden the debate on drones.

Wikipedia defines drones as “An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), commonly known as a drone, is an aircraft without a human pilot on board.” They are commonly used in military operations to secure intelligence and to eliminate targets. They can be armed with Hellfire missiles to attack ground targets (i.e. terrorist suspects).

The New York Times article also notes there is a little support for drone strikes abroad. But while the US policy remains controversial, the American public by and large supports drones and their use.

Naturally, the drone debate remains somewhat polarized.  John Brennan, the architect of US drone policy, dismissed allegations that the current administration focuses on killing rather than capturing suspects. Drone supporters argue that drone use allows for safer more strategic operations that could not otherwise be done. The other rather strong bottom-line is that drones save American lives.

Opponents of the current US drone policy advocate for more a more transparent policy on drone use, adding that while it may eliminate key terrorist target, the civilian casualties and subsequent rise in Anti-American sentiment actually undermines US counterterrorism objectives.

Recently, the debate has only become more complex, the Obama administration has mulled over a plan to turn over drone missions from the Central Intelligence Agency to the military. International law governs the military while CIA has more let’s just say has more lee-way. This may not be enough to end the debate or appease concerns though.

The tide of support may be shifting away from US drone policy. United Nations officials and some friendly foreign governments have joined the chorus of those arguing for less drone use. Drones raise strategic debates. These include questions such as sovereignty, Pakistan officials stated US drone strike breach Pakistan’s sovereignty. UN officials agreed.

Drones also raise the question of privacy. This year, the US Senate convened a panel weighing the benefits of domestic drones. Current laws do not provide privacy protection or comprehensive regulation of drone use in the states.

The drone debate will likely endure for the time being. The measurement of their efficacy may be the defining pivot for their continued use or part in US foreign policy. Domestic drones are pretty much wide open field. Opponents of drone use abroad may have reality on their side, the rise of anti-American sentiment amidst the shifting political landscapes in the greater Middle East should prompt concern or at least caution for deadly engagement.

Of course, any realist might quip that drones are going nowhere. The key area of engagement or advocacy would be in crafting a comprehensive policy that provides an ethical legal framework for their use, both domestic and international. The larger challenge is the issue of laws keeping up with technology and the intersection of rights such as privacy in these matters. A comprehensive policy should not doubt have a substantive human rights framework; of course this might further defeat the efficacy of drones in the military operations. All of this is to say, drones may be pretty much here to stay. The day without drones is far from us.

Since these institutional changes, the origins of foreign children adopted by Americans have switched from South Korea and countries in south eastern Europe to Russia and China. Overall, the number of foreign children adopted by Americans has dropped dramatically. This can partially be attributed to the United State’s stricter adoption standards, however low numbers may also be a result of certain countries’ efforts to preserve their dignity. As described before there is an enormous stigma associated with foreign adoption in South Korea, and it’s widely accepted that Russia banned adoption by Americans as a political retaliation against the Magnitsky Law (an American law targeting Russian human rights violators for imprisoning a lawyer who was investigating fraud within the Russian government).

The question is, how should the U.S. react to these bans?  It’s a difficult question to answer.  Many see a country’s adoption protocol as their prerogative, and interfering with that right would undoubtedly strain relations.  On the other hand, harming children out of political backlash or damaged pride should not be acceptable behavior.  In Russia alone 650,000 children live in foster care or orphanages, many of which are unlikely to ever find permanent homes.  And the proven psychological, emotional and physical damage of children in institutional care may condemn many children to poor health. Conversely, adoption to U.S. homes generally has a positive outcome.  The U.S.’s course of action would be much clearer if the impact of Russia’s ban was known.

Its been almost 4 months since the ban, and its uncertain if Russia has made any strides to improve their adoption or foster care system like they claimed they would.  Unlike South Korea (who methodically restructured their adoption system to incentivize local adoption) Russia and Romania outright banned foreign adoption, swiftly cutting themselves off from a dependable source of homes with no institutionalized plan “b”.  South Korea’s approach has predictably led to better foster conditions and increased local adoptions, while Romania’s less successful approach has left many children waiting in orphanages until they’re 18.  While it may be too early to tell, one fears Russia’s ban will end like Romania’s ban, and the children will be collateral damage.

What can we do?  Lower the shame these countries have associated with foreign adoption and continue to treat the children as children and not as pawns in a political match.  It’s important now more than even to maintain open communication and contact with Russia, and sharing common ground on the well-being of children could be a good place to start.

“It is, I argue, only when we examine solidarity as a problem of communication, that is, as a moral claim seeking to reconcile the competing demands of market, politics and the media, that we can better understand how the spectacle of suffering is subtly but surely turning the West into a specific kind of public actor – the ironic spectator of vulnerable others.” (Chouliaraki, 2013, p. 2)

In an age of clicktivism, Bono ideology, and wristband advocators, people are asking whether true social revolution can be brought about through the logic of the market. In The Ironic Spectator: Solidarity in the Age of Post-Humanitarianism, Lilie Chouliaraki explores that very issue. She asserts that there is an epistemic shift in the communication of solidarity, a shift towards a morality where the good that we do is more concerned with ‘how I feel’ and is rewarded with minor self gratification. At the core of moral action is self pleasure creating what Chouliaraki refers to as ironic solidarity. Solidarity is no longer concerned with the political conditions of human vulnerability and more with self-expression.

“Whilst irony is often translated into ‘postmodern’ postures of cool cynicism that reject moral attachment in favour of playful agnosticism, the spectacle of vulnerable others, I argue, complicates this posture in that, by virtue of confronting us with their suffering, it continues to raise the question of ‘what to do’ – it continues to call upon us as moral actors. The ironic spectator is, in this sense, an impure or ambivalent figure that stands, at once, as skeptical towards any moral appeal to solidary action and, yet, open to doing something about those who suffer.” (Chouliaraki, 2013, p. 2)

A concept Chouliaraki discusses is the ‘humanitarian imaginary,’ a phenomenon that occurs within the communicative structure of the theater where an audience is presented a show to collective imaginations of vulnerable others. The goal is to get the audience to think, feel, and act towards these vulnerable others, creating an imagined solidarity, working through ‘spectacles of suffering.’ Humanitarianism educates these audiences on morality by relying on the theatre of pity – spectacles that raise the question of action on the basis of salvation or revolution. Presented to us through appeals, celebrity, concerts, and news, these spectacles of suffering move us into action.

The language being used in the world of aid and development prioritizes branding, cultivating a deep emotional attachment to a particular commodity. That commodity is solidarity. Private emotion and philanthropic obligation is commodified. Human vulnerability and suffering is now cast in the light and logic of a market. This emphasis on emotional branding deprives humanitarian communication of an argumentative rationale for solidarity. The motivation of saving lives and changing societies is made second priority to the self-oriented imperative of profitable performance in the humanitarian sector. Humanitarian practice is marketized. The irony is the cultivation of a ‘detached knowingness.’

“We, ironic spectators, need the theatre now, more than ever – it may not make us become good but, as W.H. Auden put it, it can at least prevent us from imagining that we already are.” (Chouliaraki, 2013, p. 205)

Chouliaraki concludes calling for a communicative structure that is not about a common humanity or about feelings towards ‘distant others,’ not a solidarity of pity or irony. Rather she advocates a solidarity of agonism, solidarity focused on creating what Hannah Arendt calls a ‘common, shared world’ where collective action to change the conditions of suffering is grounded in public interest rather than self-expression.

Chouliaraki, L. (2013). The Ironic Spectator: Solidarity in the Age of Post-Humanitarianism. London: Polity.

Name, Occupation:
Ramis Wadood, Columbia University, Political Science and Anthropology

What do you think the biggest challenge(s) facing our generation is?
I think the biggest challenge facing our generation is that there are so many problems for us to solve. Social media, the internet, and the compression of time and space have all brought an infinite amount of new global problems to light. I fear that the rising rate of problems is outpacing the rising rate of active youth. Both are moving faster than ever, but we need to be more engaged and more active in order to make this world a better place—we can’t let it get any worse.

What are you doing to address is?
I am getting involved with programs and organizations (like AIDemocracy!) that specifically work to empower and activate youth. Aside from being a part of Americans for Informed Democracy, I also teach a high school class on grassroots activism and civic engagement through Generation Citizen. I am currently studying Political Science and Anthropology, and plan on getting more involved in civic engagement and community activism upon graduation.

What’s the biggest challenge you’ve faced on this path?
The biggest challenge that I’ve faced is wanting to do as much as possible while not having the time and resources to do so. I see so many problems in my community and around the world, and spread myself too thin trying to solve as many of them as possible. You can help me! Be more active, find your niche cause, and dedicate yourself to alleviating the problem so I can do the same.

What’s been your most exciting moment?
I wish I lived a more exciting life… The most exciting moment of my life would probably have to be getting into a car accident the day before playing at Carnegie Hall—it wasn’t exciting in a good way, but it was inspiring and put things into perspective for me.

What advice do you have for other young changemakers?
My advice is to remember that you are part of a movement of active youth. No matter how active you are, remember to work with other and to empower others to join the movement. My favorite quote is “The function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers” (Ralph Nader). Live by this quote and use your dedication and power to attract others to be active as well—eventually, they’ll spread the spirit of activism too.

How can people get in touch with you?
You can reach me on Facebook and via email (rjw2138@columbia.edu)

Since the start of the Syrian civil war, upwards of 70,000 people have already been killed with a possible 100 more every day.  Imagine the bulletin board at your local grocery – instead of seeing lost dog notifications or cars for sale it is littered with the faces of dozens of missing, kidnapped, or killed family and friends believed to support the current regime.  This regime, if reports are to be believed,  has begun to use chemical weapons against the rebels and its own people.

The United States has long ensured that the use of chemical weapons was a firm line and could be forced into action to deter future usage of such weapons.  The Obama Administration is reaffirming that stance, causing many to question what the next steps should be.  The U.S. has even been rumored to consider sending military aid in the form of weapons and essentials to specific Syrian rebel groups.  Within the last few days, Iran-backed Hezbollah is threatening to enter the picture on the side of the current Syrian government.

Syria’s strife is escalating at a rapid pace. Each day, more and more innocent people are dying while being trapped between a government accused of using chemical weapons and rebel groups that have little concern for civilian targets. Recently, a photo went viral of a group of Syrians sending their condolences to the people of Boston and the U.S.  Such a sentiment stands to ask, what can we (as the U.S., as individuals, as scholars, etc.) do for the people of Syria?

Name, Occupation
Bowie Daniel Hall, United Nations University for Peace / U.S. Army Reserve Civil Affairs and Healthcare Specialist / Global Health Corps Fellow 2013-2014

What do you think the biggest challenge(s) facing our generation is?
I see balancing the needs of global health, environmental conservation, and economic development in an integrated world with a growing population as the primary challenge facing our generation.

What are you doing to address is? 
I have served in the U.S. Army Reserve since my 17th birthday. I currently serve in Civil Affairs, the part of the military focused on mitigating the effects of conflicts and facilitating development assistance for civilians in communities around the world. This puts me in a position to address development issues in areas of need. In my civilian career, I have worked for international financial firms and I was recently accepted to serve as a Global Health Corps Fellow in Uganda. Here I will bring my experience from the private sector and military service to address urgent healthcare needs in a program focused on sustainable, decentralized provision of services.

What’s the biggest challenge you’ve faced on this path?
Dealing with negative stereotypes has been the biggest challenge I have faced.

What’s been your most exciting moment?
I may be displaying some recency bias here, but I would say being selected to serve with the Global Health Corps is the most exciting moment I can recall. I am passionate about the mission of the organization and enthusiastic about the opportunity to spend more time in Africa.

What advice do you have for other young changemakers? 
When you encounter negativity, let it energize and motivate you to do what it right.

How can people get in touch with you?
Facebook is my effective contact list. I’m the “Danny Hall” sporting a Red Sox hat—Boston strong!

Last week was quite busy for me because there was a China Delegation coming to Seattle that represents various foundations in China focusing on women’s rights. The goal for the foundations is to learn techniques in philanthropy from Global Women Partnership in Philanthropy (GWPP), the host for this event, and other successful foundations in Seattle. The specific model they are learning is called the collective model, a member-based structure for charitable grant making in the local community. Foundations in China have used this model for a long time but are now finally taking the initiative to have site visits and talk with practitioners in philanthropy.

When I translated lectures and presentations to Chinese delegates, one thing that struck me was that they did not understand English — even though there was this gap in communication, they never refused to learn. They took notes, asked questions (well, sometimes my translation confused them a bit), discussed with colleagues and applied their information to Chinese circumstances. They arrived in Seattle two Sundays ago, and starting from Monday they convened everyday morning at 8 a.m., took off to different buildings and got back to the hotel around 8 p.m. Most of the delegates are around 40 to 50, and among them are a few leaders over 60. It is rude to discuss women’s age, but what I want to express is that even later on in life they have a great passion for philanthropy and a belief that they can make a change.

During this week they visited Evans School of Public Affairs at University of Washington, Global Women Partnership in Philanthropy, YMCA, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Social Venture Partnership, The Seattle Foundation, Pangea, Farestart, etc. What they see and what they learn will shape their ideas about philanthropy as well as social entrepreneurship — they will make a big difference in China with all they learn from here.  I think their visit encapsulates the perfect way to describe China-US partnership: learn from each and together we can make this world a better place.

In a globalized world with easy access to the Internet and other means of communication, most of us are now used to reports of fighting and civil wars. That said, it is always horrible when violence occurs like that which occurred last Sunday, April 21, when 185 people died in conflict between military groups and an armed group of extremists in Baga, Nigeria. If we really want to understand what leads to problematic situations like this one, we must look into the circumstances and the background.

Unfortunately, Nigeria is not a stranger to these very sad events. The violence and riots of the Boko Haram extremist group started in 2009 when 700 people were killed. Then, from 2010 to Friday April 19, when the most recent conflict started, their attacks, like hit-and-run shootings or suicide bombings, had claimed the lives of 1,548 victims. Boko Haram is an Islamic extremist group and its name means, “Western education is a sin,” a principle that has led the group to attack and kill both Christians and Muslims. The movement is developed in the whole country, but riots happened only in Northern Nigeria until now.

This time the conflict happened in Borno, one of the 26 federative states of Nigeria, just at the border with the Republic of Chad.

Because so many citizens have died since 2009, now the federal Government is trying to solve the situation with the support of Amnesty International and is conducting severe negotiations with the Boko Haram to stop the conflict and restore peace to the community.

But how was it possible for the Boko Haram to become so strong and powerful within Nigeria in the first place? In Northern Nigeria, where the extremist group is more active, there is a considerable community of Muslims unhappy with the fact that the politicians in the Nigerian government are mainly Christians. This discontent made the growth of the extremists group possible, even though in general the civilians, both Muslims and Christians, are afraid of the current situation. In addition, a general dissatisfaction in politics has to be considered in the outlines of the current situation; indeed, Nigeria is a rich country thanks to its crude oil production, but the lack of investments to develop the country and the corruption have made the citizens very disaffected.

The tension and the violence of the community are demonstrated also by the frequency of the inter-ethnic conflict. On April 2 of this year, 19 people died and 4,500 were evacuated because of a riot started by members of the Fula ethnicity.

The situation in Nigeria is clearly at a critical stage and needs more attention from the international community.

April 6 was the 19th anniversary date of the Rwandan genocide’s starting point, which was a horrific, bloody massacre that started in a similar way through ethnic conflict. At that time, the International community failed to respond and more than 800,000 people died in fewer than four months.

Did we learn our lesson 19 years ago? We need to prove that we did and that we can do something more for Nigeria — that we can do something more for our future.