The US is attempting to cover all its counterparts. According to the defense secretary, Leon Panetta, the US is attempting to “do global coverage.” The new agency has been designed to assist Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in strategic issues. So far, DIA has been swamped with intelligence gathering in Afghanistan, according to the Secretary Panetta. The long term issues such as nuclear proliferation and terrorism will be addressed through this agency.

However, there are institutional problems arising from this increase in intelligence agencies. In the onset of the 9/11 attacks, US intelligence agencies proved uncoordinated and disjointed. Their efficiency was impaired by a lack of cooperation. The Bush administration restructured the hierarchy by bringing all of the agencies under one director of national intelligence. With a new member agency, coordination might prove difficult again. To avoid problems with the CIA, the new agency will be in close collaboration with the CIA.

While these agencies keep all of us under surveillance, who is to keep them in check? Tom Drake, a former National Security Agency (NSA) is a living proof of corruption and inefficiency in the US secret service sector. While he believed he was protecting his constitutional rights, the Department of Defense thought otherwise:

“A military veteran with intelligence experience, Drake discovered the NSA’s use of a data collection program that was costly, threatening to Americans’ privacy rights, and wholly undeveloped, despite the availability of a cost-effective, functional alternative that respected Americans’ privacy. He did everything by the book, raising concerns through official channels first — including senior NSA management, the Defense Department’s inspector general, and Congress. His concerns were ignored.”

While Drake is being prosecuted, we are being denied our constitutional rights. Under the 5^th Amendment, personal information must be protected. While Drake was defending our 5^th Amendment, some argue that the government denied him his rights under the 6^th Amendment. The 6^th Amendment states that everyone is entitled to a fair trial, which again some argue Drake did not receive. He was indicted for retention of classified information under the Espionage Act.

Besides the infringement upon the American lives, secret agencies infringe upon the privacy and rights of citizens abroad as well. Former CIA officer John Kiriakou was indicted only a few days ago for having leaked the information about waterboarding. Waterboarding is a torturing technique, where the subject is drowned to the point of suffocation. Foreign subjects are exposed to it when under the suspicion of terrorism. Human rights rarely matter anymore once in the hand of the US intelligence agencies. The human rights perpetrators, on the other hand, are able to go about their business unpunished.

The new intelligence agency might increase the safety of American citizens and the US property. However, without checks and balances it will become another source of human rights violations, domestically and internationally. The Government Accountability Project attempts to aid whistleblowers such as Drake and Kiriakou, but without more respect for human rights on behalf of the US government and its agencies, little will change. An unfortunate lesson to prospective whistleblowers from this will be that silence is golden, and raising one’s voice brings no good.

According to EAPN, poverty is a state of being that violates our human rights. They argue that poverty:

“is a direct attack on people’s fundamental rights, limits the opportunities they have to achieve their full potential, brings high costs to society and hampers sustainable economic growth. Poverty also reflects failures in the systems for redistributing resources and opportunities in a fair and equitable manner. These lead to deep-seated inequalities and thus to the contrast of excessive wealth concentrated in the hands of a few while others are forced to live restricted and marginalised lives, even though they are living in a rich economic area.”

The poor are usually socially excluded from social services and activities wealthier citizens take for granted. Even governmentally funded education is hard to obtain for them. According to one of the quotes of someone experiencing poverty, “[t]he system is too complicated, I don’t know where to get what.”

Since the EU does not focus on extreme poverty, the poorest are excluded from many EU programs. Roma are such a case. Individuals, who are not so poor in their countries, are very poor on the EU level. However, the EU mostly focuses on relative poverty levels and fails to recognize that some poor individuals are poorer than other poor individuals.

Another problem is a low level of social mobility in the EU. According to Eurochild, “[w]e live in a society where the socio-economic status into which children are born is still probably the most important determinant of their well-being, education outcomes, and employment prospects.” However, many new EU member countries are poor. It is hard to imagine how the poorest of their members will then be able to escape the vicious cycle of poverty.

On 10 and 11 May 2012, European Commission hosted an 11^th European Meeting on People Experiencing Poverty. According to their findings, since 2008 there has been an increase in homelessness and poverty. The most vulnerable groups are women, children and the Roma. However, according to the Lisbon Treaty, the right to adequate housing is a fundamental right. Housing is such a problem for the poor, that in Belgium, for example, it takes up 60% of the family’s income, whereas an average person spends only 30%.

One of the roots of this problem is that at the national level, the right to housing is not recognized by many countries. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 mandates that everyone be entitled to adequate food, housing and other necessities. Other treaties follow, with the latest being the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993. The European Social Charter and the newest Lisbon Treaty too include rights to adequate housing. However, immigrants and the Roma especially still oftentimes live in subhuman conditions, which threaten their own safety and health.

Additionally, many EU countries neither acquiesce to the overall EU policies nor accept their citizens equally. However, the EU is founded on ideals of respect and tolerance:

“Human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights are the values on which the European Union is founded. Embedded in the Treaty on European Union, they have been reinforced by the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Countries seeking to join the EU must respect human rights, and so must countries which have concluded trade and other agreements with it.”

In addition to facing financial problems from the recession, the EU is faced with problems of deep social division, racism, and social injustice. If the European project is to work out, it must embrace everyone, especially in times like this. Since 1979, when the first elections to the European Parliament were held, the Parliament still holds little power and has little say over most crucial national policies. But some of these policies are crucial to the most vulnerable, who have no say in domestic matters. Perhaps in the future the protection of the vulnerable will improve, but history has shown us over and over again that the weakest rarely benefit from anything. But then the question arises: how can the poorest in the new EU member countries ever hope to benefit from the European project?

Our curriculum is centered around three main components:

• Understanding the global system: We explore what makes the global system tick, including the roles and responsibilities of states, the United Nations, the G8 and citizens
• Exploring specific global challenges: We unpack key challenges facing our world and our generation, including security, poverty, climate change, health, wars, rights and justice, and more
• Building global leaders: Youth have tremendous power to address these challenges. Our cutting-edge leadership, communications and policy workshops empower  young leaders to take action to build a better world

Global Scholar is the only summer experience that offers its participants opportunities to engage and apply what they have learned year-round.

For more information please visit: www.globalscholar.org

Unemployment is on the rise globally.  According to the ILO estimate, around 202 million people will be unemployed in 2012, which is an increase in 6 million from 2011. More than two thirds of European countries have experienced an increase in unemployment in the last six months. According to Eurostat, “24.772 million men and women in the EU-27, of whom 17.365 million were in the euro area (EA-17), were unemployed in March 2012.” Unemployment increased by 2.123 000 in the EU-27 and by 1.732 000 in the euro area since March 2011. The unemployment rate in the Euro area stood at 10.9 percent in March 2012, in comparison to 9.9 percent in March 2011. The lowest unemployment rates were in Austria (4.0 percent), the Netherlands (5.0 percent), Luxembourg (5.2 percent) and Germany (5.6 percent). Highest rates were in Spain (24.1 percent) and Greece (21.7 percent).

However, austerity has not helped European countries. Spain, for example, decreased its budget deficit by 0.5 percentage points from 2010 to 2011, yet unemployment has soared since then. In fact, Spain has the highest unemployment rate in the EU. Greece is an example of a failing experiment. Austerity measures have been imposed so that Greece could obtain €130 billion from the International Monetary Fund to avoid defaulting. However, Greek unemployment level is second highest in the EU. Greek middle classes have suffered enormously during the current crisis. Their incomes dropped dramatically; their jobs disappeared. As a result, suicide rates doubled to 5.6 per 100,000 persons a year, among which most are committed by men, whereas women are seen to suffer depression.

The solutions have alienated young Europeans. According to activists from Occupy Wall Street from London, the world has entered the World War III. However, unlike the previous two wars, this one is about debt and economic power. While the young, the workers, the impoverished, the women and the children suffer, corporations and banks profit. The latter are bailed out, given subsidies to keep running and the former are left to starve and take care of themselves.

The solutions have created a need for new solutions among immigrants and minorities. According to the Council of Europe, there is a rise in intolerance and violence against immigrants as welfare has been cut and taxes increased. The report states:

“Immigration is [being] equated with insecurity, [that] irregular migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees either steal jobs or risk capsizing our welfare system, while Muslims are not able to integrate in Western societies.”

A public discussion to reintroduce borders in the Schengen area creates xenophobia among the EU citizens, who fear a flood of immigrants will rush to take their jobs and economic security away from them. German and French ministers have already requested an end to the Schengen.

Right – wing parties are flourishing. In Greece, Golden Dawn Party, known for its support of Aryanism is expected to win on May 6 elections this year. In Netherlands, the far right – wing party has been encouraging Dutch citizens to spy on Eastern Europeans who might be working on the black market and report them to the authorities. The same occurred in Belgium. Asylum seekers in Hungary are led around the town in handcuffs in some cases.

While the austerity measures are definitely benefitting some, they have increased intolerance, dissatisfaction, suicide rates and human rights violations in the European countries. It is yet to be seen how the EU will manage to preserve respect for human rights, one of the pillars of the EU for which the EU has been known.  So far, austerity measures have produced little effect, as more countries are heading into recession. Perhaps it is time to pay attention to the social problems as well.

They said it was impossible–that such a feat could not be accomplished for a generation so young.  Surely, there must have been some other way. But, alas, as the sun rose over the District one April morning, platoons of young men and women alike set off on a most grueling expedition: Seven blocks. Eight in the morning. On a Saturday. CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.

Americans for Informed Democracy held its 2012: Challenge Accepted conference almost two weekends ago, and in case you missed it: we’re sorry for your loss. The event lasted two days and was held at GW’s Elliott School of International Affairs; if the walk from the Foggy Bottom Metro to the Elliott School hadn’t already woken attendees by the time they arrived each morning, then the coffee and bagels from Panera and our super excited staff certainly did the job. Although lasting two days, the profusion of fantastic speakers and panelists could have provided everyone with powerful, interesting, and engaging discussions for weeks.

We had powerful conversations with luminaries ranging from Michele Flournoy, Special Advisor to President Obama’s Re-election Campaign, who discussed the future of US global engagement including our relationship with  the Asia-Pacific and Middle East, to Daniel Maree, Organizer of the Million Hoodie March, who advised students to “be bold; be fair; and most of all, be informed” when organizing for a cause.

One of the most engaging sessions was entitled From Me to We: Harnessing the Power of the Millenial Generation, and was actually extended for some time to allow panelists and attendees to discuss the ways through which our generation can utilize current technologies to battle present/future global challenges. At one point in the conference, Maggie Smith herself (donned in Downton Abbey threads) made a surprise appearance to hold a special panel on Peace of Cake: The Future of the Allied Powers. That didn’t actually happen, but it’s one of the few things that could have made the conference better.

All humor aside, had a great turnout for 2012: Challenge Accepted, and attendees and speakers alike have expressed to us their enthusiasm for the great ideas they heard at the conference or have since formulated on their own.

One of our goals for this conference was to motivate participants to start their own movements or initiate their own projects to ensure that foreign policy and global engagement don’t get lost in the 2012 Presidential elections. Participants note having “already taken away a lot of ideas for how to better organize [his/her] efforts in advocating for change” as well as “influencing [him/her] to want to take action.”

They were also enthusiastic about having gained so much from the over 30 (!) workshops and breakout sessions, which not only “exposed [them] to a wide range of ideas and opinions” regarding current foreign policy issues, but also gave them the tools and skills to make a difference in this Presidential election and beyond.

From learning how to make and launch effective videos and podcasts (courtesy, The Stanley Foundation) to knowing how to write about politics (courtesy, PolicyMic), attendees were provided with an endless number of resources. Indeed, one of the ‘least-liked’ aspects about the event was how “multiple panels or workshops were [held] at the same time” and prevented the student(s) to be at two concurrent sessions, at once. That’s something to take note for future events, as we’ve always been an advocate for human omnipresence rights, here, at AIDemocracy (we are a truly global network indeed).

Overall, 2012: Challenge Accepted enabled participants to learn further not only about foreign policy issues, but also how to channel their energies to affect change on those issues. If you want to know more about what you can do, join our network and get in touch!

At 29 years old, I consider myself a young person in community development. Of course that’s relative. If I were working in politics and campaigns, I would be considered a veteran. If I were an NFL quarterback, I would be in my prime. I’m too old to be drafted into the military, and too young to run for US Senate.

I am often asked by friends and family, ‘What is community development?’ My response is simple. When a group of individuals realize that a collective effort can improve their own lives and the lives of those in their community, you have community developers. Community development has roots in social justice and economic inequality. But at its core, community developers use collective action to work for better lives for themselves, their families, and their neighbors.

I am Generation Y, a Millennial. To Generation X, I am entitled, needy, and high maintenance. My desire is not for money, but for group reinforcement and positive peer feedback. In his book Not Everyone Gets a Trophy author Bruce Tulgan suggests I am part of “the most high maintenance workforce in history.” And you know what? He’s probably right! I expect a lot from my employer. Our need to feel valued is so engrained, we will go to such lengths as to whine, pout, tweet and write blog posts about those needs.

I have two things I want to say. First, I would like to remind Gen X that you created us, and therefore, you share the responsibility.

But second, simply placing a label on me fails to address the challenges community development and society is facing. Born in 1982, I am among the first (and therefore oldest) of this generation. There is a 15 year-long wave behind me that leaders today will have to learn, nurture, and empower. And one day when someone asks, “Who’s got the keys to this Global Jeep?” It will be us revving the engine (a reference only a Millennial would understand).

A recent Daring to Lead report released by the Meyer Foundation and CompassPoint presents “Calls to Action” for non-profits to mitigate the problem of aging and high-turnover leadership, recommending non-profits have plans in place for financial sustainability, executive transition, professional development for current leaders, and board development. This advice is sound.

However, the “Calls to Action” not once uses the word “young.” In fact the word “young” is not used in the entire 20 page report. It didn’t even happen to be someone’s last name. This omission is symptomatic of a problem in the non-profit world that is specifically relevant to community development.

Independent writer and blogger Rick Cohen points this out in great detail in his recent post: What Might Young Professionals Want from Careers in Community Development? Cohen has several community development leaders on record recognizing the industry’s deficiencies in future leadership cultivation. In fact, Rick’s piece was the impetus for this piece.

How can the solutions to problems presented by aging leadership and turn-over not include the industry’s youth? I see four possible answers: 1) There are low numbers of young people in the industry 2) The young people in the industry lack the necessary skills 3) Young people are being ignored as part of the solution or 4) The sector is too caught up in the present to worry about the future.

I think the true answer is a little bit of everything.

Demographically, the low numbers of young people relative to our aging population is a macro problem the United States economy is beginning to grapple with; European countries have been going through this for a half century or more. Fast developing economies (like present-day India and Brazil) have high fertility rates and proportionally high numbers of young people.

This is nothing new. America has typically not been the most fertile nation, but our economy has more than compensated for the lack of a young native born workforce with our ability to accept and attract hard-working, entrepreneurial immigrants. In this way, we are truly unique; no one else does it better. And it has allowed us to stay ahead.

However, community development has not capitalized on America’s secret economic weapon as well as other sectors. New immigrants, because they are new, do not have the vested interest in their local community in the same way a life-long resident would. The recognition of a local, placed-based community can take a generation or more to develop. As a result, the truly unique and powerful energy of the American immigrant is lost on community development.

However, even if a new immigrant did want to work for his or her local community development corporation or non-profit, they may lack the necessary education to do so at a high level. A lack of adequate education for community development professionals is not unique to immigrants but young people as well.

Increasing levels of specialization and education required to do community development is a Catch-22 for the industry. Of course, a more educated workforce is a good thing. But non-profit salary levels make paying for that education difficult.

More than that, an up-and-comer with a bachelor’s degree working in a non-profit may love what they do, but they are not naïve. They’ve seen the balance sheet. They know that even with an investment in their education, the money for them to get a significant raise just is not there.

Furthermore, leadership turnover in community development is rare. There are a lot of old-hands, or “graybeards” as Cohen points out in his piece, leaving a young person with little opportunity for advancement or promotion. Even if they do wait for that opportunity, they have forgone the education necessary to do the job.

Some may leave the sector because there just is no tangible reward, no incentive to stay, no pay and no promotion. What’s left is a complacent and not quite educated enough, do-gooder workforce.

The old hands of community development are an intelligent, dedicated and self-determined group. These are strong traits to have in this business, but for some, they are seen as dismissive of us Millenials. They will talk about how they have never received a high salary. They were never part of a promotional or organizational chart. They did it all on their own. They didn’t need to compete with the for-profit sector. Why do we?

This dynamic, paired with the built-in deficiencies of a Millennial, are contributing to a growing generational gap in the non-profit field. Millennials would probably characterize this gap as significant, but it’s important not to over-react. We just need to understand each other better. The graybeards didn’t need the worldly rewards for their work. They had other motivations.

Community development grew as a response to the excesses of urban renewal and a call for social justice. The civic battles of the 60’s and 70’s left behind a narrative, a shared history that ignited those who experienced it; it was David vs. Goliath, Good vs. Evil. The little guy stands up to the powers-that-be and defends his home. From that narrative came a sense of ownership, a sense of responsibility and pride. A community developer is born. It’s a POWERFUL narrative.

But fast-forward 40 years and it’s a narrative that defines community development by where it has been, not where it is going. Young people have not been thwapped with that motivation. We simply cannot relate. We will need to create our own narrative.

Enter Gen Y, the Millenials.

State by state, community development boards and staffs are fighting tooth-and-nail for programs like HOME, Low Income Housing Tax Credits, Community Development Block Grants, and other tools of previous decades. Being supportive, Millennials begrudgingly submit to the acronyms and jargon while secretly hoping our careers in community development are not spent budget-cycle after budget-cycle clinging to the accomplishments of our predecessors.

We quietly ask ourselves, “What if those programs went away? How would we replace programs offered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development? Or would we want to? What would a modern-day ‘Community Reinvestment Act’ look like? Or is it necessary? Can financial institutions be compelled by opportunity instead of regulation?” These programs were created at a singular point and time with a certain definition of social justice.

Likewise, in the future the answers to the above questions are directly informed by how we see the future of social justice and community building. We try to imagine communities of the future being served with new and different tools. And the production of these tools will depend on those definitions.

And herein lies the hope.

As Cohen correctly points out, our narrative will evolve, but likely will be less about social inequality and be more about building and strengthening every community. His collections of thoughts are evidence that young people are charting a new path in community development. It is a motivational path about building the future as opposed to serving up justice for the past.

I am part of a generation not motivated by money; that’s good, because there is none. We prefer group interaction and feedback. This is ideal for a non-profit sector filled with small shops and flat management structures. More than anything, we simply want to leave our mark. The world of community development, too often defined by its past, RIGHT NOW is welcoming a generation with no motivation other than to chart the future. It almost sounds too good to be true. There must be a catch.

There is. We’re gonna want a trophy.

As the 2012 presidential election nears, candidates confidently profess that their policies and visions will maintain the superpower status that has become the foundation of American pride. On the campaign, candidate Mitt Romney promises an “American Century,” one in which “America leads the free world, and the free world leads the entire world[1],” further emphasized by the release of his most recent book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness. Such assurances especially resonate with voters as the imminent rise of China threatens American supremacy. However, what some fail to realize is that American dominance, as positive it sounds to American ears, is incompatible with world peace and the preservation of human rights. For the business elite and wealthy, the American superpower could not be more ideal. But for the billions worldwide who lack basic needs or who suffer in the shadow of extreme violence, American foreign policy often provides the greatest obstacle to improvement. The special nature of America’s superpower standing perpetuates significant levels of worldwide inequality, international violence, and cultural exclusivism. If we wish to create a world of equality and peace, we as Americans must be the first to sacrifice the notion that the suffering of others is a suitable price to pay for American supremacy.

First, the global preeminence of the United States is directly related to worldwide levels of poverty and inequality. According to the American perspective, our superpower status and unmatched affluence are what allow us to lift less fortunate countries out of poverty, a gesture of benevolence and the solidarity of humankind. However, what most Americans fail to realize is that mass poverty around the world is directly connected to the excesses and riches of the so-called “developed world,” represented by no country more suitable than the United States. Inherent in the presence of a “superpower” are the gross power differences that allow one country to domineer over other nations. In this case, American power has resulted in the past from exploitation of less powerful Latin American and African countries. After America emerged from World War II as the dominant global player, George Kennan, head of the State Department, said in his Policy Planning Study 23:

We have 50% of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3% of its population… In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.

In such a “pattern of relationships,” the Third World was to “fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market” for industrial capitalist societies, as a 1949 State Department memo read. American foreign policy went accordingly. In 1954, the CIA engineered a coup that overthrew the first democratic government in Guatemala, whose policies were based on social reforms and threatened the agricultural monopoly of the influential United Fruit Company. The coup set into motion a string of military governments that destabilized the country and eventually committed genocide against its own citizens under the guise of anti-Communism. While Guatemala has now experienced economic growth and democratic elections, a 36-year-long civil war is a tall price to pay in service of American interests. The United States’ superpower status has allowed us to exploit countries like Guatemala and to cripple their stability for our own interests. As Paul Farmer, founder of Partners in Health, says in his book Pathologies of Power, “To argue that human rights abuses occurring in Haiti, Guatemala or Rwanda are unrelated to our surfeit in the rich world requires that we erase history and turn a blind eye to the pathologies of power that transcend all borders[2].” Today, American oil corporations such as Texaco are sucking the Amazon basin dry of its rich petroleum. Contracts coaxed out of less powerful governments give most of the benefits to exploitative corporations rather than the country’s whose resources are being extracted. As a further side effect, indigenous communities in the Amazon basin, such as the Huaorani and Cofan people, suffer from polluted rivers and destroyed homes. Yet American power allows corporations to emerge unscathed and with pockets filled with oil profits. Viewing America as a superpower inherently reduces smaller, less powerful countries and communities as pawns to be wrung dry of their resources. The control that developed nations are able to exert over poorer countries for their own interests only exacerbates the inequality that lies at the root of suffering.

Second, the various interventions and displays of force that are valuable tools for America’s dominance have threatened peace and security worldwide. The United States’ use of force stands unprecedented, as America has tried to further its own interests abroad. The most recent manifestation of our international power play in the Middle East has failed to bring about any sort of peace or stability. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was a radical violation of the United Nations Charter’s prohibition on territorial aggression. Yet, as Richard Falk and Howard Friel point out in their book The Record of the Paper, an enemy nation accused of violating international law stirs up an outrage. When the United States, on the other hand, commits such a transgression, international law all but dissipates. Falk and Friel record that in the seventy New York Times editorials during the invasion of Iraq, the words, “UN Charter” and “international law” never appeared[3]. Our American sense of entitlement seems to grant the United States transcendence above the laws that bind lesser nations. Furthermore, the hunt for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda promised a body count from the very beginning. Drone attacks on northwest Pakistan that were aimed at militants and Al Qaeda leaders started in 2004 and only increased at the advent of Obama’s presidency. Over a hundred civilians have been killed by unmanned attacks, and to no one’s surprise, drone attacks have been inextricably linked to the increase in anti-American sentiment within Pakistan[4]. American intervention in the Middle East is not a new phenomenon either. 1953 saw the CIA coup that deposed the Iranian prime minister, Mossadegh, who had begun to resist Western oil companies that controlled Iranian petroleum. Before we denounce Middle Eastern countries for their anti-American sentiments, we must look at how America has wielded its superpower status and whether American power has truly created peace in the world.

No threat to world peace is more pressing than rising militarization and the perpetuation of nuclear arms. The United States has exacerbated such issues as well by continually striving to strengthen our overwhelming military dominance, especially as our economic influence is threatened by the rise of China, India, and other nations. American military spending accounts for 40% of the global arms spending, more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined[5]. However, worldwide goals toward peace will require limits on the superpower model of exorbitant militarization. The nuclear arms landscape epitomizes the military tension perpetuated by the United States along with its allies. As the dominant power, Western developed nations have dichotomized the world into those who are allowed nuclear weapons and those who are not. The United States has shown no intention to take initiative in our own nuclear disarmament, because we view ourselves as the entitled military power. We claim that our ally, Israel, a country with a history of open hostility and outright invasions toward Palestine and Lebanon, may keep their nuclear weapons while Iran, our enemy, cannot. The problem with Iran is that any country with American as its foe has little incentive to demilitarize. America has shown its willingness to intervene in enemy nations through the previous examples of leftist Latin American governments and more recently the examples of Afghanistan and Iraq. No country that boasts 40% of the world’s arms spending can claim to be working toward peace. If we truly want a world free from the ever-present shadow of nuclear destruction, we must first and foremost give up our ideas of being the military superpower. Weapons and armies cannot be our sources of pride. They are far too often sources of destruction and instability.

Third, the idea of American supremacy engenders cultural exclusivism within the United States and a dangerous ignorance about the rest of the world. There is a widespread and unquestioned belief that we live in the greatest country in the world filled with the greatest citizens. Whether or not such a statement is true, it is simply counter-productive. We have erected a barrier between the “developing world” and us, and many of us peer across the gap with emotions ranging from contempt to patronization. In my own travels around the world, often what surprises me most is the level of knowledge foreigners possess about American politics and culture. South Africans have extensive knowledge about the current Republican primaries in the United States, but how many Americans could name the current president of South Africa? America is the hub of the world, and we are not at all tempted to deny it. A global world requires global citizens, but those living in the center are far less tempted to understand the outskirts. History classes and education in general are still Euro-centric, and most Americans graduate high school without formal schooling in the deep histories of Africa and Asia whose consequences still shape today’s world. The United States’ increased involvement in the global landscape requires a deeper understanding of other countries, their cultures, and their histories. A peaceful resolution to American tensions with the Middle East can only occur if Americans understand Islam, Middle Eastern history, and the socioeconomic forces that underlie the rise of terrorism. Current global issues arise out of highly complex chains of events, and only scholarship that transcends the borders of our country can give us a complete understanding of how to approach these increasingly global problems.

Ultimately, America’s position as the world’s superpower is incompatible with the eradication of poverty and injustices throughout the rest of the world. Much humanitarian aid currently arises out of a paternalistic benevolence toward the less fortunate. The idea of charity assumes that America can continue to pursue wealth, as long as the expendable iota is donated to the starving African children. The problem with this view of humanitarian aid is aptly expressed by Paulo Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed:

In order to have the continued opportunity to express their ‘generosity,’ the oppressors must perpetuate injustice as well. An unjust social order is the permanent fount of this ‘generosity,’ which is nourished by death, despair, and poverty. . . . True generosity consists precisely in fighting to destroy the causes which nourish false charity.

True humanitarianism must acknowledge that structures that make America wealthy and the structures that impoverish billions are one and the same. Hunger, for example, arises not from a shortage of food worldwide, but rather problems of inequitable distribution—a byproduct of the current structures that make a preferential option for the rich. Contrary to what many have subconsciously come to accept, poverty is not inherent to our world. This falsity is easiest to believe from the perch of the United States, where we can intellectualize poverty and injustice just enough for the suffering of an innocent Pakistani or of a “savage” Huaorani to become an unavoidable side-effect of Darwinian struggle for survival. This belief allows the developed world to avoid self-implication as a force that enables poverty. The assertion that America can indefinitely continue accumulating wealth and power relies on the false assumption that our extravagance has no consequences. Ultimately, the force of oppression acting upon the poor is the promise of American supremacy and the belief that no glass ceiling should limit the growth of a superpower.

As the election nears, Washington politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, are promising the American public that the United States of America will remain a superpower in a changing world order. But if we truly believe in equality and the empowerment of the poor, the first sacrifice must be this American superpower. A world with a superpower cannot be a world of peace and equality. As every world power in history has learned, the domination of one nation is oftentimes inextricably linked to the oppression of many. America’s rise to the pinnacle has left in its wake poverty and instability, disguised as the unavoidable byproducts of the world at work. The call for an end to American dominance is a call for a better America, one that allows space for the empowerment of the disempowered, and one that can earn the respect of not only its constituents but of the global community. The “post-American” world does not have to be a dystopia that policymakers desperately try to avert. It can be a positive movement toward a world that abstains from the excesses and surfeits inherent to structured inequality. As the global community faces unprecedented levels of poverty, ecological imbalances, and militarized violence, the mark of a nobler, fairer United States of America will not be the attainment of power but rather the relinquishing of it.

The recent conclusion of the fourth BRICS Summit on March 29, 2012 brought forth a deluge of questions regarding the position of BRICS on international issues and their significance in international relations. Undoubtedly, their prominence underscores the idea that the world is slowly becoming more accustomed to a multi-polar system where emerging countries are exerting themselves politically. However, how far can their power go in actually influencing global change?

Suggestions have emerged surrounding the concept of “South-South” development bank. However, one has to wonder how such an institution would function under duress from existing funding institutions. A South-South development bank may not work in BRICS favor because it would create a bipolar system within the advocated multi-polar system that BRICS seems to stand for. For example, the World Bank receives a majority of funds from the United States, and its current leader, Robert Zoellick, is an American. But in a South-South development bank, would China – with the largest economy – be pressured to put in the most money? Would BRICS member countries be willing to accept China’s power? Tensions might emerge where financial power is needed to make South-South Development Bank.

Secondly, the ability of BRICS to make a strong impact on global politics and economy lies in their ability to sustain development and find commonality in differing values and political systems. Russia and China are leaning towards a more authoritarian regime whereas South Africa, India, and Brazil favor democracy. Many analysts say this inherent contradiction could weaken the BRICS movement. However, it is also believed it could strengthen it. If successful, BRICS can become a model organization that proves differing countries can indeed work together despite its different political values.

Lastly, China surpasses economic and military power beyond Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa. China is seen as a rising power and this creates geopolitical insecurity for Russia and India. How BRICS manages its alliance will be key in its success. This tenuous relationship can either make a miraculous change in geo-politics or it can further tensions.

The determining factor for BRICS success will be its ability to find common ground and create a sense of security amongst member countries, in particular India, which seems to fear China’s power the most. If this organization becomes successful, a true multi-polar world can indeed be possible.

Much of the arid region’s food comes from pastoralists and small scale farmers. Although 20% of global food supply comes from arid regions, they are the most vulnerable to droughts and food shortages.   Jeffrey Sachs, professor at Columbia University, has found a correlation between vulnerable arid regions and conflict zones (map can be found here on slide 3).  These conflicts can become threats to global security, evidenced by the al-Qaeda linked group, al-Shabaab, which is controlling Somalia, a hyperarid region.  In these situations, U.S. foreign policy often relies on costly military interventions, but supporting economic growth and development could instead provide an environment that would foster political security, addressing the reasons why terrorists groups could arise in the first place.

In 2011, the Consultant Group on International Agricultural Research, CGIAR, and international partners created the Regional Drylands Initiative to increase the resilience of 1.3 small scale farmers in Somalia, Ethiopia, and Kenya.  It aims to spread innovations that address challenges faced in the region, add value to exports, and improve access to markets.  The project has immediate short and long term effects.  Initially, there are increased crop yields and healthier livestock, and in the long term the generated economic growth of the farmers furthers security.

Investment into rainwater collecting mechanisms, irrigation techniques, drought resistant crops, and improved access to weather forecasting could make a dramatic difference in the lives of the poorest in East Africa.  Ethiopia has put a large effort into increasing water, and therefore food, security.  For instance, the Ethiopian government partially funded a small-scale irrigation project to directly provide water to 23,600 families.  Additionally, individual Ethiopians founded the Ethiopia Rainwater Harvesting Association (ERHA) for increased access to water and water security.  The ERHA has been in place since 1999 and aims to build capacity and mobilize resources to maximize water for all.

The crowning jewel of Ethiopian food security is the Tigray Project, a sustainable farming and ecological management effort aimed at small scale women farmers in the Tigray province in northern Ethiopia.  It introduced practices like composting, harvesting of water and soil, and crop diversification.  The project was locally driven and created by those with intimate knowledge of the farming communities and exclusively used local resources.  It has led to increased crop yields and personal incomes, improved hydrology, and rehabilitation of degraded areas.  The Tigray province and used to be one of the most food insecure areas, but now was part of Ethiopia least affected by the 2011 drought. Measures such as these could be implemented throughout the Horn of Africa to lead to drastically different results the next time there are low rains.

Sources:

http://www.thewaterchannel.tv/en/thewaterplaza/opinions/68-improving-small-farmers-productivity-key-to-long-term-food-security-in-horn-of-africa

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/aug/11/horn-of-africa-drought-resilience

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/aug/08/hunger-pains-famine-horn-africa

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/famine-and-hope-in-the-horn-of-africa

Depleted uranium (DU) is a lethal weapon. DU is a highly concentrated substance left over from the enrichment process that produces nuclear fuel and bombs. DU bullets were developed in the 1970s with the purpose of destroying top-line Soviet tanks. As a weapon, its density is valued by the US military. Nowadays, around 20 countries either use or keep them. DU penetrators turned out to be the most effective piercers of tanks.

Effects of the DU penetrator can be felt long after its deployment. DU is radioactive. When DU is blown to pieces as it hits the metal, it burns and pulverizes. It turns into radioactive dust. Its radioactivity can be felt for the next 4.5 billion years. Additionally, a DU particle can travel at least 26 miles. In the short-term, it is chemically toxic when its particles are inhaled by humans. If DU particles become trapped in human body, the health of a person is severely damaged. High cancer incidence may result.

Costs are borne on both sides – by not only the residents of the areas of the Gulf, but by the US forces as well. The “Gulf War Syndrome,” a multisymptom disorder found in Gulf War veterans, has been exposed to the public for years now. Chemical toxicity, including that resulting from DU, is blamed for this syndrome, which leaves its victims with physical stress and illness.

But even despite the dangers of DU, the substance has been used widely. In Iraq alone, 320 tons were fired. Radiation levels in Iraq where DU was deployed are 35 times the normal level. DU was also used in Yugoslavia. According to NATO, 31,000 DU bullets were fired over Kosovo in 1999. It was estimated that 50,000 bullets were fired over Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro.

Once released into the environment, removal of DU is next to impossible. Costs of DU particle removal are too high for the contamination level Iraq has experienced. For example, 152,000 pounds of DU were cleaned from 500 acres of the closed Jefferson Proving Ground in Indiana. Though this is only one quarter of the amount deployed in Iraq, it is estimated it cost four to five billion dollars.

In 1996, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities passed a resolution urging countries to eliminate testing and use of indiscriminate and weapons of mass destruction, as such weapons have long term effects on human life. However, all people have an inherent right to life. Thus, DU limits and sometimes even destroys this right.

Still, the US continues to engage in politics of overkill. Nuclear weapons and depleted uranium penetrators are only some of the mediums through which this politics is exercised. A few days ago, the second anniversary of the New START was commemorated. Still, the connection between depleted uranium and nuclear weapons is almost invisible in the eyes of the public and politicians.

Sources used:

Peterson, S. (1999). The Gulf War Battlefield Still “Hot” with Depleted Uranium. Middle East Report, 211, p. 2 – 5.

Peterson, S. (2000). Depleted Uranium Haunts Kosovo and Iraq. Middle East Report, 215, p14.