Ariel Smilowitz 2014-12-28T16:10:40-05:00 Ariel Smilowitz Copyright 2008,, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Ariel Smilowitz Good old fashioned elbow grease. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at 66: How Do We Make the Promise a Reality?,2014:/theblog//3.6301418 2014-12-10T09:45:03-05:00 2014-12-10T11:59:01-05:00 Ariel Smilowitz This article originally appeared in Next New Deal.

Full implementation of the UDHR isn't a pipe dream, but it will require us to look beyond governments and international institutions.

Sixty-six years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, who is responsible for upholding our most basic rights as humans? And are rights truly universal, or are they relative?

These questions are indelibly inked into the fabric of our economy, society, and political system. Following World War II and the creation of the United Nations, the UDHR represented "the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled." Championed by Eleanor Roosevelt, the widely accepted manifesto built upon the work of her husband, who famously declared that worldwide democracy should be founded upon four essential freedoms.

This primordial soup of rights-based ideology and dialogue resulted in the birth of the United Nations, and subsequently a handful of substantial treaties, frameworks, and guiding principles for our quest to define and maintain human rights globally.

However, after decades of debate, we have yet to answer the ultimate question: who is responsible for ensuring this productive discourse is transformed into tangible action? Earlier this year, political scientist Stephen Hopgood proclaimed that we have reached "the end of human rights." Hopgood argued that despite successful recognition of all human beings' moral equivalence (no minor feat), little has been done to meld regional differences in interpretation and practice. In other words, our attempts to answer the critical question of implementation -- whether through international declarations like the UDHR, conventions like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or the creation of the UN Human Rights Council -- have fallen short.

As we reflect on the anniversary of the UDHR, perhaps it is time for us to reconsider and expand our approach toward human rights. Leaders of the classical human rights movement envisioned a world in which governments agreed on and multilaterally implemented a set of principles. Since that time, we have witnessed immense globalization, putting civil and political rights at odds with economic and social ones while introducing a set of new players, including multinational enterprise.

Consequently, these conventions, declarations, and institutions are not fully equipped to enforce human rights at every level of society. It is necessary for us to be inclusive of all influencers, including the private sector, non-state actors, and other organizations and groups, in order to truly realize a society in which every person can fulfill his or her full potential -- the dream of FDR's progressivism and Eleanor's Declaration of Human Rights.

Beyond Institutions: Global Enterprise and Human Rights

If governments and international institutions are unable to police human rights at every level, non-state actors must accept responsibility for integrating dignity into their practices. While vast ground remains to be covered, many companies are taking the lead on assessing their spheres of influence and ensuring their profits do not come at the expense of the choices and livelihoods of others.

One such company is Carlson, a corporation in the hotel and travel industries that works to stop human trafficking crimes. According to the International Labor Organization, 14.2 million people are victims of forced labor exploitation in economic activities worldwide. Despite 90 percent of countries enacting legislation criminalizing human trafficking under the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, it persists as tragic but preventable collateral damage of everyday economic and social activity.

Upon realizing that traffickers regularly use the hospitality industry to transport victims, Carlson used the valuable information provided by UNODC to be part of a solution. Now, they train their employees to recognize and report trafficking and have partnered with the State Department to educate travelers on the sexual exploitation of children.

For Ford Motor Company, being a more responsible business wasn't as simple. Forced labor was buried deep in its supply chain, far from Detroit in Brazil's charcoal mines, which provide an ingredient in steel production. When slave labor was exposed there in 2006, Ford was purchasing pig iron made from refined charcoal and using it in Cleveland to manufacture cars sold nationwide. The company took action to halt the use of pig iron and ensure its supply chain procured materials responsibly. Today, it collaborates with the State Department, the ILO, and the Brazilian National Pact to eradicate forced labor and improve transparency in manufacturing.

Like Ford's model, supply chain innovation offers an opportunity for rising leaders to use the economic influence of private business to impact human rights. Both of these companies leveraged their own success to help solve a global problem. They confronted their spheres of influence and were willing to work with partners to develop solutions.

Similarly, Unilever, the maker of products including Dove soap and Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream, partnered with Oxfam in 2013 on a supply chain analysis of its operations in Vietnam. The partners sought to better understand the implications of the UN Framework for Business and Human Rights and Global Compact Principles on global companies, and to improve conditions for thousands of workers along their manufacturing chain. Oxfam discovered that while Unilever was committed to high labor standards, policies ran only skin deep; Vietnamese managers were not equipped to implement them and lacked internal reporting mechanisms for violations.

Oxfam dissected Unilever's business practices and concluded that while Unilever still had a long way to go, its positive corporate culture and long-term relationships with suppliers make it well positioned to confront the root causes of labor problems and authentically attempt to solve them.

Unilever, Ford, and Carlson did not sacrifice profits or shareholder obligations. Instead, they participated in a global conversation on human rights -- one aggregated by the UN Global Compact -- and underscored the importance of effective, cross-sector collaboration to reform their own practices.

A New Legacy for Our Generation

Each of these entities demonstrates the many spheres of influence at play in the pursuit of full human rights and dignity for all. What if every company took the same initiative to understand the social repercussions of its actions?

We need to rethink human rights by recognizing the power of our own choices upon others. Everyone is responsible for upholding human rights, whether as a part of your day job or as a member of a community. Seemingly benign actions -- how much you pay your employees or which charities you support -- are manifestations of your own unique interpretation of what dignity and rights mean.

The UN, NGOs, and other global institutions have provided a priceless platform for dialogue on human rights. Without the consensus-building mechanisms they provide, there would be no Universal Declaration of Human Rights, no "naming and shaming" of human rights abusers, and no coordinated effort to stop the world's cruelest atrocities.

And yet, as we continue our efforts to avert the "end of human rights," what will our own generation's legacy of implementation be? As this generation rises to power in public and private leadership roles, those at decision-making tables across the spectrum will have an opportunity to think critically about their own actions. The foundation and forums, from the UDHR to the UN Global Compact, certainly exist. Now, it's up to us to ensure a future in which human rights are celebrated not only at the institutional level, but at a more personal, human level as well.]]>
Mining in Ecuador's Intag Valley: An Untold Story of Climate Change,2014:/theblog//3.5984958 2014-10-14T15:25:41-04:00 2014-12-14T05:59:01-05:00 Ariel Smilowitz

This article originally appeared on

On the heels of the "largest climate march in history," where hundreds of thousands of activists, demonstrators, politicians, and environmentalists gathered together to protest in solidarity against climate change; NYC's sixth annual Climate Week; and the United Nations Climate Summit, the issue of climate change is certainly a hot topic, so to speak. Over the past few weeks, at least 50 foundations have pledged to sell off holdings in the world's top oil and gas producers, while leaders like Archbishop Desmond Tutu and major business companies -- including Big Oil -- have pledged to divest from fossil fuels and cut carbon dioxide emissions. However, amid all the fanfare around the pledges to fight climate change and global warming, another environmental issue has failed to reach the masses, one that over the last several decades has had devastating and irrevocable ramifications for rural communities worldwide.

Historically, the mining industry has played an instrumental role in our society as the primary method of mineral extraction; for developing countries in particular, the industry's importance in generating revenue and employment is crucial. Yet, with mining comes a range of negative environmental and social impacts, and unfortunately, the developing world typically suffers the most.

Last month, while the world's most prominent and influential leaders discussed our current environmental challenges and their potential solutions at the 69th Session of the UN General Assembly, the Ecuadorian Ministry of the Environment released its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for Llurimagua, an area that is a part of Ecuador's Intag Valley. This Assessment is yet another chapter in the history of the Intag Valley, an embattled region that has been plagued with conflict and the threat of environmental, political, and social degradation due to mining extraction and exploitation.

A History of Preventative Resistance and Violent Suppression in the Intag Valley

Over twenty years ago, Bishmetals, a subsidiary of the Mitsubishi Corporation, began a copper mining project in the Intag Valley. The project resulted in significant deforestation, impacted dozens of endangered mammals and birds, polluted rivers with heavy metals and minerals, and increased crime and internal displacement and relocation within several different communities in the Valley. In response, strong opposition in the region ensued: DECOIN (Defensa y Conservacion Ecologica de Intag) was founded as a grassroots environmental organization dedicated to reversing deforestation, conserving the unique biodiversity of the area, and battling mining companies that threaten to disrupt and destroy the Intag Valley. Bishmetals was eventually expelled, only to be replaced shortly thereafter by Ascendant Copper, a Canadian transnational corporation.

Since the early 1990's, Canada has increasingly invested in mining projects around the world; in fact, approximately 75 percent of the world's mining companies are based in Canada. Latin America is especially vulnerable due to its proximity to Canada, low tax burdens, mineral rich landmass, and neoliberal economic policies. In 2013, 29 percent of all global mining investments were undertaken in the region. Of those investments, large-scale Canadian mining companies controlled an estimated 50-70 percent.

The arrival of Ascendant Copper sparked a "reign of terror" that lasted for several years. During this time, the Intag residents fought against paramilitary forces and local leaders of the opposition were beaten, threatened, and illegally arrested. The conflict between the mining company and the local communities was documented in the film Under Rich Earth, in an attempt to raise awareness about the plight of those living in the region.

Finally, in 2008 the government of Ecuador expelled Ascendant Copper; however, in 2011 the conflict was revived when the government signed an agreement with the Chilean government that enlisted the help of Codelco, the largest copper producer in the world. As a part of the agreement, Codelco was set to help ENAMI, an Ecuadorian state-owned mining company, explore and exploit Ecuadorian mining projects. Overwhelming opposition against the agreement has stalled Codelco and ENAMI's efforts to move forward, but ENAMI has still managed to successfully convince some local communities (those that won't be affected by the mining projects) to support its plans.

Environmental Impact Assessment: Flaws and Failures

Fast forward to the Sept. 24 release of the EIA Llurimagua for Intag. Continuous rejection of Codelco and ENAMI's agreement has prevented them from carrying out the environmental impact study they need in order for their project to shift into the exploration and exploitation stage. But despite the years of fighting, resistance, and disapproval by local governments and communities, the Ecuadorian Government finally managed to conduct this Assessment and release their analysis. So, after all this time, what does the EIA reveal?

Although the Assessment represents a multitude of viewpoints ranging from lukewarm support to unequivocal opposition towards mining operations, the section regarding these perceptions is poorly referenced. Thus, results may not be representative of the communities where the data was collected.

Among the interviewees, local leaders note that public hearings and information sessions were not handled correctly. One leader says that skewed and incomplete information was shared about potential mining operations, and he asks for honest and transparent dialogue in affected areas. One interviewee says more local institutions should have been invited to participate, and he was "surprised" when police officers were called into the area. Another is quoted as saying, "We never wanted [it], and we will never permit the mining company to come here."

Furthermore, upon the EIA's release, the Ecuadorian Ministry stated that the document would only be open for comment for a mere two weeks, meaning that academics, scientists, activists, and community members had an inadequate amount of time to fully analyze and comment on the Assessment.

All of these pitfalls illustrate how interest in community participation is feigned but not actually encouraged in the process. In addition, prior environmental devastation and community dislocation in Intag during Bishmetals' operations in the 1990s wasn't mentioned in the Assessment at all, and should have been given more weight. Ultimately, because of the Assessment's flawed methods in seeking local input and participation, its conclusions may be skewed towards moving forward with mining operations in the region.

What Does the Future Hold for the Intag Valley?

Intag Valley residents have increasingly made their struggles known around the world. One of their emerging collaborations includes a group of students and faculty at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. Founded in 2013, the Intag Project is an initiative at Cornell that partners students with community-run organizations in Ecuador. The students work on projects with the organizations and then travel to Ecuador each January to implement their work. According to founder Martin Zorrilla, the initiative has received an overwhelming amount of support.

"The program began as an experimental course in the Fall of 2013 with a remarkable amount of support from Cornell's Public Service Center (PSC), Engaged Learning and Research (ELR), and faculty members James Lassoie and Charlotte Jirousek," says Zorrilla. "After an incredibly successful first year we added it to the Cornell curriculum in the Spring of 2014.

"The experience has been an overwhelmingly positive one based on trust, that of the PSC and ELR in supporting the initiative, the faculty members for taking on this uncertain complex project, and the Intag community in investing in the partnership."

Zorrilla, who is a native of the Intag Region himself, has been involved in the struggle for years, long before the creation of the Intag Project. His father, Carlos, is a long-time member of the opposition, and as a result, Zorrilla's family has endured much danger.

"My father's involvement in the anti-mining fight dates back to the early 90's when it began with Bishimetals -- he and a local priest, Padre Giovanni Paz, were among the first to warn that the promise of mining brought with it destruction and contamination," says Zorrilla.

"When I was 16 my home was invaded by corrupt police that arrived in company cars -- with a gun to my head I watched as they placed a gun in my room and drugs in my living room. My concept of foreign interest, private business, and 'international development' was defined by these aggressive and violent acts.

"The ideology and justification for these acts have been the same whether from the Japanese, the Canadians, or my own government. Poverty is used as the pretext for extraction and the destruction of rural communities; wealth and roads are promised in exchange for our compliance to relinquish our rights to our land and water."

Despite the violence and hardship that Zorrilla, his family, and their fellow community members have faced, Zorrilla is still hopeful that the mining conflict will one day come to an end.

"I believe that the Intag struggle will be successful, that the project will fail and that we will be able to define our own future. I have to believe this, to do otherwise is to surrender, and the truth is that we have always faced enormous odds. The playing field isn't close to even," says Zorrilla.

"Still, the power of well-organized communities and strong regional and international allies can prevail and now more than ever we are part of something much bigger. Rural social movements have been growing and the push for natural resources all over Latin America has engendered powerful pushback. We need to work together, and we need all the help we can get because everyone on earth has a stake in what happens next."

Click here to learn more about the mining conflict, the Intag Project, and DECOIN.

Tim Shenk contributed to this report.
Changing the Future of Sexual and Reproductive Rights,2014:/theblog//3.5948376 2014-10-07T17:00:26-04:00 2014-12-07T05:59:01-05:00 Ariel Smilowitz Nineteen years ago, the United Nations convened the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. The Conference, which was held from Sept. 4-15, 1995, adopted the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, both of which institutionalize the notion that women's rights are fundamental human rights, and human rights are the right of every woman. In honor of the upcoming 20th anniversary of the Beijing meeting, the Roosevelt Institute recently held its first ever Women and Girls Rising Conference, bringing together a multi-generational group of policy makers, activists, and scholars from around the world to assess the progress that has been made since Beijing. Speakers included Gloria Steinem, Malala Yousafzai (by video), and Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and representatives from the UN, the World Bank, and the Council on Foreign Relations, among many others, participated in rich discussions about the political, social, economic, and cultural inequities and injustices that women and girls still face.

Among the topics discussed -- integrating women into global development, ending violence against women and girls, the importance and impact of girls' education, and women's claims on environmental sustainability -- one issue in particular resonates quite saliently within the context of the United States' poor track record of championing women's rights as human rights: sexual and reproductive health. There seemed to be consensus among all participants that sexual and reproductive health and rights are in jeopardy more than any time in the past 20 years, and that it would not be possible today to secure the same commitments to women's health that were agreed upon in Beijing. The United States is certainly no exception.

The U.S. has had significant successes advocating for family planning and reproductive health (FP/RH) internationally through its support of the World Health Organization (WHO), the UN, and other national and multilateral agencies. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) advances and supports family planning and reproductive health programs in more than 45 countries, and is the world's largest family planning bilateral donor. In 2009, the Obama Administration launched the $63 billion Global Health Initiative (GHI), a six-year initiative and global partnership to improve health outcomes, with "women, girls, and gender equality" as a key priority focus. In fact, the U.S. Government has a long history of engagement in international family planning and reproductive health issues: USAID first started their FP/RH programs in 1965, and today the U.S. government is one of the largest purchasers and distributors of contraceptives internationally. In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Department of State, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) all contribute towards advancing FP/RH internationally.

These efforts have been important, but imperfect. While the United States remains one of the world's largest donors for international family planning efforts, contributions today are below the peak level in 1995 (when adjusting for inflation). According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, designated FP/RH funding has not kept pace with U.S. global health funding overall, and has declined from 22 percent of the U.S. global health budget in FY 2001 to about 6 percent in FY 2013.

Additionally, U.S. ideologically driven policies -- like the Helms Amendment and Mexico City Policy (also known as the Global Gag Rule, which was repealed by President Obama) -- have prevented women worldwide from accessing comprehensive reproductive health care. Such restrictions prevent U.S. funds from supporting abortion counseling, lobbying, referrals, and procedures, and in turn hamper U.S. efforts to curb the more than 47,000 maternal deaths that occur each year as a result of unsafe abortions.

The same ideologies and anxieties about women's sexuality and bodily autonomy that made way for the Helms Amendment have also driven the erosion of sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States. The Hyde Amendment, passed just a few years after Helms went into effect, prevents federal funding for abortion in the United States. Since 2011 we have see historic numbers of regressive state-level reproductive health measures: family planning cuts, arbitrary regulations on abortion providers, and restrictions on some of the safest abortion methods. These and other efforts have contributed to the closing of clinics and the dismantling of a critical health infrastructure on which U.S. women -- particularly poor women, women of color, young women, and immigrant women -- rely.

While the Affordable Care Act (ACA) represents historic progress in guaranteeing comprehensive reproductive health care -- mandating the coverage of comprehensive reproductive health services, many without cost sharing, and prohibiting gender discrimination in health care for the first time in U.S. history -- political intransigence has weakened the law and will leave those in greatest need without access to care. Efforts to undermine the original intent of the ACA will undoubtedly hinder U.S. efforts to combat maternal mortality, new HIV/AIDS infections, high rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion, and high rates of economic insecurity in too many U.S. communities.

As Nancy Northrup, President of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said at the recent Roosevelt event:

"If [women] don't have access to essential obstetrics care, a certain percentage of women will die...If women do not have access to contraceptives and contraceptive choices, than many will have numerous pregnancies, some of which will compromise their health, some of which -- in some cases -- will cause them to die, and some of which will alter their life paths that they may have chosen for themselves otherwise. If women do not have access to safe and legal abortion, again, women will die...And, if women don't have an ability to exercise their own sexuality and choose their own sexual partners, then they cannot live a fully human life."

U.S. policymakers purport that we are the global leaders at, well, everything. But on women's health this is simply not the case. Honoring human rights at home will allow us to promote them abroad; we should be leading by example, enacting sound, evidence-based policies that enable all women to live free of health, social, and economic insecurities.

Millennials are key to making this happen. The Roosevelt Institute has started to pave the way, giving young people a platform to engage in policy development and advocacy, not only through convenings such as the Women and Girls Rising Conference, but also through its Campus Network. With over 120 chapters in universities across the country and over 10,000 members, the Campus Network is the largest student-run public policy think tank in the world, and trains millennials to become thought leaders in a variety of policy areas.

It was Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto who nearly two decades ago proclaimed in Beijing, "We must do much more than decry the past. We must change the future." Today's youth hold the key to the future. We need to engage them, fund their work, encourage their participation and lift up their voices if we are ever to achieve comprehensive reproductive health access for all.

A Sustainable Approach to Combating Human Trafficking,2014:/theblog//3.5633604 2014-07-30T12:42:19-04:00 2014-09-29T05:59:06-04:00 Ariel Smilowitz "Human trafficking has no place in the modern world." -- John Ashe, President of the United Nations General Assembly

Although today is the first ever World Day against Trafficking in Persons, the issue of human trafficking is hardly a novel one; rather, this crime has sadly survived and thrived for thousands of years. Nonetheless, as Mr. Ashe recently declared, it is time for us to erase human trafficking from the pages of our historical, cultural, and societal narrative. This may seem like an idealistic ambition, but we can start taking the necessary steps towards realizing that goal.

A Brief Overview

According to the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, human trafficking is defined as "the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation." Furthermore, exploitation includes "the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the removal of organs."

On the basis of this definition, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) categorizes three elements of human trafficking: the act (what is done), the means (how it is done), and the purpose (why it is done). The UNODC takes steps to help States draft legislation against trafficking in persons and assists them with obtaining resources to implement these laws. Thus, anti-trafficking work is organized around three principles: prevention, protection, and prosecution. The UNDOC works to help States criminalize the act, the means, and the purpose; prevent these three elements from occurring; and protect victims and prosecute offenders.

Despite these global efforts, human trafficking remains the third most profitable type of organized crime behind drug and arms trafficking, generating billions of dollars in profits per year. Simply put, more needs to be done. The best way to prevent a tree from growing is to attack its roots; in other words, vigorous efforts to prosecute and punish traffickers -- which serve as a deterrent to would-be traffickers -- must be coupled with strategic efforts to prevent this crime. We must consider why it occurs and what makes these roots flourish, so that we can effectively sever them.

What Helps Human Trafficking Flourish?

The nexus between human trafficking, poverty and environmental degradation is one that is not typically considered by policymakers or the general public. For several years, researchers have been establishing links between poverty and environmental degradation; we know that the mismanagement and unsustainable use of natural resources facilitates poverty and vice versa. Increasingly, there is evidence that the same conditions create vulnerabilities to human trafficking. Industries like agriculture, fishing, and mining are extremely susceptible to negative environmental impacts; at the same time, for a variety of reasons workers within these sectors face the risk of increased exposure to human rights abuses. According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), agriculture is one of the largest sources of employment worldwide, with more than 1 billion people employed in the sector. It is also one of the most hazardous sectors in the world, as workers are often subject to laboring in difficult terrain and extreme weather conditions, increasing their prospects of getting injured or dying. Similarly, the fisheries sector makes a crucial contribution to global food and economic security, yet workers in this industry face the hazards of physically demanding labor in an isolated workplace -- an environment which increases their vulnerability to forced labor. Mining -- particularly artisanal and small-scale mining - can have a negative impact on the environment and often occurs in remote or rural areas with little government presence, leaving individuals in mining communities in Latin America, Africa and Asia more vulnerable to forced labor and sex trafficking. The U.S. Department of State highlights examples of human trafficking within these industries in countries around the world:


  • In Asia, men from Cambodia, Burma, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, China, India, and Bangladesh are subjected to forced labor on foreign-flagged vessels (often from Taiwan, South Korea or Hong Kong) operating in territorial waters of countries in Southeast Asia, the Pacific region, New Zealand, and around the world.

  • A gold rush in southeastern Senegal has created serious health and environmental challenges for affected communities due to the use of mercury and cyanide in illegal mining operations. The rapid influx of workers has also contributed to the forced labor and sex trafficking of children and women in mining areas.

Mismanagement of agricultural, marine and environmental resources -- due to corruption, poor governance, and other factors -- fosters an environment in which workers and communities face more serious risks to health, safety and human rights abuse. It's a vicious cycle: environmental degradation fuels poverty, which in turn increases vulnerabilities to human trafficking.

Severing the Tree From its Roots

How do we go about breaking this cycle so that we can effectively combat human trafficking? Moving forward, multilateral institutions like the UNODC, as well as other governments, civil society and labor organizations, academics, and actors from the private sector can push for the enactment and implementation of legislation that establishes greater environmental protections and strategies for sustainable livelihoods and management of natural resources. Ultimately, it is necessary to strengthen partnerships between these stakeholders and enhance a global dialogue that amplifies the connections between human trafficking, poverty, and lack of decent work and respect for the environment.

Indeed, human trafficking is a complex phenomenon. It is inaccurate to claim that addressing these specific linkages will provide the panacea that is needed to truly eliminate all forms of trafficking in persons; however, if we intervene now and fundamentally alter the way we live through a sustainable approach, the roots of human trafficking may finally start to wither away.]]>
The Real Nature of America's Child Migrant Crisis,2014:/theblog//3.5455641 2014-06-06T11:52:32-04:00 2014-08-06T05:59:04-04:00 Ariel Smilowitz 47,000 unaccompanied children have been caught crossing the southwest border of the United States. This number is a 92 percent increase over the same period of time in 2013; before 2011, the number of child migrants into the U.S. averaged between 6,000 and 8,000. Now, officials project that as many as 60,000 children will cross the border by the end of the year, in a surge that is being called a "hemispheric migration."

In light of this deluge, the Obama administration has asked Congress for $1.4 billion in extra funding to provide food, housing and transportation for these children, and asked the Department of Defense to provide assistance as well. Additionally, President Obama has appointed Craig Fugate, head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to lead the government's response. All in all, White House estimates show that the projected costs of caring for and resettling these child migrants could reach $2.28 billion next year, over double what the Obama administration asked for in its 2015 budget.

These recent events have spawned much debate over illegal immigration, children's rights, and the nature of what constitutes a full-blown humanitarian crisis. Some argue that the United States shouldn't spend so much money on caring for these child migrants, or are worried some of the migrants have been engaged in criminal activities like kidnapping, drug smuggling, and extortion. However, it seems as though this influx of children into the U.S. is less about criminal activity, reunification or even escaping poverty, and more about the very real security threats these migrants face if they remain in their home countries. About 90 percent of those who were cared for by the Office of Refugee Resettlement last year were from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, countries where organized crime, drug trafficking, and gang violence are rampant. These factors, combined with the pull of potentially receiving mercy after crossing the U.S. border, have prompted many of these children to choose the United States as their final destination. A few months ago the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees released a report highlighting the plight of these child migrants. Entitled "Children on the Run," the report draws on interviews from hundreds of children fleeing the abuse, violence, crime and insecurity they encounter on the streets and within their own homes:


With this in mind, it seems as though the Obama administration is very aware of the humanitarian impact that insecurity has had on these child migrants, and is trying to provide a means to help these children receive the necessary asylum and care that they need. However, it is important to place this particular surge in migration within the context of other ongoing migrant crises, and think of the long-term consequences for these humanitarian crises as well. Whether in Syria and Turkey, Myanmar and Thailand, or Guatemala and the United States, as these "hemispheric migrations" increase around the world and continue to forge new patterns of displacement, what steps can we take to not only provide these children with the care they need, but also to adapt to these major global demographic and cultural transformations?

If the Obama administration wants to assuage this migrant crisis, it should invest in strengthening and providing these children, and American children, with educational and cultural literacy programs. The U.S. cannot eliminate the violence, crime and instability that exist in these countries. It cannot eliminate this particular migration crisis and inflow of children by providing them with temporary and short-term housing and care, and most importantly, the U.S. will most likely never be able to break the cycle of illegal migration. So, the question remains: Once those children receive asylum or move into the next phase of their journey, what will happen next? Thus, rather than approach the problem through that narrower lens, the U.S. should focus on how it can help these children assimilate and integrate through education, and how it can prepare its own children to effectively deal with these migrations and the subsequent metamorphosis of American culture that will certainly follow. Full integration into U.S. society generally takes more than one generation, and progress is already uneven for certain groups of migrants. As a result, we need to teach these children how to swim and keep their heads above the water, so that they - along with the rest of the U.S. -- don't flounder helplessly in a sea of cultural and demographic disconnect.

Ultimately, the solution to these hemispheric migrations does not lie in temporary housing and short-term care. If these children are going to continue to leave their homes, it is within our best interests to try as much as we can to ease them into our society and provide them with the long-term educational and cultural adjustment programs that they need. We need to invest in ensuring their futures, so that our country's own future isn't at stake. That is the real nature of this humanitarian crisis.]]>
Unlocking the Benefits of Open Data,2014:/theblog//3.4844336 2014-02-25T11:41:04-05:00 2014-04-27T05:59:01-04:00 Ariel Smilowitz Open Data Day, an international event that gathers people around the globe each year in an effort to support and encourage the adoption of open data policies by the world's governments and institutions. Open data is defined as "data that can be freely used, shared, and built-on by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose". With this in mind, over the weekend, designers, coders, statisticians, and those interested in open data participated in workshops and open data hackathons. Ultimately, each event provided participants with the chance to "write applications, liberate data, create visualizations, and publish analyses using public open data." In other words, participants were given a space to come together and collaborate on new ways to visualize, analyze, and spread information throughout the world.

All in all, Open Data Day connected over 100 cities on five continents. Prior to this weekend's events, the Open Knowledge Foundation suggested that some of the hackathon projects were going to include app making in the United Kingdom, environmental data in Denmark; transportation data in Argentina; and data expeditions on gold revenue, energy supply data, and public budgets in Burkina Faso, among others. However, although these workshops and hackathons seem to be successful in their attempts to promote collaboration, increased transparency, and access to information, much more needs to be done in order to truly accomplish these goals.

Indeed, over the past few years, several steps have been taken to make these goals a reality. For example, the African Development Bank launched its Africa Information Highway Initiative, the Nigerian government jumpstarted its Open Data Development Initiative, and U.S. President Barack Obama signed an Open Data Executive Order. Nonetheless, despite these gains in making data more open and accessible to the public, many local, regional, and national governments are still reluctant to open up their data. Furthermore - and perhaps most importantly - it seems as though there is a lack of public interest in open data.

Why is this the case? It's possible that this lack of interest could be attributed to cynicism or institutional distrust. It's also possible that people are apathetic or indifferent towards open data because they don't understand what open data is or how it can be used. Regardless of whether or not this is true, one can certainly see that there has been a shift in the way governments publish information, as it's more often than not being released in the form of raw data rather than in reports or other user-friendly formats. In light of this shift, should we approach open data from a different, more tangible perspective?

One way to make open data more appealing and user-friendly is by engaging the world's youth, who as of now seem to have a very limited role in advancing open data initiatives. As a generation that has grown up working with computers and regularly connecting online with people around the world, young people in particular have the potential to provide a unique contribution within this space. Thus, the benefits and possibilities of opening, spreading, and sharing data should be promoted among young people throughout the world. For example, if "open data youth hubs" existed in colleges and universities around the globe, young people could come together to learn more about the benefits of open data, and then take that knowledge and share it with each other. These discussions could potentially result in very tangible collaborations, as certain global challenges could be resolved by connecting young people with open data and development experts, effectively leveraging open government data while simultaneously allowing young people to connect on a global scale.

Ultimately, opening and spreading data results in increased transparency, participation, and collaboration, all of which have irrevocable and immeasurable benefits. However, if people aren't interested in open data, governments and institutions around the world aren't going to be encouraged or inspired to adopt open data policies. Events like Open Data Day provide wonderful opportunities to spread awareness about open data, and hackathons and workshops are great ways to engage and connect open data experts and interested people; however, people who don't consider themselves tech-savvy may not be interested in attending a hackathon or may not understand how to "write applications, liberate data, create visualizations, and publish analyses." Moving forward, it's important to promote these benefits in a way that can be universally appealing, so that anyone can share ideas, spread information, and participate in a more transparent and collaborative way.]]>
Sexual and Gender-Based Violence: Acknowledging the Issue Is not Enough,2013:/theblog//3.4171270 2013-10-29T13:24:19-04:00 2014-01-23T18:58:21-05:00 Ariel Smilowitz Safe from the Start, to prevent and respond to sexual and gender-based violence in humanitarian emergencies worldwide. Similarly, on October 18 both the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the UN Security Council adopted recommendations and resolutions regarding measures that states should take to ensure women's rights before, during and after conflict. The World Bank held a panel on development and gender-based violence on October 11, and the Brookings Institution hosted a discussion last week about the role of the US government, the UN and other key actors in combating sexual violence in conflict.

In each instance, the need to acknowledge the problems and costs associated with gender-based violence was emphasized, as well as the need to respond, act against and prevent the violence against women from occurring. To get a sense of some of the negative impacts of gender-based violence, particularly during conflict, the following are pertinent points taken from a Rutgers University fact sheet:

•The World Health Organization estimates that at least one of every three women globally will be beaten, raped or otherwise abused during her lifetime.

•In countries where armed conflict is rife, there have been reports of rape being used as a 'tool of war'. Amnesty International reported that between 1999 and 2000 in every armed conflict that they investigated, the torture of women was reported. In some cases, women have been intentionally infected with HIV, with the aim of causing a 'slow death'.

•Reports on rape during conflict detail profound brutality towards women and girls, including serious beatings, mutilation or removal of the genitals, rape with sharp objects and gunshots to the genitals. Others have witnessed the death of friends and family members from similar forms of brutality.

When a woman is violently attacked, raped and infected with HIV or another type of disease, and subsequently becomes pregnant, that child suffers as well, and eventually so will their subsequent children. Similarly, when a woman's husband and children are forced to watch their wife and mother get brutally raped, they become indirect victims. Thus, gender-based and sexual violence is an epidemic that has terrible consequences not only for the women who are abused, but for their family members, their communities and the regions surrounding them as well. Especially during a conflict or crisis, gender-based violence hinders the establishment of peace and security. It also inhibits development and perpetuates poverty, as women exposed to sexual violence have shown higher work absenteeism, lower productivity and lower earnings. Furthermore, the costs of providing medical treatment, police and legal support and counseling add to the overall productivity loss that a country or region can incur.

Ultimately, gender-based violence is an epidemic that infects the women, men and children of today and of our future and the fact that it has been given a platform by organizations and institutions like the UN, the US government, the World Bank and the Brookings Institution is certainly a step in the right direction. However, although these institutions are talking about the issue, as well as offering possible solutions to eradicating the epidemic, what has been done with regards to research and innovation, particularly on a college campus, especially within the academic circles of scientists, engineers and architects?

During the Brookings Institution's event on preventing and responding to gender-based violence in conflict, the US Institute of Peace's, Kathleen Kuehnast, who is the Director of the Center of Innovation for Gender and Peacebuilding, briefly mentioned that she believed a blind spot in our efforts to understand this issue -- specifically the refugee camps that exist in these conflict-prone areas -- exists with regards to education and the study and application of technology. As Kuehnast stated during the discussion,

"[The US Institute of Peace] recently did a very brief overview of how many universities and colleges who sponsor architectural and engineering programs include anything about gendered views of refugee camps. Very few. I think we counted two. We have a gap in our research, in our education, if we're not educating architects and engineers to think broadly in terms of the concepts of protection and power."

Universities provide an ideal setting for young, bright, and creative minds to cultivate their ideas and harness them towards creating positive social change. As technological innovation and access to information increases at an exponential rate, scientists, engineers and architects are playing an even more pivotal role than ever before in designing and implementing solutions to the world's most pressing challenges. A quick Google search can provide a wealth of information about successful student-led science, engineering, and architectural programs that focus on issues like food security, sustainability, urban planning, health care and terrorism.

With this in mind, Kuehnast's statement that we must close the gap of research through the education of architects and engineers provides a new dimension to how preventing and responding to gender-based violence should be perceived. Acknowledgement of the issue -- although a positive step -- does not fully eliminate the threat of gender-based violence. It is important for us, for our politicians, leaders, scholars and student engineers, architects and scientists, to act, whether through research, education or technological innovation, so that we can move in the right direction towards creating a world without gender-based violence.]]>