God Bless America

When one says ‘God Bless America', does God only bless America? Because if He blesses other countries, too, then YES! God, bless America, so that we can all be well. But if He doesn’t, then I would like to have a God who blesses my country. --This would be why we believe in different gods.

The Girl With Green Eyes

I remember when this picture first came out. Everyone was stupefied by this young girl's beauty. There was certainly something so mystical and fierce about her, and it was revealed through those glaring green eyes and soft brown skin.

I just found this current picture of her, juxtaposing the now with the then to show viewers how Afghani life has stolen away innocence and opportunity from this young girl. I see this picture and I feel sad, but I also feel confused because I do not know what my sadness is directed at. Is it at the sight of time and the harshness of life bearing so visibly on her face? Is it at the realization that beauty is fleeting? Or is it because this photograph is using a natural part of the life cycle--aging-- as a weapon against Afghani society? I did my background research on the article that accompanied this photo: I wanted to find out what the aspiration or intention was for producing this before and after picture of the girl with green eyes before going off on a tirade about the subliminal messages it delivered. As it turned out, the author of this picture only had one genuine intention: to find the woman with green eyes and share with his followers what has become of the National Geographic icon. I had to reconsider everything I wrote in response to the feeling this before and after picture invoked. But, after reviewing--a few times-- the documentary on the expedition to finding the woman with green eyes, I realized that regardless of the photographer's and journalists' intention, the message that fell unto laypersons' conscious was indeed deserving of criticism. Here is why:

The strategic montage of the before and after image of the girl/woman with green eyes, does inevitably condition, control, and guide how we perceive Afghanistan. Whether or not it was intentional, the point is that journalism in this country has become (subconsciously) trained to systematically refer to anything Arab as negative. For instance, this photograph ends up sending the message that Afghanistan's culture and society is utterly dysfunctional. While I'm not qualified to argue against or pro the quality of life in that society, or for women in particular, I nevertheless find it very disheartening how much power we give to the assumptions we make from images as the evidences of truth. Generations of flawed journalism coupled with our ignorance are to blame. I wonder, is it arrogance that leads us to believe that what we assume is correct? Or, is that we have been taught to believe only with our eyes instead of believing with our ears? I cannot deny the fact that the aged photo of the girl with green eyes reveals sadness and pain. The documentary makes it a point to show us that she has been through a lot in her lifetime. And when I first saw this comparison I thought "Wow, look at what she has become". But can I confidently know for a fact that her premature aging was because of the perils of Afghani culture as the photo and documentary begs you to think? Therefore, is it ethical to use this before and after photo to transcend the message that Afghani culture can rob women of their beauty, power, and mystique? Any woman, anywhere in this world can be robbed of these qualities--I too can find photos of women from around the world, including right here in the USA, who have aged many years because of the hardships in life. And so what? We age.

This leads to my second point of contention: woman aging is being used to measure quality of life, which is for me, as a woman, a direct offense... it is insulting. And, as I am sitting here trying to find the logic to explain why, I realize that the fact that we are living in a world where beauty is everything, women have become ashamed of aging and have consequently humiliated nature by undergoing ridiculous plastic surgery and botox to prolong their youth, or add value to their existence. Woman of this society are raised by propaganda and commercialism to believe that we are worthless without a physical beauty that is appealing to a man---and I'm not talking about the beauty in the eye of the beholder--I'm talking about the narrow-minded definition of beauty, standardized by Western ideals and promulgated by Western media. I am, therefore, offended because aging is the powerful agent in this photograph that is being used to show shame and invoke pity because the young beauty of the girl with green eyes has faded away as she endured the challenges of womanhood. Aging is what happens to all human kind. And yes, the difficulties of life eventually start to bear on us. But, the wrinkles we form on our faces are triumphant signs of perseverance, wisdom and maturity. So, in what right does anyone have to use this woman's face, or any other woman's face, to say that aging is consequence of a dysfunctional society? Does this mean, then, that a functional society leaves women ageless. And YES, that is the very belief that has permeated this modern Western society of ours, and that is why women today cannot age with grace. Yet, this physical change is natural. It's just what happens to women because that's what women are about: we take on a lifetime of responsibilities, we fight many battles and then we have to stand strong for all those who need us. So if we age in the process, if she aged in the process, how dare we assume she is a victim--especially when this assumption is being used for the sole purpose of stirring more hate towards Muslims.

Any thoughts?

ECOSOC Global Preparatory Meeting for the 2010 Annual Ministerial Review

Who Feed the World in 2010 and Beyond? Rural Women as Agents of Change and Champions of Global Food Security

Over the course of the food security dialogues, in particular the recent ECOSOC Global Preparatory Meeting for the 2010 Annual Ministerial Review, it was made very clear how the global food crisis has become an opportunity for various stakeholder, including development agencies to capitalize on their own interests.

It is clear that poverty exists, and it undeniable that oppressive norms render women even more vulnerable during times of food insecurity. However, if we want to achieve women’s empowerment and help them climb out of poverty, we must do so in a way that is actually empowering and not denigrating. Organizations that are experts in helping women become empowered in the true sense, such as the Huairou Commission, should continue along this method of practice when working in food security: insofar, it has been with tremendous force that development agencies and government bodies like the Obama Administration have been portraying or functioning according to the belief that food security is the result of patriarchal cultures, the use of ancient tools, lack of knowledge, national poverty, climate change and “third worldness”. In response, their approach to rectifying the food crisis has been to develop the rural sector, which is intentionally ambiguous: “developing” this sector could mean either a) providing people of this sector with the tools and means to improve people’s lives, or b) transforming this sector into a profit-generating hub for multinational corporations and/ or large agribusinesses such as Monsanto, Syngenta and Cargill. It is the latter solution that multinational corporations, agribusinesses, G8 governments, development agencies and INGOs have been promoting under the pretext that food insecurity is a problem of food scarcity due to the above mentioned factors. Not only is this pretext untrue, it absolves those responsible for the crisis from accountability---not once was it mentioned at ECOSOC who the real perpetrators of food insecurity were! Yet, for the past three decades, transnational agribusiness companies have pushed for market liberalization, manipulated trade and restructured global agriculture, changing the way food is grown and distributed around the world. They did this by exerting their own market power and through the support of governments, the World Bank, IMF and World Trade Organization. While these entities have been able to reap large profits, others suffered from hunger. By denying the role these agencies have played in creating the food crisis, it hinders real solutions from being identified. For example, panelist Ms. Carol Kramer-LeBlanc (Director for Sustainable Development, Office of the Chief Economist, United States Department of Agriculture) spoke on how hunger could be eradicated by:

“establishing a goals oriented, evidenced-based approach to achieving food security, which will support country-led plans and priorities in countries committed to policies that are conducive to rapid development. These policies include embracing a strategic and robust research agenda that 1) promotes innovations in science and technology, 2) supporting entrepreneurial approaches to market-based agricultural growth.”

Promoting innovations in science and technology to increase food production is the crux of the Obama’s Feed the Future Program, which includes promoting Monsanto’s endeavors to engineer and control seeds. Ms. Kramer-LeBlanc also referred to the Gates Foundation, with whom the USAID partnered with, to supposedly help women become leaders in rural development. However, the Gates Foundation is also a strong supporter of GMOs: They funded the “The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa”, which aims to develop ‘more productive’ and resilient varieties of Africa’s major food crops to enable Africa’s small-scale farmers to produce larger, more diverse and reliable harvests.”[1]

This rural development approach suggests that the problem of food insecurity is food scarcity and poor technology. But the truth is that there is already enough food to feed the world. The real problem resides in our ideals about market capitalism and our relationships with developing countries. Another fundamental problem with this rural development approach is that it is diametrically opposed to what rural women want---even though they pledge to include women in development planning! In every event at the CSW where grassroots women spoke, the feedback we received from the focus group discussion for the regional papers and in the presentation by the two grassroots panelists at the ECOSOC preparatory meeting, it was emphasized that what women wanted was food sovereignty: they want the right to control their own seeds, the production process, decide what foods they want eat and revive indigenous practices because it frees them from the cyclical debt of corporate-owned seeds, fertilizers and chemicals.

In addition, this rural development approach is not empowering to women. The buzz words in the current discourse on development is “women’s inclusion” and “women’s empowerment” but how does the promotion of agribusinesses ensure women’s empowerment? It does not! And when you look at how Liberia is has pursued women’s empowerment, you will see that there is not one method that involves expanding agricultural production. Rather, their empowerment-building trajectory has been one that enables women to:

“acquire a critical awareness of themselves as women and knowledge of the gender structure of power. Internalized knowledge that they have the potential to take action and lead. We want to achieve the ‘I can define my goal and I can take action towards achieving it’.”

This vision has been the framework for institutionalizing efforts at the national level to empower women and redress food insecurity. The Honorable Florence Chenoweth, Minister of Agriculture of Liberia stated that:

“to empower women we must use national policies to address biases against women. Women are marginalized from social and political representation (due to traditional and other practices). National Policy (NP) has to change this. They have to allow women to have more access to land and farm inputs as an important step to ensuring food security and national development. NP must therefore ensure that this critical issue is addressed with laws that protect against women being deprived of legal rights.”

Ms. Cunningham, Director of the Center for Indigenous people’s Autonomy and Development (CIDAP)—who provided regional perspectives on rural women’s empowerment at the ECOSOC preparatory meeting— also provided examples of sustainable ways to redress gender discrimination and food insecurity without violating cultural identity or food sovereignty. In Nicaragua, an organization led by indigenous women works in zones that have been affected by the war and natural disasters. Upon identifying gender-based violence as the biggest threat to women, the organization helped women start cultivating their own food—to lessen the pressures of poverty and hunger. They also started awareness raising workshops to inform women about their rights. This in turn allowed them to voice their concerns and needs to municipal authorities and regional governments.

The food crisis has incited too many stakeholders to get involved in agricultural development, and if grassroots organizations are not vocal, multinational corporations, agribusinesses, G8 governments, development agencies and INGOs will continue portraying food insecurity as a problem of poor technology, poverty, cultural attitudes towards women, and underdevelopment—all of which are venues for large development projects that, again, will threaten cultural diversity and sovereignty. This is not development. This is cultural imperialism and market capitalism. Therefore, we must approach the problem of food insecurity with a similar perspective as “the personal is political.” In other words, we have to be as critical in our analysis of what is causing food insecurity just as we have been critical in our analysis of why women do and / or behave the way they do. As we have come to understand the multiple forces at play that systematically oppress women and influence our behavior, we must come to understand what forces really inhibit access to food. Thus we must use this critical time to strengthen grassroots women’s capacity to identify the perpetrators and confront them. We must also increase their capacity to promote the type of development they want—a development that honors their cultural identity and food sovereignty. Their sustainable solutions to food insecurity is food sovereignty and true empowerment.

[1] About the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa.” http://www.agra-alliance.org/about/about_more.html

Why isn't the whole world developed?

There is a question people often ask which is “Why isn’t the whole world developed?” In order to answer this question, it is first useful to understand what the hegemonic view of development is. The IMF and World Bank (WB) have promulgated an idea of what underdevelopment is. To these development institutions, underdevelopment means not having the economic infrastructure to generate growth. It is assumed that a non industrialized country has little GDP, and therefore, cannot provide for the material needs of its citizens. These countries are therefore considered poor. Assessing a country’s development based on its ability to generate a high GDP requires, then, that underdeveloped countries adopt market economies in order to provide materialistically. Equating development with materialism and modernization, and underdevelopment with a lack of, marks the beginning of the West’s quest to “develop” the underdeveloped world. And, at the forefront of this mission are development economists and INGOs.

While acknowledging that (extreme) poverty is a real phenomenon that cripples both social and economic development, this paper shows how the development framework of development economists, and the language and imagery used by International Non Government Organizations (INGOs) to convey the urgency of development, they both impact, in two but interconnected ways, our perception of non-Westerners (or the other): Development economists who see poverty as institutional failure have pinned poverty to internal malfunctions of underdeveloped countries. Though there is much validity in their institutional analysis, there are critical implications that affect our understanding of the non-Western political economies. INGOs, on the other spectrum, negatively portray underdeveloped countries in order to legitimize their “humanitarian” interventionist activities. While some of the work carried out by these transnational bodies has helped many, perpetuating negative views of the non-Westerner creates intolerance towards those living outside the parameter of market values and modernization. As a result, both development economists and INGOs, I claim, enable the globalization (or imperialism) of Western ideals. Thus, I argue that understanding the differences of non-Western cultures is imperative in order to break the cycle of Western domination… in order for development institutions and policy makers to cease assuming that communities unlike their own need to be developed by their own standards…in order for Westerners to stop assuming that we must all be developed.

The paper is organized into three sections. The first section reviews the implications of explaining poverty through the lens of institutional underdevelopment. I look at how this approach has stigmatized underdeveloped countries as sole proprietors of causes of poverty. The second section shows how INGOs have become purveyors of social transformation and how, through their efforts, they have created, propagated, and perpetuated negative perceptions of the non-Western world. The third section draws from Sen’s understanding of poverty to show the importance of being able recognize and acknowledge poverty—and not miss it when present—without muddling the difference between cultural differences and projection of Western standards (projecting ignorance). Finally, I conclude that because development economists and INGOs negatively portray underdeveloped countries, Western citizens have joined the crusade to “develop” the non-Western world. And as long as Western citizens are bred to have patronizing attitudes towards non-Western cultures, development (as in poverty alleviation) will masquerade the globalization of Western ideals (markets and values alike). To read full paper click here

How free are we?

I attended the event "Stand Up Take Action" organized by the Hunger Project. The event was promoting the urgency to hike up action to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. In deed it's not a bad idea to want to step and take action against poverty, but when poverty is given the face of Africans, Asians, and brown Latin Americans then one really has to start to ask this question: Is it poverty we are fighting, or INGOs that we are supporting? After having wrote my paper on this very topic four years ago, (click here to see paper) I myself started to wonder if I was being a bit too radical. And, when I returned to Sri Lanka and saw how bad the socio-economic situation was, I was all the more compelled to believe in the "rescuing" power of International Non Government Organizations (INGOs). However, I was drawn back to my initial senses after attending the "Stand Up Take Action" event: For these huge INGOs and for the MDG followers, the movement to end poverty is really not about ending poverty, and it became ever so clear by the blatantly racist decryption of who the poor are: Africans, Asians, and brown Latin Americans. If INGO are truly concerned about achieving the MDGs then they should take a better look at the state of poor people in this country. If INGOs are truly concerned about fostering good government practices, then they need to look at the sick system in this country that allows corporations including banks and insurance companies to exploit families, pulling many under the poverty line, or rendering people homeless--giving so much power to corporations is not a sign of good governance. I do feel blessed for the many things that this country offers., but at the same time, it's important to realize that half the things we have only create false ideas of freedom, equality and justice for all. We have been collectively conditioned to think that we live in the greatest nation of all times where freedom prevails. But that's not always true. While we may be able to chose what religion we want to follow--a freedom that exist in many other countries as well--our real freedom is limited by MONEY. Just like the caste system we criticize in India, here too we get pulled into a "caste" that determines the quality of our life. Money-making is open to everyone, yes, the great American Dream that has attracted immigrants from around the world. But the secret no one ever tells you about are the social inequalities, and the extra hurdles because of these inequalities, that one has to endure during the process of trying to make it big. As we are conditioned to think that we are living in freedom, we ignore how tenuous our freedom really is when you are not protected by an abundance of money: The mere fact that banks and insurance companies can legally charge you any interest rate or premium they wish, shows how unprotected we are and how vulnerable we are. Wealthy people don't feel the impact of this but working class families do, as they struggle to recover their debts that are further aggravated by exorbitantly high interest rates. During times of economic crisis when people are loosing their jobs how is possible, that collection agencies are allowed to take any measure they wish, to strap you on to a repayment plan? Why are health insurance companies, like Oxford, allowed to take a sweeping amount of $1000 from one single paycheck without regard of how that check needed to be allocated. Simple acts like this, if you are living from pay check to paycheck, can draw a family into debt crisis. Just because greedy and all powerful CEOs are allowed to conduct business as they wish, families can easily fall behind their rent, debt payment, utility bills etc. Just imagine what happens next. So, I ask, how free are we really if we are unprotected from avaricious banks, debt collectors and health insurance companies who are given the right to suck up every penny you have? How developed of a nation are we, and how freely are we living if my choices are constantly affected by my economic status? In addition, I recently learned that if I wanted the best early childcare program for my child because empirical evidence shows the significance of these first crucial years, it won't be made available to me for the simple reason that I wouldn't be able to afford it. In other words, my child's developmental growth isn't considered as a priority for the greater good of society--while it should be since we are all abiding to the social contract. But no, this country doesn't think like that. So, what does this tell us of a Nation if, in 2010, we are still selectively nurturing the intellectual growth of the upper middle class and ignoring the intellectual development needs of children born to poorer families? We criticize developing countries from excluding girls from education, but in this country we exclude the poor from the best services...including the best education. Instead, the working class has to send their children to mediocre childcare programs. Is this discrimination normal of government that is said to protect its people. Is this really good governance? Is this equality for all? Is this reflective of a developed social conscience if money is our only ticket to freedom and our only ticket to cross class barriers? It is not, and do not be fooled, good governance and its ultimate respect for human rights, as we to boast it to be when trying to change other governments. This nation, despite all the INGOs that are proselytizing a US model of development, is significantly lagging behind because just like the countries we criticize, our government is really not responsive to the people. It's responsive to green bills and the powerful elite. It is, therefore, time that we stop idealizing our freedom and comfort and criticizing the governments of third world countries for their lack of participatory democracy and poverty.