Faith-Inspired Organizations and International Aid and Development

A close look at US history will reveal that many of the first private entities to undertake international aid and development work were those grounded in religion. As early as the mid 1800’s Christian missionaries set out for Lebanon, Syria, and the Holy Lands to proselytize and eventually, to build schools and provide western medical assistance [1]. Today, the number of faith-inspired organizations extending aid and development assistance abroad has grown immensely, touching every habitable continent on Earth. Though the role of religious based and faith-inspired development/aid organizations seems tangential in academia, it is nevertheless a crucial component of contemporary private internationalism. A brief consideration of pros and cons of this brand of private internationalism is not only informative at a basic level, but also begins to reveal the critical role religion plays in influencing American foreign policy abroad.

According to the Berkeley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs at Georgetown University, deeming a development/aid organization “faith-inspired”, “reflects the appreciation of the complex links between faith and organization, belief and action. In the context of faith-inspired organizations and their intersection with development, religion and faith bring forth moral and ethical attributes that tend to emphasize human and spiritual contributions to the political and economic." [2] Though this does not imply proselytizing or active recruiting to the faith of the organization (though it can), the inclusion of a religious dynamic to the primary mission of development and aid does saddle these types of organizations with a certain stigma, both at home and abroad. Organizations affiliated with a religion that differs, often dramatically, from the host country can experience understandable resistance to their efforts. Additionally, fellow citizens at home in the US may not approve of international efforts, citing need here at home, or disapproval with presumed “religious agendas”. Furthermore, faith-inspired development/aid work can cause political concern, especially when the faith of the organization is at odds with the faith allied to the host state. Depending on the strength of the ties between the state and religion, political impact from faith-inspired organizations can range from nominal to significant.

These stigmas have not, however, seemed to diminish the success of many of these organizations. Faith-inspired development/aid organizations are often wildly successful in their host countries, particularly because faith can often serve as a common denominator and point of departure for dialogue between often radically different groups. This success can serve as de facto diplomacy; engagement on a personal level, providing for people in ways that their state and other states cannot (or will not) can improve the US image abroad (though, in contrast, it certainly has the power to damage it). The importance of such private internationalism and its influence has been proven historically. Mainly, faith-inspired organizations can avoid a good deal of the resistance that comes with official development aid by positioning themselves as primarily a religious group. This can assuage, to some degree, local fears about foreign policy and strategic implications of official development aid. Also, faith-inspired organizations do not have limits on the amount of aid that they give: often, their mission statements devote the whole of the organization to providing development/aid, whereas official development aid is calculated to a percent of Gross National Income. Faith-inspired organizations can supplement official development aid and fill in the gaps left by countries that are either unwilling or unable to provide to this level.

The voluntary contributions of ordinary citizens, both in time and in money, through faith-inspired organizations should not be scoffed at. Through dedicated investing in development and aid projects, there organizations are promoting goodwill and progressive values on a personal level that is nearly inaccessible to big governments. Academics, politicians, and regular citizens alike would do well to wise up to the political, economic, and social influence that these faith-inspired organizations carry in order to assist their efforts, or work to reform them.

[1] Oren, Michael. Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to Present. W.W. Norton and Company, INC. New York, New York. 2007
[2] http://repository.berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/cambodia_2009.pdf
Other Sources:
Shah, Anup. “US and Foreign Aid Assistance”, http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance

Confronting Iran's Nuclear Ambitions: An International Challenge

Throughout Obama’s presidential campaign and for much of his first year in office, he emphasized the need for diplomatic efforts in America’s relations with Iran. In his inaugural address, Obama promised to “extend a hand” to Iran, an offer that was quickly rebuffed.[1] Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, maintains that Iran’s nuclear program is for energy purposes only, but political leaders have grown increasingly wary of Tehran. On March 23, Senator Charles Schumer called for harsh sanctions against Iran, stating, “The U.S. must hit Iran first, on our own, with unilateral sanctions, no matter what the other nations of the world do…we cannot afford to wait for Russia or China.”[2] The Obama administration, however, has attempted to gain international support for sanctions against Iran. Obama has placed a particular emphasis on Russia and China, two of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

On March 24, China agreed to “engage in substantive talks on a U.S.-backed initiative to sanction Iran for defying U.N. demands to halt its enrichment of uranium.”[3] Talks with China will likely last several weeks before any sanctions are finalized, but China’s involvement is a positive step toward sanctions of Iran. The Chinese government had previously refused to join negotiations, and they have not made any firm commitments at this stage. China’s U.N. ambassador, Li Baodong, stressed that while the spread of nuclear weapons is undesirable, “Appropriate solutions should be found through peace talks and negotiations.”[4] Bringing China to the table for talks about Iran is a foreign policy victory for Obama, but the United States should be careful not to squander this opportunity. Pressure from China would add significant leverage to any sanctions levied against Iran.

Although the United States has proposed “a dual-track policy with Iran, offering incentives to Tehran for allowing greater outside scrutiny of its nuclear program while threatening economic sanctions if it fails to halt its enrichment activities,” Dmitry Medvedev, the President of Russia, has spoken out against broad economic sanctions.[5] Instead, the Russian government will only support sanctions that target Iran’s nuclear program. While Medvedev has taken a harder stance than China, there is reason to be optimistic. On April 8, America and Russia are expected to sign a treaty that will reduce the number of strategic nuclear warheads owned by each country.[6] This agreement may signal a thawing of relations between the two former Cold War competitors. With America and Russia reducing their nuclear capabilities, the two countries may work together to help stem nuclear proliferation.

Despite growing international pressure aimed at Iran, Ahmadinejad has remained defiant. Speaking on television on March 25, Ahmadinejad stated, “They want to stop, even for an hour, the fast speeding train of Iranian progress.”[7] It is unclear if sanctions will convince the Iranian government to abandon their pursuit of nuclear energy (and possibly weapons), but the United States seems determined to enact crippling measures if there is enough support for such sanctions. Russia and China, meanwhile, have encouraged Iran to accept a deal in which Iran “would export a sizable quantity of low-enriched uranium…and that material would be turned into fuel in Russia and France and returned to Iran for a small Tehran research reactor for medical isotopes.”[8] Iran modified that proposal to the extent that it was no longer acceptable to American diplomats. The situation with Iran remains complex and , but multiple actors within the international community are engaging this issue in a constructive manner.

---

[1] Phillips, Macon. "President Barack Obama's Inaugural Address." 21 January 2009. The White House. 26 March 2010 .

[2] Rogin, Josh. "Senators pressure Obama on Iran sanctions." 23 March 2010. ForeignPolicy.com. 26 March 2010 .

[3] Lynch, Colum. "China joins Iran sanctions talks." 24 March 2010. ForeignPolicy.com. 25 March 2010.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Burns, Robert and Lynn Berry. "U.S., Russia reach deal to cut arsenals." The Miami Herald 25 March 2010: 3A.

[7] Peterson, Scott. "Iran nuclear sanctions: Ahmadinejad says they won't bite." 25 March 2010. The Christian Science Monitor. 26 March 2010 .

[8] Ibid.

Canada's Olympic Folly

For a host country, the Olympics represent many things—prestige, development, power. Not to be forgotten is the financial boon that comes with the Olympics. Canada, however, has not always realized this important benefit of the Olympics. If the 2010 Olympics are to be profitable, Canada will have to consult the past and learn from its mistakes.

The 1976 Olympics in Montreal, Quebec were an economic disaster. In 1975, with construction over budget and behind schedule, the provincial government of Quebec stepped in to expedite construction. However, Montreal was held responsible for all debts incurred by the provincial government. The hallmark of the games, the Olympic Stadium was functional, albeit incomplete, in time for the games. By the end of construction, Montreal’s debt stood at approximately $1.5 billion U.S. dollars. The city of Montreal would not pay off its debts until December of 2006[i].

After the ruinous 1976 Olympics, Canada appeared to have learned from its mistakes. The 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary were a financial success. Overall revenues generated by tourism, infrastructure improvements, and the creation of exceptional facilities are estimated at $1.4 billion, and the 1988 Olympics produced a reported $90 million profit. This money was reinvested by the Calgary government in the maintenance of facilities and training for athletes. However, as Thomas Walkom of the Toronto Star discovered in 1999, the recorded profit did not include $461 million in government subsidies[ii]. When this is figured into the cost, Calgary’s profit turns into a substantial loss. Despite the cost of hosting the games, Calgary emerged mostly unscathed. As of 2006, studies estimated that the “total value-added gross domestic product impact of the Calgary legacy facilities since 1989 had been $925 million (adjusted for inflation)[iii].”

With the Winter Olympics again in Canada, many wonder if Vancouver will take after Montreal or Calgary. Like most other Olympic hosts, Vancouver has experienced cost overruns and construction delays. The Athlete’s Village alone has cost $820 million, including $103 million in cost overruns[iv]. Despite its inflated budget, this spending is necessary to house thousands of athletes for seventeen days. Additionally, this housing can be used by new tenants once the Olympics come to an end. More egregious is the $900 million price tag of security for the series of events[v]. For nearly $53 million a day, 15,000 police, security, and military personnel will be charged with protecting athletes and spectators. This spending would appear to be disproportionate to any threat posed to the Olympics. The Canadian government rates the chance of a terrorist attack as low; according to Vancouver officials, political protests represent the largest threat to the games. No one wants to question the chance of a terrorist attack, and the tragedy of Munich persists in the memories of many. However, a $900 million budget for security in Vancouver, Canada, a locale of little significance to any radicals trying to make a statement, seems like overkill. If the Olympics are to be profitable, perhaps those planning the games should take a more measured, rational approach to security.

---

[i] Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. "Quebec's Big Owe stadium debt is over." 19 December 2006. CBC News. 10 February 2010 .

[ii] Walkom, Thomas. "Up Front The Olympic myth of Calgary." 8 February 1999. thestar.com. 11 February 2010 .

[iii] Zimmerman, Kate. Legacies of North American Olympic Winter Games. Research Report. Vancouver: Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, 2007.

[iv] Associated Press. "Vancouver looks for money to finance 2010 Olympics." 13 January 2009. usatoday.com. 2010 February 2010 .

[v] Meserve, Jeanne and Carol Cratty. "Canada assembles 15,000 to make Olympics secure." 1 February 2010. CNN.com. 7 February 2010 .

Obama seeks to revitalize America's tourism industry

Over the past decade, travel to the United States has declined by ten percent[i]. Introduced to the Senate in May of 2009, the Travel Promotion Act seeks reverse that trend. This legislation will create the Corporation for Travel Promotion to oversee an international marketing campaign to attract foreign visitors and provide information on travel policies[ii]. The program would be financed by private funding and by a controversial ten dollar fee on some travelers. Consultants estimate that the initiative could bring in 1.6 million new visitors to the United States a year and create 40,000 U.S. tourism jobs[iii]. Eager to stimulate the economy, Obama signed the bill into law on March 4.

Many states have hailed the passage of the Travel Promotion Act as another step toward economic recovery. However, tourists from Great Britain and the European Union will be charged ten dollars before setting foot in America. Citizens of those regions do not need a visa to enter the United States, but they must fill out an ESTA (Electronic Scheme for Travel Authorization) application online[iv]. Whereas this form was previously free, it will now cost ten dollars per person. The actual fee is not excessive, but some are worried that Great Britain and the European Union could institute retaliatory measures. In the midst of a global economic downturn, protectionist policies will do more harm than good. If Europe responds negatively to the Travel Promotion Act, President Obama and Congress should look elsewhere for funding.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that over the 2010-2019 period, the Travel Promotion Act will reduce the deficit by $425 million[v]. This figure relies heavily on private contributions from the travel industry and the ESTA fee. Between 2010 and 2019, the CBO estimates that the ESTA fee alone will account for $810 million in revenues, while private contributions are expected to total $660 million[vi]. However, if the ESTA fee actually discourages travel to the United States or if the travel industry can find a better way to promote tourism, both of these revenue streams will quickly diminish. It is important to remember is that this new law expands the federal bureaucracy. The Travel Promotion Act establishes an Office of Travel Promotion within the Department of Commerce, and the Corporation for Travel Promotion will be a government agency. Centralized government programs rarely work efficiently and ideally. Obama should not assume that this program will pay for itself.

The Travel Promotion Act is an ambitious effort to encourage tourism that may well far short. While the prospect of increased employment and additional tax revenue is enticing, the government should be wary of any legislation that expands the government’s reach. The potential for protectionist measures in Europe and ambiguous sources of funding should also be matters of concern. The government’s experiment has the potential to revitalize America’s tourism industry, but the Travel Promotion Act should not be seen as an economic panacea.

[i] Fletcher, Michael A. "Obama Signs Travel Promotion Act." 4 March 2010. The Washington Post. 7 March 2010 .

[ii] Jacobs, Karen. "U.S. tourism measure draws mixed industry reviews." 4 March 2010. Reuters. 7 March 2010 .

[iii] Jacobs, Karen. "U.S. tourism measure draws mixed industry reviews."

[iv] Robbins, Tom. "US to charge tourists $10 for permission to visit." 5 March 2010. The Guardian. 7 March 2010 .

[v] Willie, Susan, et al. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. 9 June 2009. 7 March 2010 .

[vi] Willie, Susan, et al. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.

The Other Side of Tourism

In recent years, it has become increasing popular for wealthy westerners to travel abroad to underdeveloped and developing countries in search of adventure and to experience an unknown side of the world. Many of these areas have large populations of indigenous communities which have been greatly affected by this surge of tourism. These tourists have little or no idea that their holiday is inadvertently supporting things such as culture loss and land degradation in the surrounding communities. Many people have only recognized the positive effects the growing presence of tourism in these areas has had, while ignoring the stronger negative impact it has had on the people. Governments, especially in the Third World, are more than willing to exploit and disregard the interests of the indigenous peoples in the region in return for the high cash returns that tourism has the potential to bring. However, it is the people, not the government that pay the price.

Threats such as commodification, where local culture is turned into commodities, and cultural erosion, where the rich culture of such people is cheapened and degraded through curtailing cultural goods to be sold to tourists, are serious problems arising from this increase in tourism. There have been other much more devastating effects. Indigenous peoples have been evicted from their land and even had their access to their own natural resources compromised. Environmental concern is also present as once nearly perfect land is ruined and polluted causing many of the resources so vital to the people in the area to be destroyed and lost.

In East Africa a case study was done regarding this phenomenon. A local indigenous group, the Masai, was studied to observe the effects the presence of tourism in surrounding wildlife preserves. The effects could be seen through wide scale eviction from their land, economic dislocation, breakdown of economic values, and environmental degradation. Seventy percent of the wildlife preserves belonged to the Masai and around these preserves, lodges were established to bring in tourism and increase revenue. This led to an inevitable lost of land for the group, a commercialization of their culture, and a complete change in their way of life. Another factor which contributes to cultural degradation lies in the economic inequity between the tourists and the indigenous groups. The tourists have completely different lifestyles, economic backgrounds, and consumption patterns and this can lead to a “culture clash”. This clash can lead to a forced westernization of the culture of the indigenous groups as they begin to take on western qualities and this can have a drastic effect on their values, religion, ethnicity, and even language. Unless indigenous peoples can have a direct participation in the planning, implementation, and regulation of tourism activities that affect them and unless a system is created where the people can actually reap the monetary benefits tourism brings, tourism can never be fully in their interest. Indigenous peoples will continue to be pawns in this billion-dollar industry for governments looking for personal gain with no interest as to the needs of their people. So before planning a trip, it is wise for the traveler to look at the effects of tourism in the area they plan to travel, to avoid promoting the exploitation of these indigenous groups.

Chavez , Raymond. "Globalization and tourism: Deadly mix for indigenous peoples ." Third World Network. Third World Network, Web. 2 Mar 2010. .
John Madeley, 'Foreign Exploits: Transnationals and Tourism', CIIR Briefing, 1995, p.2

Women's Education in Developing Countries

Because of limited aid, developing countries and donors have measured the most successful aid projects. Not only is equal education for women ethically correct, educating women is one of the best practices developing countries can undertake to improve social wellbeing. Goldman Sachs has linked female education to better economic outcomes while the Joint Chiefs of Staff has recognized a link between female education and reduced radicalism.[1]

Although many countries have improved access to education for women and girls, problems remain. In the developing world, girls generally have lower literacy rates than boys and are less likely to complete primary education.[2] Access to education is also a problem because poorer states lack resources to provide public schools nationwide.[3] Because poorer families with several children lack resources to send all children to school, they educate children selectively, which favors male children and younger girls; older girls generally receive the poorest formal educations.[4] Additionally, poorer families are often farming families, and sending children to school instead of working saps the family of income; because girls perform a larger amount of housework relative to boys, families often sacrifice educating their daughters.[5]

Despite the costs to poorer families and countries of investing in female education, the long-run social benefits outweigh the short-term individual costs. Average education levels of women in communities correlates negatively with child mortality, which suggests a possible causal link that increasing female education leads to better community health; in India, education empowers women to feed their children better and vaccinate them.[6] Although it is statistically difficult to separate causal factors, the limited research suggests programs to educate women and girls leads to healthier populations.[7]

Because of the high costs to poor families regarding female education, states can undertake several reforms to incentivize equal education. Even if tuition at public schools is free, the books and supplies required for school may not be, so scholarships for high achieving girls may motivate both girls and boys to achieve more in school.[8] Paying for school uniforms appears to increase retention and reduce pregnancy for girls in school.[9] States have made considerable progress, but much work remains.


[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/magazine/23Women-t.html?pagewanted=all
[2] Bruce H. Rankin and Işik A. Aytaç, “Gender Inequality in Schooling: The Case of Turkey,” Sociology of Education, Vol 79, No. 1, 2006. p 25.
[3] Ibid, 27.
[4] Ibid. 28.
[5] Ibid, 30.
[6] Øystein Kravdal, “Child Mortality in India: The Community-Level Effect of Education,” Population Studies. Vol. 58, No. 2, (Jul. 2004) p. 180.
[7] Ibid, 190.
[8] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/magazine/23Women-t.html?pagewanted=all
[9] Ibid.