Two Students Earn
Projects for Peace Awards
Date Issued: 05/02/2007
Sophomore Marya Husain and freshman Andres Angel are among an elite group of 100 undergraduates from across America selected to participate in the 100 Projects for Peace initiative. Husain and Angel will each receive a grant of $10,000 to help finance their projects, designed to help foster world peace in summer 2007.
Husain will use her grant to combat the exploitation of child laborers in an industrial area of Karachi, Pakistan. She estimates there are at least 300,000 “economically active” children working in Sindh province alone. Husain says providing children with an education at a young age is crucial if they are to avoid a lifetime of forced labor. Her project is based on a two-pronged approach: providing educational and recreational opportunities to approximately 400 working children, while simultaneously maintaining close ties with employers and parents to support the children’s self-development.
Husain will coordinate her efforts with the Child Development Center in Sher Shah, Karachi, an organization she greatly admires. “I have personally witnessed the level of commitment and dedication shown by the CDC and its employees,” she states. “Their director has been very appreciative of the interest I take in their projects and has ensured me of the organization’s full support and encouragement at every step of my project.”
Angel will use his grant in Baru Island, Colombia, to help create a sustainable business for 20 widows displaced from their homes, a consequence of the ongoing strife between government troops, guerillas, and drug traffickers. The women currently survive by selling handbags made from material they scavenge from the streets. Angel’s idea is to help these women turn their skills into an enterprise called “Displaced Art.” He has already secured land for a factory and, most importantly, an eco-fashion accessories company in Florida has signed on to purchase the handbags for at least two years, once the company is up and running.
“Buying short-term happiness is not my goal,” Angel says. “By empowering the economic head of the family with a sustainable micro-enterprise and a reliable market, we are removing their families from the vicious cycle of crime.”
Abigail Haskell, CMC’s associate director of foundation & corporate relations, is one of three staff members who served on the college’s Projects for Peace selection committee. She says the students selected for the prize demonstrated genuine creativity in forming proposals that established a real plan for success. Furthermore, the students were clearly thinking about the future viability of their plans.
“The projects conceived by Marya and Andres demonstrate that they are not students looking to do good work for a single summer and then return home,” she notes. “They are truly searching for ways in which to have a lasting impact.”
The 100 Projects for Peace is the brainchild of Kathryn Wasserman Davis, a lifelong internationalist and philanthropist, who is about to celebrate her centennial birthday. “I want to use my 100th birthday to help young people launch some immediate initiatives that will bring new thinking to the prospects of peace in the world,” Davis has said.
The competition was open to undergraduates enrolled in the 76 colleges and universities in the Davis United World College Scholars Program.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
A "Global Magna Carta?"
The most recent issue of Foreign Policy entitled, "21 Solutions to Save the World," features, you guessed it, 21 articles discussing global issues ranging from malnutrition to anti-Americanism (I highly recommend it to everyone). The article that I found most pertinent to our class discussion, "A Global Magna Carta," underscores the global double standard when it comes to engaging rogue and failed states and repressive regimes. The author, Russian democratic activist Garry Kasparov, declares the UN outdated and ill-equipped to win today's "global war," which he deems a "war about the value of human life." Consequently, he advocates the creation of a new organization based on a so-called "global Magna Carta, a declaration of inalienable human rights that all member nations must recognize."
Kasparov calls on wealthy nations that highly value democracy and human life to coalesce and adopt a staunch multilateral policy against states that sponsor terror and oppress their people. In order to fight the "global war," this united front should use its strongest weapon, wealth, "to provide real leadership by example as well as concrete incentives to respect human rights." In his concluding remarks, he cites Winston Churchill's 1946 speech declaring that the "UN must be a force for action, and not merely a frothing of words."
If the author were in our class, he would have hesitated before making such a bold suggestion and acknowleged the quagmires inherent in creating a universal declaration of human rights. It seems that in today's increasingly interdependent and complicated world creating such a document would be even more difficult than it was in 1948. It is not merely serendipitous that the UNUDHR remains the cornerstone of international human rights norms, for it was, and still is, the most successful multilateral effort to establish a framework for protecting human rights. Though it would be nice to imagine that the US and its wealthy, democratic counterparts could align their rhetoric with their actions, national interest, sovereignty, and geopolitical strategies render this merely a utopian vision. Is it plausible that in the future there might be mechanisms by which to truly enforce a universally binding international code of human rights? As demonstrated by the fact that we have been debating it all semester, I know there is no answer to this question, but I had to posit it once again before we part ways. Much to my dismay, the realist within me emerges in my response: doubtful.
Note: References to our class and its discussions refer to Jerry Fowler's ORDER/DISORDER Gould Seminar on human rights; this post was originally published on our class blog.
Kasparov calls on wealthy nations that highly value democracy and human life to coalesce and adopt a staunch multilateral policy against states that sponsor terror and oppress their people. In order to fight the "global war," this united front should use its strongest weapon, wealth, "to provide real leadership by example as well as concrete incentives to respect human rights." In his concluding remarks, he cites Winston Churchill's 1946 speech declaring that the "UN must be a force for action, and not merely a frothing of words."
If the author were in our class, he would have hesitated before making such a bold suggestion and acknowleged the quagmires inherent in creating a universal declaration of human rights. It seems that in today's increasingly interdependent and complicated world creating such a document would be even more difficult than it was in 1948. It is not merely serendipitous that the UNUDHR remains the cornerstone of international human rights norms, for it was, and still is, the most successful multilateral effort to establish a framework for protecting human rights. Though it would be nice to imagine that the US and its wealthy, democratic counterparts could align their rhetoric with their actions, national interest, sovereignty, and geopolitical strategies render this merely a utopian vision. Is it plausible that in the future there might be mechanisms by which to truly enforce a universally binding international code of human rights? As demonstrated by the fact that we have been debating it all semester, I know there is no answer to this question, but I had to posit it once again before we part ways. Much to my dismay, the realist within me emerges in my response: doubtful.
Note: References to our class and its discussions refer to Jerry Fowler's ORDER/DISORDER Gould Seminar on human rights; this post was originally published on our class blog.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
China gets low grade in human rights
Amnesty gives China low grade on Olympics reforms
The human rights group cites detentions without trial and restrictions on domestic journalists. Beijing argues it's made progress.
BEIJING — The Chinese government has failed to meet its promise to introduce greater freedoms, Amnesty International charged Monday, in the latest international criticism ahead of the 2008 Olympic Games here.
The London-based human rights organization said in its report that China had made progress reforming its death penalty system and granting greater access for foreign journalists. However, the group charged that Beijing continues to detain local activists without trial, stifles domestic journalism, and has embarked on a campaign to "clean up" the streets of Beijing of petty criminals, vagrants and drug users ahead of the Summer Games.
read on...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)