Summary of YPFP’s Tools of the Trade: Starting and Running Foreign Policy Organizations

September 22, 2010
By Debie Waggoner

Panel: Olivier Kamanda-Founder of Foreign Policy Digest
David Burd-Co-Founder of Earth Aid
Saul Garlick-Founder of ThinkImpact

The discussion centered around how these three young men took their ideas and/or their friends’ ideas, developed them, and created organizations that have flourished. As moderator, Joshua Marcuse mentioned in his introduction segment: in addition to hearing why and how to start an FP organization, you will hear why you should not.
Kamanda’s advice: There is a risk whenever you put ideas out there that are not fully formulated-make sure you are willing to take that risk and to formulate your ideas as much as possible. Two types of people end up reading FPD: those who are already aware of and interested in FP issues and those who come across it almost by accident and realize that they are somehow connected to these issues/topics. Focus on empowering people-give them information that will help them understand what is happening and make decisions on what to support and what not to support. Pay attention to the people you are serving (your audience) and the people you have working for you. Manage relationships. Put your thoughts on paper and continually revise your ideas. Figure out what you can handle and what you will need others to handle. Understand the legal status of your organization and marketing. And, he said, the biggest thing he did not realize he was neglecting when he started out: MONEY. Volunteers are great, but a lot more accountability comes into play when people are receiving a pay check.
And, identify what you are not willing to compromise on. And don’t be afraid to approach “big names”. FPD got the CEO of Google to make a promotional statement for FPD. It never hurts to ask.
Favorite quote: “When you ask for money, you get advice. When you ask for advice, you get money.”

Burd: Earth Aid is an online tool that provides incentives and rewards for each family to make their home more energy efficient. Biggest hurdle-getting the message out. You need to get the media’s attention (and not in a Paris Hilton sort of way). Use the partnerships that you build along the way and be sure to cater to people’s self-interest. If you can find a way to meet the desires of people, whether it’s those who want to be involved in making the world a better place or those wanting to make a buck, know how you can cater to those interests. The best part about being a young person running a young organization is that you are more open to new ideas. Older orgs tend to stop doing that-the power of inertia is a strong force and a lot of orgs get stuck in the rut. Be open to new ideas and yet be careful that you stay close to your vision. People will invest in you more than your idea-so be articulate and know your business model.

Garlick: Sometimes starting something just takes doing it. At some point, I just said, F*** it. I’m doing this! There is room out there for new ideas. A lot of young people in America do not have a cause, but we know that we cannot ignore the rest of the world. When I was in South Africa, I realized schools were needed. I raised $10,000 for a new school; then, I went back a few years later and discovered it was in disrepair. I realized I couldn’t just build a school and figure I had helped the world; I got more involved. I lived in the rural villages in South Africa and I started seeing that in a village of 3,000 with a 30% HIV/AIDS rate, there were funerals every week. I saw teachers neglecting the schools that were built and instead of teaching, they were sitting outside drinking tea all day. I saw women marginalized and knew that when that happened, her family was going to suffer because we all know that women give back to their families more than men.

Garlick began taking college students to South Africa to live in these villages, then create a solid plan for development, and then assists them with implementation.

So: have a vision and refer to it every day. It may be grand, but don’t forget the really small things that could make a big difference. Be Fearless-you will screw up. You will fail, sometimes every day for a while. Be Determined.
Ignorance hindered me. Listen to people around you. If you aren’t listening, you may do more harm than good.
For those just starting out: Raise money first. Before you create a website. Go in with nothing but your ideas and strategies-you don’t need a fancy powerpoint. Spend a year raising money, it will save you seven. When you are struggling with raising $2,000 a month to cover expenses, and suddenly that number jumps to $20,000 a month, you have to be ready for that.

For more on each organization:

http://www.foreignpolicydigest.org/

http://www.thinkimpact.org/

http://www.earthaid.net

http://www.ypfp.org/

The Project on Middle East Democracy presented a panel discussion on September 13, 2010 entitled: Is Turkey Becoming Less Democratic?

The panelists:
Gönül Tol: Executive Director, Center for Turkish Studies, Middle East Institute
Daniel Brumberg: Director, Muslim World Initiative, U.S. Institute of Peace and associate professor at Georgetown University
W. Robert Pearson: former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey; President, International Research and Exchanges Board

Tol: Essentially stated that to question whether Turkey is becoming less democratic was to take the “simplistic” view of the situation. She urged the audience to consider how far Turkey has come and how much the dynamics have changed; for example, in the 1990s, Turkey’s foreign policy was inextricably tied to its security concerns: the two threats it had at the time were the Kurds and Iran and Syria’s nuclear weapons programs. Therefore, Turkey formed an alliance with Israel to balance out the region’s dynamics. These dynamics have since changed and Turkey no longer sees Iran or Syria as a major threat, although it is still grappling with the Kurdish issue. Thus, Tol, stated, that “Israel has lost its importance to Turkey and Turkey can afford to lose Israel now.” Its foreign policy is no longer security oriented, but focused on trade and economics. In fact, Iran and Syria are becoming important trading partners with Turkey, especially Iran. (Turkey reportedly gets 30% of its oil from Iran.) She pointed out that approximately 61% of the population who voted in yesterday’s referendum which extended the government’s powers over the judiciary, voted in support of the referendum. She stated that “what Turkey needs right now is an impartial judiciary (which has not been the case), not necessarily an independent judiciary.” (These two would seem to go hand-in-hand; how can a judiciary be impartial if it is not independent, i.e., not at the whims of any branch of government or other influence?) And the fact that there has been no outcry of fraudulent voting, would make one think that democracy is alive and well in Turkey.

However, Tol concluded, that Turkey still has a ways to go when it comes to respecting minority rights and that while Prime Minister Erdoğan has harshly criticized Israel for human rights violations, he has said nothing about human rights violations in Sudan or Iran. She stated that he will be held accountable next year in the elections for his failings. Finally, Turkey in general “shares most of the West’s goals for the region, including preventing nuclear weapons races, finding peace between Israel and Palestine, and eliminating Al-Qaeda.”

Brumberg then took the floor and focused primarily on the three models of governments in the Middle East: 1. Total-autocracy, as seen in Tunisia and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which means there is one party and none other. 2. Liberalized Autocracies: the majority of the region’s states fall under this category, elections tend to include all groups, but the same ruling party tends to remain in power 3.Liberalized Democracy: one side is always engineering elections, usually with the support of the military and possibly the judiciary (I found these categorizations rather confusing and not really central to the discussion.)

Brumberg’s main question was whether these amendments would truly prove to be beneficial to society or simply give the central government more power. He pointed out that Erdoğan has been accused of harassing and even closing large independent media outlets. Thus, despite the fact that a majority voted for the referendum, will that majority also undermine the rights of minorities?

Pearson: Every inch the diplomat, he brought some resounding wisdom and humor to the situation. He first congratulated Turkey’s national basketball team on their win yesterday, which he says, takes precedence over any referendum in Turkey, at least for the day. Then he stated, “Let’s be careful when we try to call ourselves experts on Turkey-this is not true unless you are Turkish-but let’s discuss it as Americans.” He compared American observations of what has been happening in Turkey to the “seminal shift in American politics” that occurred under Andrew Jackson and stated that he had no doubt “the Turks will solve their problems.” He felt a good way to view Turkey was through the words of a young Turkish woman he met who told him she was “Turkish by birth, Asian by culture, European by education.”
Interestingly, Pearson also stated that there is a “deep anti-Americanism in Turkey, as well as anti-Semitism” that concerns him. I found this a little startling, as I spent a week traveling around Turkey alone (just a week, I know) this summer and not once did I see, hear, or read anything that appeared even remotely anti-American (although I do not read or speak Turkish, so perhaps I lived in ignorant bliss that entire week). Of course, I would take the Ambassador’s word for it over my own experiences, seeing as he lived there for quite some time. I just do not believe that it is blatant ant-Americanism. His example of anti-Americanism was that the Turks cheered for Iran rather than the U.S. in the world basketball game between the two…he finished that anecdote by stating “It’s ok to be democratic and hate the U.S., but it is a certain amount of hypocrisy.”
Finally, he stated that it would be good for an opposition party to stay involved in Turkish politics. If human rights are heading south and the government is going to begin reducing citizen’s rights, then the opposition group that fails to block it will take the blame. (Anyone want to sign up?)

The overall consensus: nothing in the referendum election process or its substance was un-democratic. Just keep an eye on those Turks.

Organization of America States: Policy Roundtable on the Millennium Development Goals for the Region

by Debie Waggoner September 8, 2010

(The MDGs are listed at the end of this summary.)

Moderators: Jose Miguel Insulza: OAS Secretary General and Irene Klinger, OAS Director of the Dept. of International Affairs

Presenters: (Primary) Alicia Bárcena, Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Assisted by Heraldo Muňoz of the UN Development Programme and Dr. Juan Manuel Sotelo of Partnerships of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO).

Additional remarks by Arturo Valenzuela, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs.

SUMMARY of Presentation:

First of all, the presentation of the progress that LAC and the Caribbean have made on the MDGs was brief considering the amount of information that was gathered and analyzed. There is an inch-thick report that goes into much greater detail. Be aware that this information was collected from over 18 different agencies. The overall feeling from the presenters is that LAC has made solid progress, with the caveat, of course, that the data which was gathered is primarily from the years 2000-2008 (what the OAS refers to as the “Bonanza Period” due to the 4-5% growth experienced in much of the LAC), so it may not reflect any of the effects of the global financial crisis. This is important to note, since a lot may have changed in the past two years depending on how badly a particular country’s economy tanked. Not to be negative, but keep all of these statistics in mind when we hear stories from those who are currently living in LAC and have a very different reality from two years ago. That said, here is the run-down of what the OAS felt was important in this report.

Poverty Reduction: considered the most important overarching goal to combat the 8 MDGs.
The MDG goal is a 50% reduction in poverty by 2015. In the period referred to above, LAC saw an 11% decrease in poverty due to growth, employment, and the shift in demographics (i.e. people are having fewer children). Jamaica was credited with the greatest decrease in poverty and the Caribbean was, overall, doing better than the rest of LAC. Brazil, Chile and Peru have already reached their poverty reduction goals.

The Gini Index (which measures economic inequality-the lower the number, the more economic equality exists, for more info: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html) showed that economic equality increased in Brazil, Chile, Bolivia, and Argentina.

Hunger: Malnutrition and Chronic Malnutrition
Progress has been made in battling malnutrition; however, the market forces have not helped due to the financial crisis. There is a surplus of food in LAC, but the prices are often too high for families to buy quality, nutritional foods.


Education: the OAS proposes a 5 year, $59 million plan to get LAC countries up to speed in the education sector. Whether or not this will happen, is a big question. Records for primary schools are good, but the quality of the education is concerning. According to Ms. Bárcena, many students in secondary education drop out and the number one reason is that they are bored. They think they are smarter than the teachers and can learn more from the internet than from their educators. She did not address what types of qualifications teachers are expected to have (do they need a college degree in most of the LAC?) or what is being suggested as a solution.

Gender Equality: The massive amounts of unemployed youth are a major concern in the OAS. Young women have a 52% unemployment rate in LAC. Many youths are not working and not studying (called ninis-doing nothing). Overall youth unemployment is 20-30% in some countries and many have no social protections (unemployment benefits, healthcare, food-stamps, etc.)
Ms. Bárcena mentioned 3 pillars to achieve autonomy for women: 1. Education (women are making great strides towards improving their education in some of the LAC) 2. Salary Equality-most women make 20% less than men doing the same job. 3. Reproductive/Physical Autonomy: there is a need to improve information on birth control, maternal health, combating adolescent pregnancies, and freeing women from the cultural image that women should stay at home and raise babies rather than seeking means to support themselves financially.

Child Mortality: not specifically addressed, but infant mortality was mentioned. LAC has seen a 52 percent drop in infant mortality. The goal is a 2/3 drop, so they are well on their way to achieving this one.

Maternal Health-addressed with Gender Equality

HIV/AIDS: OAS only noted that there had been “many improvements” in this area, particularly in the availability of anti-retroviral drugs and education on protected sex.

Environmental Sustainability: OAS did not seem to have any solid data on this and admitted that data had been hard to collect. However, they did come up with a few stats such as the fact that in 2000, LAC was responsible for more than 80,000 tons of ozone-harming pollution per annum and by 2008 that had been reduced to 7,000 tons. Deforestation is, not surprisingly, a major concern since LAC is being deforested at twice the rate of any other region of the world. Drinking water and sanitation have vastly improved in most of the LAC, with the significant exception of the rural areas which remain very badly off. Also of major concern is that 110 million people live in slums or shanty-towns; this is 36% of the LAC population. No headway has been made in reducing the number of people living in slums-which is interesting considering the high priority placed on poverty reduction.

Global Partnership for Development:
Obviously, many LAC have benefited from foreign aid; but the greatest source of development has been the $138 Billion in FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) and the $60 billion that floods into the region from remittances. Many LAC have been designated “Middle Income” countries and are no longer receiving as much foreign aid and no longer receive special status as trading partners. The report states that for now, trade is not enough; the FDI does the most to help economic growth. Interestingly, the report mentions that Bolivia has the greatest amount of reserves in the region-which really surprised me.

Conclusion: Looking better, but a lot more needs to be done.
Two things were heavily emphasized at the conclusion of the presentation, and throughout it as well.
Inequality-this word was mentioned numerous times and seems to be the obsession of the OAS. There are very high concentrations of wealth that the OAS would like to see more evenly distributed. No one went into details about how they envisioned greater equality, other than the second heavily emphasized point:
Institutionalizing public policies-the vague answer to reducing inequality was for LAC governments to create infrastructure that included institutions responsible for maintaining sound and consistent public polices, rather than leaving this to governments that change every few years. Increased transparency is a must and the OAS believes people across the region are demanding it. The political will has to be mustered to make these improvements, but of course, in reality, that means fighting corruption and raising taxes.


Final Note: Haiti was not included in this report-it is in extreme debt, is recovering from a horrible disaster, and is not expected to meet any of the MDGs.



What are the Millennium Development Goals?
*From http://www.undp.org/mdg/basics.shtml

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the most broadly supported, comprehensive and specific development goals the world has ever agreed upon. These eight time-bound goals provide concrete, numerical benchmarks for tackling extreme poverty in its many dimensions. They include goals and targets on income poverty, hunger, maternal and child mortality, disease, inadequate shelter, gender inequality, environmental degradation and the Global Partnership for Development.
Adopted by world leaders in the year 2000 and set to be achieved by 2015, the MDGs are both global and local, tailored by each country to suit specific development needs. They provide a framework for the entire international community to work together towards a common end ?making sure that human development reaches everyone, everywhere. If these goals are achieved, world poverty will be cut by half, tens of millions of lives will be saved, and billions more people will have the opportunity to benefit from the global economy. The eight MDGs break down into 21 quantifiable targets that are measured by 60 indicators.
· Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
· Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education
· Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women
· Goal 4: Reduce child mortality
· Goal 5: Improve maternal health
· Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
· Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability
· Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development