Russia and Putin: Do the two deserve each other?

Living in the US and in the periphery of your mind being aware of Russia's political tribulations via Twitter and other (mostly liberal) websites is one thing. But to live in Russia and to have main political news announced to you on state's channels is a whole new, happily forgotten experience for me. And it's not a good one.

If you think that Fox News and CNN are non objective, think twice. Because you don't know how a truly biased TV looks or sounds like! And it looks like that: United Russia convention gets 10 minutes air time in a news block, while the two main runner ups, Just Russia and The Communist Party of the Russian Federation get 2 minutes each. Another episode is the coverage of the public argument between President Medvedev and then Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin that on a state's channel was turned into a 5 minutes monologue by Medvedev, interrupted by one word from Kudrin. (I wish I were exaggerating.)

It is simply sickening. But the most offensive of all to a thinking mind is the realization that Putin and Medvedev must really despise the very people they are ruling. Would they so blatantly and fearlessly lie on public television if they were not sure that Russians were nothing but a herd of brainless sheep?

Just two days ago, in an interview to the heads of Russia's main TV channels, Dmitry Medvedev addressed the rumors about the predetermination of the upcoming presidential elections with these words:

“Any politician can lose an election, along with his or her political party. In our country’s history, as well as other countries’, that’s what happened more than once. Anything may happen. There’s no predetermination.” 

Any politician whose name is NOT Vladimir Putin  and who is NOT backed up by the all mighty United Russia. That's more like it. Nevertheless, Medvedev continued, traditionally insisting that only Russian people could decide who was to become the next president...

Are we, Russians, really nothing but a herd of brainless sheep ready to swallow any story fed to us from the top, ready to see our freedoms taken, our ideals crushed, our future predetermined?

I can't help, but wonder...

There is also this famous saying:

"Every nation has a government it deserves."

Hard to argue, of course, but I simply don't want to believe this. All I know is the feeling of helplessness. Helplessness, mixed with fear of speaking up against the powerful, historically living deep inside the Russian psyche. Do the two together make an excellent herd? You tell me.

Does Africa really need no more foreign aid?

Don't get me wrong. I am FOR sustainability, long-term solutions vs. short-term and do realize that foreign aid most of the time falls under the latter category... But hear me out here.

Not long ago I read a great article on Huffington Post Impact, where the author quotes Idris Bello, "a self-proclaimed 'Afropreneur'", who says that

"Africa does not need aid anymore."

Right when I was about to share the article on Twitter along with my own "Amen to this" I found myself thinking: "But what about thousands of Africans that are in desperate need of immediate help, right now, at this moment?" Will the meager needs of people who live in the Horn of Africa - that is experiencing yet another sever drought - be met or will hundreds die abandoned? Will women all around rural Africa have to see their kids die from water borne diseases, because their villages have no source of clean drinking water? Will an African child have to sleep without a malaria net tonight? Because simply giving a net/bottle of water/bag of grain to people in need is not sustainable. Yet this does save lives.

To begin with, let's just say not all aid programs are created equal. Compare TOMS shoes - check out Saundra Schimmelpfennig's article on why it is bad aid - and Water Credit that I consider an example of smart aid. Another thing we shouldn't forget is that Africa is not a country, but a continent of 53 very different countries.

For example, the home country of Mr. Bello, Nigeria, thanks to its rich oil reserves is doing much better economically than some other African states. With all the oil money coming into the country (even though most of them do settle in the pockets of corrupt government officials) standard of living in Nigeria has risen significantly. However, what is even more important for Nigeria is that the country has just had its first truly democratic presidential election. That will ensure even a better investment environment in the country. However, not all the countries in Africa are blessed with oil or a somehow stable political situation. On the other end of spectrum are Somalia, DRC, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Malawi and such. These are some of the poorest states in the world, with a very extensive list of development problems, where populations live in truly despicable conditions. The truth is that governments of these countries are not even just not up for the task, but the bureaucrats there genuinely don't care about their people. From Mobutu Sese Seko and Idi Amin to Omar Al-Bashir and Robert Mugabe, this pattern seems to be unbreakable.

The question is: who will provide all these resources and help people in dire need if not foreign aid agencies?

Three Cups of Tea: Another Wake Up Call for the Nonprofit World?

I have been following closely the developments around Three Cups of Tea and accusations against its author, Greg Mortensen in the lastest "60 Minutes" episode. The documentary as well as the ebook Three Cups of Deceit (downloadable for free until April 20th) written by Jon Krakauer accuses Greg Mortensen seemingly of all the worst sins: falsification of the story of how he came to the idea of building schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan, lying about being taken hostage by Taliban, mismanaging CAI funds (Central Asia Institute, the nonprofit Mortensen founded to fund building schools), and worst of the worst lying about how many schools CAI has built and how many of them are functioning.

I have to admit that I haven't read Three Cups of Tea (and probably never will), even though I did get a copy of it for inspirational and enlightening reading. Ha, little did I know... Nevertheless, I have been introduced to Mortensen's work through Half The Sky, a truly wonderful book by Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn as well as reading and hearing about Three Cups of Tea on the TV and online. Just last month I was absolutely thrilled to learn that Mortensen was scheduled for a speaking engagement at my university. However, I learnt about it too late and the event was all booked as all his events are. So, you see, as many of you, I was his fan even without reading the book.

Then I hear about the upcoming documentary (couldn't watch it-no cable) and then I read the ebook that the documentary was probably based on, as Brett Keller suggests in his post The Tea Test. It felt as if I could see Mortensen falling off his "hero throne", truly saddening and devastating, not for him, but for me and for the whole nonprofit world. Because if he really did lie and did mismanage donors' money, and didn't build the schools he said he would, I can't imagine such a person being touched or upset by the situation he currently finds himself in. I would imagine he is scared for his reputation and money, but not upset. One question that really bothers me is WHY? Why did Mortensen do all this? If he really didn't give a damn about kids in rural Pakistan, why did he promise to build a school there? Even if the promise was given "in the heat of the moment", like sort of a revelation, why did he actually followed up on it? Surely the men from rural Pakistan were not going to follow Mortensen all the way to America and demand him to fulfill his promise?!

But enough about Mortensen: his personal motives and repercussions are not that important. For me, there is a bigger lesson to learn from this scandal:

If even the best of us, fall so low, if even the most renown and admired nonprofits turn out to be so poorly managed and do so little good (in comparison with what they claim), what about the rest of us? How does an average nonprofit worker perform his/her duties, how does an average nonprofit CEO manage donors' or taxpayers' money, how much good does an average nonprofit actually do?

These are the questions we, as a nonprofit community, have to think about and try to find answers for.

Please, check out the following wonderful and really insightful posts on the subject from my fellow aid bloggers:
What Mortensen Got Wrong by Peter Hessler
Three Cups of BS by Alanna Shaikh
Lessons learned from ‘Three Cups of Tea by Akhila Kolisetty
Three Cups of … by Penelope M.C.
Three Cups of Lies? by Tom Murphy
A great compilation of posts and articles on the subject on Good Intentions Are Not Enough by Saundra S.

Tunisia and Egypt, Foreign Policy and Wikileaks

Didn't know how to start my blog, but went to CNN's page to check up on Egypt's current situation and voilà: "Should the West take sides in the Egypt crisis?"- asks Quickvote.

At first I thought that the West shouldn't get involved in neither of the crisises, because we all knew how tricky foreign politics can get. Every word counts! Take for example the instance when French President, Nicholas Sarzkozy, was asked whether his government would have accepted Algerian president (Abdelaziz Bouteflika), if something similar to Tunisian situation happened there. Did Sarkozy answer? Of course not!

Why didn't Sarzkozy answer? Because everybody (who is at least a little bit familiar with international relations) knows the rules of the game: everyone (i.e. every country) is on his/her own. Well, maybe not Canada...

The truth is that (even I, an idealist, recognize that!) we live in a realist world. Every head of state represents only and only his/her country's interests and that's it. Unless they are Woodrow Wilson or Jimmy Carter.

Do you think Biden doesn't think that Mubarak is a dictator? Of course he does, he just cannot say it, because he is the Vice-President of the United States! If Biden had called Hosni Mubarak a dictator and Mubarak didn't get ousted, the US would have lost one of their main allies in the Middle East. Have you seen the size of the foreign aid package US sends to Egypt?! Some argue that it's close to $1,5 billion, second only to Israel's "support."

The Middle Eastern question is also closely connected to the issue of Islamic extremism and terrorism, which is of course the biggest concern of the US foreign policy. If Mubarak is indeed ousted, there is a big chance that Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood will take a wrong turn and produce something similar to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, who drives the whole world crazy with the claims of Iran's nuclear potential. Ina nutshell, as with any revolution, there is always a chance that everything will get worse rather than better. That is what the US is scared of and that is why Biden and Obama have been so disappointingly cautious talking about the situation in Egypt. I totally understood them!..

Until I remembered that the US was also the flagship of democracy, that promoting democracy is in fact the second objective of US foreign policy (once upon a time it used to be the first.) Until I remembered that it's the US that encourages people around the world to fight for their rights and freedom and pursue their dreams...Unless this "pursuit of happiness" somehow counteracts the US' foreign interests. Us prefers to protect its international interests rather than support people of Egypt in their fight for freedom. There is a chance in Egypt that something might go wrong and the US doesn't want to risk it. The happiness of Egyptian people is of course a secondary issue to the US foreign policy...

This double-facedness of foreign politics is exactly what Wikileaks have shown us. This and nothing else, nothing but the truth. The truth that explains why Biden so eagerly labeled Julian Assange a "high-tech terrorist" and was so reluctant to call Mubarak a "dictator."

And you, what do you make of all these surprising, exciting, and at some instances sad and tragic, but truly historic developments?

Best Aid Intervention - What is it?

Best Aid Intervention. Is there such a thing as the best aid intervention? And if there is, what is it? Can we define it as a development approach that is equally successful, cost-effective, and sustainable when implemented in any country or region of the world?

Girls Education

First thing that comes to mind is girls' education, on which I wrote before in Girls and Education-Why Do They Matter? Yet despite my own devotion to the cause and many great studies on the subject(check out "Because I am a Girl" by Plan International thanks to @KeshetBachan for the link), we have to acknowledge that girls education is NOT the most cost-effective tool. Nicholas Kristof, one of the most prominent supporters of girls education, states: "While we argue that educating girls does stimulate economic growth and foster stability, for example, it is also true that one of the most educated parts of rural India is the state of Kerala, which has stagnated economically." The example of the former USSR republics (almost all of which have literacy ratings around 90%) also proves that education is not always the key to economic development and high per-capita incomes. Therefore, girls' education is not a panacea(but oh how I wish it were!)and not the best aid intervention.

Microfinance

Is it microfinance that has gained huge numbers of supporters since the beginning of the new millennia with the help of its main champion, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Muhammad Yunus? Probably not. Not because of the SKS IPO controversy, Andhra Pradesh crisis, or the infamous Norwegian documentary, but simply because microloans do not fit the needs of all the poor people. Believe it or not, poor people are not equally poor and have different needs! To me, out of all the criticism that microfinance industry has received recently, the not-everybody-wants/can-(to)-be-an-entrepreneur seems to be the most viable. In addition, there hasn't been enough research on microfinance effectiveness, while some of the few researches that came out had actually come up with negative results.

On the other hand, there is an undeniable need for financial tools developed specifically for the poor, which is strongly supported by the research summarized in the brilliant "Portfolios of the Poor." Thus, microfinance still has a shot at becoming the most effective development tool... with two big "ifs". If the industry continues working on the diversification of its products, a prerequisite stressed in the latest CGAP report. And if microfinance shifts its focus back to its poor clients, away from the wealthy investors.

Seasonal Migration (of people)
Would you be surprised if I told you that seasonal migration is a more effective development tool than microfinance, deworming (one of the cheapest aid interventions!), or conditional cash transfers? That's exactly what this article states!



But does the success of a seasonal migration from Tonga to New Zealand mean that this approach will be equally effective in raising incomes elsewhere? Probably not. The article itself states that this type of policy will be most effective for small island nations and its results will depend on governments and international organizations. (Knowing these limitations, we can take seasonal migration down from the "best aid interventions" list right away.) Moreover, the article's daring conclusion is nothing but a suggestion based on very few one-sided researches.

Does it mean that there is no such thing as the best aid intervention, a perfect development approach creating miracles all over the world? Well, miracles do happen all over the world (look at Kenyan M-PESA for example!), it's just that they are brought about by different forces and different aid interventions.

The world and its people are simply too diverse for one aid intervention to be equally effective everywhere. There will ALWAYS be exceptions to the rule. As I see it, the best aid intervention, is actually a combination of all of the above + many more great development approaches implemented at the right time in the right place.( Concerning the last 2 points, i.e. "at the right time at the right place", I recommned to check out this great post on World Bank blog: Revisiting the "country-specific solution"

I am very interested in your opinion. Do you think best aid intervention actually exists? Maybe you have a different definition of it or would have used different examples? I would love to hear your thoughts!

How Can We Raise Awareness In Darfur Of How Much We're Doing For Them?

How Can We Raise Awareness In Darfur Of How Much We're Doing For Them?

Idealist: To be or not to be

"Idealists...foolish enough to throw caution to the winds...have advanced mankind and have enriched the world," Emma Goldman

I wasn't sure which career path to choose for a rather long time. My first choice, of course, was to be an actress. Unfortunately for Hollywood, it didn't happen as I gave up the idea of becoming second Julia Roberts early in my life (around 10 or 12.) My next choice was journalism; I still carry passion for writing and expressing my own opinion wherever I go.

The big change happened in 10th grade when I did a report on the problems of the third-world countries for my geography class. Suddenly I was exposed to the world of hunger, poverty, and diseases on a scale I never knew before. Mind you, I am from Russia, which despite all of its political bravado has rather low standards of living.

However, one of the biggest things that enraged me was not poverty and omnipresence of AIDS in itself, but long history of colonialism and economic exploitation of the developing nations by the West that continues even now. From then on, my career goal was decided: to help people, especially the ones that are in dire need of it. What an unoriginal career goal, I thought. Doesn't everybody want to help other people? Isn't every job's ultimate goal is to help people? Not particularly, I learnt later.

As I studied International Relations at the university my illusions about the UN quickly evaporated. Yet somehow, I still didn't loose hope for a good-hearted and effective global government. During political theory classes I found myself somewhere in between Hobbes' and Locke's camps, my mind telling me that humans are rather corrupt and self-destructive, my heart, however, always believing in the good nature of fellow Homo sapiens.

Even now I haven't quite decided which camp I belong to. On Twitter I got a chance to connect with many "development skeptics" (who are this way only for the sake of progress and effectiveness in the the field of foreign aid and economic development.) On the other hand, I recently read a book by 2006 Nobel Peace Laureate, Muhammad Yunus, who simply infects you with his optimism and belief in the good of humans' hearts!

So who am I, you wonder? An Idealist or a skeptic, Lockean or Hobbesian? If you look at my Twitter profile, you will learn that I am an idealist...with a skeptical side, which helps me focus on effectiveness and always keeps my feet on the ground.

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run," Sydney J. Harris

Which side are you on? Do you think it is worth being an idealist? Or do you think they always have their heads in the clouds? Maybe realism is the golden mean for you? Are you an aid skeptic or admire aid and philanthropic agencies simply for the attempt to help people? Please let me know your thoughts in the comments sections below.