We live in a time when no single government or alliance of nations can alone solve the scandal of poverty, the warming of our planet or the scourge of disease. Human and natural disasters require something more to fill the enormous gaps between people's needs and the capacity of bureaucracies to meet them. This explains why we've seen non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, proliferate.
Thank heavens. Populated by passionate experts and funded by philanthropic grants and widows' mites alike, these organizations are civil society's collective conscience. They represent the best of humanity in those dark and often dangerous places where the worst of humanity and Nature are on full display. One of the best NGOs of the 21st century deserves more attention for its efforts to combat today's most pressing global issues from HIV/AIDS to climate change. It's the Clinton Foundation, founded by my good friend, President Bill Clinton.
I know how strongly he believes, as he has said many times, that "in our interdependent world, we are all responsible for our neighbors, even if they live half a world away." It's generally well known how he has brought governments, businesses, charitable organizations and individual volunteers together in common purpose.
What's much less known are the foundation's early accomplishments. It has given small businesses from Harlem to Ghana the opportunity to survive and prosper. It has worked with the American Heart Association to help children avoid the hazards of obesity. It is assisting more than 40 of the world's largest cities combat climate change. And through the Clinton Global Initiative, a unique gathering of human beings committed to move from words to deeds, thousands of corporations and citizens have committed to relieve some of Earth's most intractable problems.
Simply consider the Foundation's HIV/AIDS initiative. In the past six years alone, it has helped save the lives of nearly a million and a half children and adults in Africa, Europe, Asia and the Caribbean. How? First, it recognized the yawning chasm between the number of people needing medicine to survive the ravages of AIDS and those with access to that medicine. Second, it knew the price of that medicine proved a huge barrier to bridging that chasm. And third, it realized that delivering medicine to the people who needed it required construction of a strong infrastructure that would last years.
President Clinton and his foundation team set about meeting those challenges head on. They negotiated with the drug companies to lower the price of HIV tests and treatment dramatically; completed memorandums of understanding with governments and organizations to deliver medicine and aid and to provide expertise and equipment to make those deliveries work; and inspired thousands of volunteers and hundreds of thousands of contributors to bring both financial and people power to bear on this great cause.
What's happened? The price of pediatric HIV/AIDS drugs has dropped by nearly 90 percent. As a result, the number of children receiving life-saving treatment in the 33 countries where the Foundation is at work has doubled to more than 130,000. To me, these are not simply numbers. They represent the faces of boys and girls I have met, the families in rural communities I have visited, and a reason to believe in a brighter future for people and places where such optimism has been in such short supply.
At a time when the global economic landscape looks so bleak, it is especially fortunate that these non-governmental organizations are going where governments can't go to bring hope and combat hopelessness to so many people in need. We must celebrate their progress and communicate their advances, no matter how small they may seem to some. Believe me, they aren't small to those in the forgotten places or those neglected people of our time.
I look forward to the coming inauguration of Barack Obama, whose election as president has lifted the spirits of so many people worldwide. I am pleased that he has chosen Hillary Clinton as the next Secretary of State, because she has an abundance the virtues and skills needed for the task at this moment in history. I also am grateful that the profoundly consequential work of NGOs such as the Clinton Foundation will continue to serve the interests of humankind.
First, I want to say that I appreciate the tone of your post. It is very friendly and shows a desire to discuss differences in opinion instead of name-calling, etc.
There is too much of that already.
Zimbabwe is a nation I care about because as a teen I was taught about the country by a volunteer who went there. I have tried to pay attention over the years, as much as I can.
I agree with what you say about there needing to be a balance of info so we hear all sides, even if we do not agree.
As for war or aggression--IMO, we need to have a policy that is pro-peace, not just for this country but for all countries. I think we need international policy that focuses on diplomacy and utilizing the UN. We cannot barge in on other's soil.
I don't believe in war. I understand humanitarian interventions, but even then I think we need to collaborate as a group with the UN. Many so called humanitarian interventions aren't. I believe when groups like Amnesty International ask us to actually care about something in the world, and give us suggestions they would like followed, we should consider doing it--for the right reasons.
Sorry to run on a bit, just wanted to be clear. I am going to try and post a link
to an article here that reflects a different viewpoint and also contains the mixed commentary below it.
Most people that know the Zimbabwe issue well and speak to it fairly, understand that the solution is very plain.
It involves:
-The British honoring their 1979 pledge to pay for land reform without preconditions (as imagine Germans instructing Isrealis on reparations!)
-Offering those of our White farmers that still wish to work the land, to accept much smaller farms and work cooperatively with their fellow Black farmers.
-The West removing sanctions on the country.
-Western corporations accepting that Joint Ventures with local indegenes is good for their business, not trying to own everything, making us mere employees.
-Stop using the Gaza strategy on Zimbabwe; destroy the country's economy in the hope that the natives will blame Mugabe.
-Offer Zimbabwe a clean break from Mugabe's violence and Tsvangirai's treasonous puppetism by asking both leaders to step away from power after a two-year transitional period.
Unfortunately, I doubt that the West (especially Britain) are willing to change course. They think that their Gaza strategy on Mugabe is working so well, they can still get their puppet Tsvangirai in power and proceed to repress any nationalistic sentiments that Mugabe's supporters still have with regards to the economy.
They are wrong! The nationalists, though few, have passion and determination on their side. They will not give up and its unlikely Tsvangirai will ever assume power.
Darfur has but sand.
Exactly. Darfur has but sand on its' surface when one sees under the bodies of the vast suffering, starving dying peoples'. Without bandages on the heart, one would bleed to death.
The only reason these things have not been done is that fascists disguised as Communists rose up in Russia, causing a backlash philosophy that government's purpose was NOT to take care of the people. "Government is the problem" became the mantra of the Right as they rose to dominate the USA, so that even when people from the left occasionally got in positions of power, they could not even introduce the idea of a living minimum wage, or even universal healthcare.
Now that the "invisible hand of the market" and "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" philosophies have been completely discredited, maybe we can take another look at ways government can help people. Then, NGOs can focus on truly being "extra help", doing things like enriching the educations of African children, rather than trying to save their very lives, something only a government has the organization and breadth to really handle.
People of goodwill are everywhere.
Other than Bishop Tutu, Bishop Sentamu and Kenya's Odinga, there is NO African leader of note that agrees with what bthe West is doing in Zimbabwe!
What good is the "cloth" when man uses it as cover for nefarious men against poor African nations?
Good question.
I am sorry that someone who I respect enormously has been used by the Clintons in this exact same way.
Remember Clintons' actions or nonactions in Rwanda's genocide?
What our bishop fails to realise is, apartheid and that nobel prize gave him quite a bit of credibility, he does not have to be a spokesperson for powerful people with suspicous agendas to keep himself relevant.
Mr Mandela can be a very good role model for Tutu. He consistantly refuses to be used to say things that benefit powerful people, even when he might not believe it himself. Note how inspite of the great expense London went thru building a statue for him and throwing a lavish birthday party, he resisted severe pressure to make him announce a Zimbabwe position amenable to UK foreign policy, prefering instead to offer a generalized mild statement.
Desmond Tutu is a wonderful, brilliant man who has used his power to do good in this world. Being of advanced intellect, he rightly sees through lies and deceit. Desmond Tutu's love for Africa drives him to advocate for the best solutions possible for the people of Africa, not the politically-correct pseudo-solutions that will only destroy Africa's chance to get the help she deserves.
Yes, Mugabe has made many mistakes in running our country, but to say that he is "thoughtless" or that he has caused people to "suffer", is simply being overwhelmed by western propaganda!
A man that has spent over 50 years fighting for the rights of indegenes could hardly be described as thoughtless. A highly educated African who could have easily moved to work in western NGOs or the UN as similarly educated Africans were doing back in the day but instead chose to live in the bush and fight a war many many people thought was a lost cause. A man who advanced Zimbabwe from being an also run to the highest literacy rates in all of the third world during the first 20 years of his rule (before western sanctions). A man that created a STRONGER economy than any ever created by the white regimes that ruled before him. A man that also developed the BEST health care system in all of Africa until the sanctions of 2001.
The media will be able to convince many that do not know Zimbabwe before these western sanctions came into being. However, for someone like me that lived thru this experience, I would have to suffer memory loss first to go along with the false potrayal of Mugabe's rule in Zimbabwe.
Why is Tutu quiet about the distabilization (under the guise of antiterrorism) that the US causes in Somalia when the only people with credibility and support from their citizens, the islamists, are removed from power and an unpopular and unstable government installed there instead?
Have you ever wondered why Tutu's positions on African affairs are disturbingly tailored to British foreign policy?
Lisa, noone doubts that America is full of good and well meaning people. In fact, this is what causes me to write on Huffington Post. All I want is for those Americans with a progressive view to have BALANCED info on Zimbabwe. The current one-sided bile on the country is dangerous for everyone, especially those that truly mean well and might end up helping make the situation worse!
As a leading member of the Church of England (Anglican), Mr. Tutu's causes, outrages and sympathies have suspiciously seemed to lie with British foreign policy interests! He shares rage and anguish over Zimbabwe unmatched with any for much, much worse suffering in African nations such as Sudan's genocide, DRC's never-ending invasions from its little western-backed neighbor of Rwanda, Somalia's unending civil wars, Guinea's coup, etc. Not once has our bishop ever called for military action in all of Africa's miseries other than Zimbabwe!!
Now, to most outsiders, the issue of Zimbabwe has largely been defined as the "good" opposition vs the "evil" of Mugabe's "dictatorship". To more than 40% of the citizens of Zimbabwe and a much higher majority of Africans elsewhere, the fight in Zimbabwe is an economic one between Mugabe and the West; who has the right to mineral and land assets in the country, the INDEGENES or western corporates? Mugabe has used very thuggish methods to transfer that ownership to African indegenes. The UK and US has responded by imposing financial sanctions against the whole country (pretending that the sanctions were "targeted" against Mugabe and his cronies).
The clever BBC has found a replacement for Chief M G Buthelezi in Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, the “drama bishop.”
No where in this article did you mention President George Bush, who has done more for HIV/AIDS in Africa than all the past living presidents combined—maybe he is not your good friend, hence the omission.
Sure, most of us are overjoyed by the Aids assistance, education investments and feeding programs from some of these NGOs. However, many of us have never bothered to look beyond the facade, behind the scenes where some of these NGOs' main objective is actually executed.
If for every poor child that is fed there is no hidden western contract for some rich NGO contributor, if for every AIDS pill donated, no political puppet has been lined up to cause national instability, then and only then, can we judge most of these NGOs as worthy of our respect.
Otherwise, history has taught us to carefully look this gift horse in the mouth!
So, it came as a huge shock to me when I heard him, together with his fellow Anglican Bishop of York, John Sentamu, talk about the need to militarily invade Zimbabwe because no its cholera epidemic! Mr Tutu did not talk about NGOs like Clinton's "invading" Zimbabwe with medication and doctors! He wanted soldiers with guns and bullets instead! Here was a man who wished no violence on his OWN country as it went thru its worst nightmares, who suddenly found himself qualified to wish war on OUR country!!
Since then, my respect for this man, a so-called man of the cloth, man of peace, has plummeted!
His praise for Hillary here gives me the shivers! Mr Tutu has been very consumed with a misguided rage against Mugabe, its clear he will try and do anything in his power to influence Hillary into agitating for his war pet project in Zimbabwe!
No being colonized by the Chinese is definately not the answer. But TRADING with the Chinese, the Russians, the Malaysians, the Indians, anyone that expands Zimbabwe's economic links from the dangerous western lock it currently finds itself in will be very welcome indeed.
You know that the country has the second largest source of platinum in the world(which probably explains the western eagerness to replace Mugabe with a puppet). If the country could distribute the mining rights of this mineral to several countries (with each signing a joint venture with local businesses) we will be able to generate enough exports forex to finance the resonstruction of most of the nation's broken infrastructure.
The Angolans and the Congolese have signed very attractive mining deals with the Chinese (the western sour grape media have naturally been dissing these as "colonialism"!), Zimbabwe should enter into similar deals.
Once that is done, the western sanctions currently in force thru ZIDERA will no longer be as effective and the misery that they have garnered will eventually ebb.
I do not believe that Mugabe is still the same as he was 15 years ago. However, I believe that on land and mining, he is still 100% right! I believe that because of those two major issues, many Zimbabweans are willing to forgive the many mistakes he has been making, just so he sees thru these two issues against a very angry and aggressive western response to such.
http://www.zimonline.co.za/Article.aspx?ArticleId=4083
Now, I know westerners have a problems with Africans eating "tourism" game. However, put yourself in the shoes of an African or his government, too poor to buy beef, do you think that preserving elephants for tourist will be a priority?
I'm grateful for the HIV/AIDS drugs -- that we have them, and that they are now available to more people around the world. We need something more now, though. We need a cure for HIV/AIDS. Too long, we have accepted the "It's too hard," excuse. Pharmaceutical companies will never develop a cure, because their goal is always to turn a disease into a chronic condition. It's their cash cow. We need to demand a cure. It isn't impossible; it will take money of course, but above all, it will take the will to do it. Why should so many lives be lost unnecessarily?
Please push for a cure. Anything less is unacceptable to civilized people.