Showing posts with label lack of transparency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lack of transparency. Show all posts

Aug 18, 2009

Recovering Opportunity


When he signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) -- the economic stimulus package -- President Barack Obama promised it would "begin the process of restoring the economy and making America a stronger and more prosperous nation." The act invests some $787 billion in unemployment assistance, tax cuts, support to cash-strapped state governments, job creation, job training, education, and infrastructure.

Less noticed but just as important is the act's commitment to securing more equitable opportunity for all Americans. In its text and in its implementation, the act holds the potential for a transformative shift toward greater equity in our economy. But fulfilling the potential of this little-noticed mission of equal opportunity will require vigilance, activism, and innovation.

With an African American president, it is tempting to think that racial and ethnic barriers to opportunity are largely a thing of the past. More prominent in progressive circles is the idea that modern racial inequality flows almost entirely from class inequality, and therefore class-based fixes will inevitably advance racial equity. Unfortunately, research and experience prove otherwise. While we've made significant progress in our country when it comes to race relations, racial barriers to opportunity continue to hold back millions of Americans and, in so doing, hurt our economy.

Consider, for example, the exploitative sub-prime lending practices at the heart of today's economic crisis. Federal data show that African Americans and Latinos were more likely to be marketed high-interest, sub-prime loans than were similarly qualified whites, irrespective of their income. Indeed, the racial gap in sub-prime lending was greatest among higher-income borrowers. This problem has both historical and contemporary causes -- from redlining and forced segregation in the past, to the paucity of banks in minority communities and discriminatory, predatory lending practices that continue today.

Similarly, research shows that people of color still face subtle but persistent bias in job selection. Resumés with "white sounding" names like Brad and Cindy, studies show, receive more callbacks from employers than do identical resumés with "black sounding" names like Jamal and Lakisha. Whether this discrimination springs from intentional bias or subconscious stereotypes, it's clear that these practices combine with systemic barriers like under-resourced schools, inadequate public transportation, and a dearth of health-care facilities in communities of color to diminish opportunity based on race.

Other systemic factors place particular racial and ethnic groups in a disadvantaged posture that warrants a more particularized approach. Federal mismanagement of American Indian trust funds, for example, has cost the native population billions of dollars. American Indian tribes also hold a sovereign status commensurate with the 50 states under our Constitution but have seen that sovereignty persistently ignored and eroded, with devastating economic consequences. In 2007, American Indians were three times as likely as whites to live in poverty. And unemployment rates on some reservations top 80 percent.

For these and other reasons, even the socioeconomic improvements of the boom years do not reliably translate to more equitable opportunity. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in May 2007, before the current economic downturn, the unemployment rate was 3.9 percent for whites, 5.8 percent for Latinos, and 8.5 percent for African Americans. All three figures roughly doubled over the next two years, but the racial gap remained about the same. The pre-recession economy also included stark racial inequality in wages and assets. In 2007, African Americans earned only 75 cents for every dollar earned by whites, and Latinos earned only 73 cents. Families of color held just 15 cents of "wealth" (assets minus debt) for every dollar held by white families, making it profoundly more difficult for them to survive a downturn without becoming further mired in debt.

Because we are all part of an interconnected economy, the need to address these gaps in opportunity is an economic as well as a moral imperative. The United States cannot stage a full or lasting recovery without addressing these gaps. Moreover, if the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act merely restores the economy to the inadequate and unequal conditions of 2007, the nation will remain on a long-term path toward sustained economic insecurity.

How can ARRA catalyze a period of greater and more equitable opportunity? The seeds are there, but they need cultivation and care.

First, a number of provisions in ARRA invest in initiatives that have proved over the years to serve all Americans while offering communities of color more access and opportunity. For example, the act invests in improving and expanding community health centers across the country. These centers are known for providing quality care to diverse and low-income communities, addressing cultural and language differences, and controlling costs. A robust system of community health centers in inner cities and rural areas can create jobs, improve health and productivity, and lower the daunting cost of care for diverse communities. Similarly, ARRA's $2 billion to expand Head Start and Early Head Start programs supports an initiative with a track record of serving all kids well and helping, in particular, to boost the preparedness and achievement of children of color. At the same time, it will create jobs in disadvantaged communities and aid working parents who cannot afford child care.

Second, the act recognizes that different communities may require different types of investment in economic participation. It shores up tribal governments and reservation communities -- just as it aids struggling state governments -- with investments in reservation roads and bridges, public transit, housing improvement, tribal law enforcement, and efforts to end violence against women.

Third, and perhaps most significantly, the White House has explicitly directed federal agencies distributing ARRA funds to uphold established equal-opportunity, anti-discrimination, and labor protections. That's a marked departure from the Bush administration, which sought to waive those provisions in Gulf Coast rebuilding efforts after Hurricane Katrina.

This body of protections cuts across employment, housing, education, transportation, criminal justice, and environmental protection, and mandates that the benefits and burdens of federally funded projects be nondiscriminatory in practice as well as intent. It requires equal opportunity based on race, ethnicity, and, in some sectors, gender, religion, age, language ability, disability, and familial status. (Protections based on sexual orientation remain a gaping hole in existing equal-opportunity laws.)

Yet there is no certainty that the promise of an equitable recovery will be realized. Doing so requires transparency, coordination, and political will.

Watchdog groups have noted the lack of practical transparency surrounding stimulus spending. That is especially true regarding the information necessary to assess and ensure equal opportunity. Although the president promised in signing the ARRA that "the federal government will be held to new standards of transparency and accountability," spending decisions on the ground have proved very difficult for affected communities to track or participate in. The federal government's economic recovery Web site, Recovery.gov, contains some useful bits of information -- for example, the fact that $72 million has been allocated to improve public housing in Louisiana and $441 million disbursed by the Department of Transportation as of June. But it lacks the specificity, demographic, or geographic disaggregation necessary to assess the impact of ARRA investments on greater opportunity. State and municipal stimulus tracking sites vary widely in information and transparency, and few if any provide adequate data or analysis.

While the nation's equal-opportunity laws are well established, the infrastructure for monitoring and enforcing them is badly atrophied after a decade of neglect by the prior administration. And truly effective interagency coordination of those laws has been lacking since, at least, the Nixon administration. Experience shows that without monitoring, technical assistance, and rigorous enforcement, the opportunities and burdens created by ARRA projects will not be equitable. Rather, as we saw in the flawed rebuilding of the Gulf Coast, they are likely to deepen existing patterns of inequality. In doing so, they will fail to achieve the robust and lasting economic recovery that is ARRA's chief goal.

Finally, equitable implementation will require mustering significant public and political will. Contemporary barriers to equal opportunity are not well understood by the public, and few states or municipalities have a robust system for addressing them. Entrenched special interests and political influence may overtake fairness in funding decisions. And investment targeted toward disadvantaged communities may draw conservative backlash.

Despite these challenges, there are a range of things that the president, Congress, state and local officials, and civil society can do to promote a widely shared economic recovery.

The president should immediately integrate equal-opportunity monitoring and coordinated enforcement measures into the administration's stimulus implementation. An interagency task force could establish a protocol for collecting data on the distribution of funds by geography, race, gender, and other demographics, monitor projects on the ground, and provide technical assistance to federal-fund recipients to encourage their compliance. Requiring Opportunity Impact Statements from funding applicants can help to quickly select among shovel-ready projects and incorporate public input.

The White House must also greatly improve Recovery.gov by providing more project-specific and demographic data, as well as information on the equity measures attached to approved projects. And the president must use the bully pulpit, as he did so eloquently during the campaign, to explain to Americans why equal opportunity is crucial to our shared prosperity.

Congress should provide rigorous oversight of stimulus spending as it relates to equal opportunity and require regular reporting by the White House. It should also close gaps in existing law by prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and restoring individuals' ability to challenge discriminatory policies in court.

State, municipal, and tribal governments should adopt public equal -- opportunity policies, detailing how they'll ensure equitable benefits and burdens from stimulus-funded projects. They should seek public input on spending decisions, engage community groups in implementation, and report their impact, including the facts and data behind them.

Nonprofit organizations also have an important role to play in monitoring stimulus spending, holding local governments accountable to equal-opportunity standards, providing job training and other support services, and helping to shape projects that can expand opportunity for all.

In order to be successful, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act must not only stimulate the economy but also instigate a new era of opportunity. While the law itself provides an important starting point, the hard part lies ahead.

Aug 16, 2009

Book Review: 'China Safari' by Serge Michel and Michel Beuret

By Michela Wrong
Sunday, August 16, 2009

CHINA SAFARI

On the Trail of Beijing's Expansion in Africa

By Serge Michel and Michel Beuret

Translated from the French by Raymond Valley

Nation. 306 pp. $27.50

In 1994, when I lived in the chaotic African country then known as Zaire, I regularly drove past a magnificent sports stadium that loomed over downtown Kinshasa. Built by the Chinese in a gesture of friendship to President Mobutu Sese Seko, it sat empty for nearly a year. The Chinese had left it to their hosts to provide the finishing touch, a road giving access to the site. The Zairians had failed to deliver, so the stadium stood idle.

That memory was revived as I read "China Safari," an exploration of China's galloping involvement in Africa. Beijing, which once confined itself to grandiose yet largely symbolic African projects, has become one of the continent's most aggressive investors. Bilateral trade quintupled between 2000 and 2006. China has already replaced Britain as the continent's third largest business partner and more than half a million Chinese are estimated to be living in Africa.

It's easy to see what the Chinese -- hungry for oil, timber, uranium and other minerals lacking at home -- get from the arrangement. The question is whether ordinary Africans will draw lasting benefit from this new association, or suffer as their leaders repeat the mistakes of the Cold War and colonial era, when they were routinely outmaneuvered by foreign partners with a similar lust for the continent's resources.

Accompanied by photographer Paolo Woods, Swiss journalists Serge Michel and Michel Beuret put in extensive legwork trying to provide an answer. Frustrated by the empty rhetoric of the 2006 China-Africa summit attended by 48 African nations, they spent nearly two years talking to those lower down the food chain: Chinese loggers in Congo-Brazzaville, ditch-diggers in Angola, curio sellers in Egypt. The result is a work whose style may occasionally come across as peculiarly baroque -- the translator stumbles when attempting to convey the irony of the original -- but whose message is clear: Africa has much to gain but needs to be on guard.

China's sales pitch, stubbornly trumpeted despite its insincerity, is that it refuses to preach, impose conditions or interfere in the affairs of sovereign nations. In stark contrast with Africa's former partners, the line goes, China is only interested in trade.

The authors skewer that claim. If the Chinese refuse to acknowledge the political ramifications of their growing economic presence, the locals will make that link for them. In Niger, Chinese working the uranium mines are being kidnapped by Tuareg rebels, in Ethiopia's Ogaden oil fields Chinese have been attacked by separatists, and in Zambia's copper belt miners have revolted against Chinese bosses refusing to recognize the union.

One of the most worrying elements to emerge from these pages is a consistent lack of transparency in all these Chinese ventures. "Not a single Chinese official in the region would agree to meet us," the authors write. Their requests for interviews with African officials and Chinese managers were routinely ignored, access to work sites barred and information on contractual terms withheld.

Domestic parliamentarians have been similarly stymied, unable to uncover even basic details of projects they were promised would transform their countries. None of this bodes well on a continent where top-level sleaze and capital flight have already leached away billions of dollars earmarked for development. Opaque, unscrutinized contracts threaten more of the same.

Michel and Beuret are admirably even-handed, unsparing in their attacks on the cynical agendas and sad outcomes of past French, British or U.S. intervention. (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's seven-nation tour of the continent last week underscores that the United States remains engaged.) But Michel and Beuret hold out hope for this brash, colossal Chinese experiment. "If nothing checks China's momentum, its infrastructure work alone will help unify the continent," they write, pointing to planned construction of a coast-to-coast railroad, electricity and water networks and an oil pipeline. China's arrival, they conclude, has been an unexpected boon to a region forgotten by the rest of the world.

But the lesson of that Kinshasa stadium is that the gift of massive infrastructure, while important, is not enough on its own. For Africa to seize the historic chance presented by China's involvement, the continent's leaders must get their own house in order. Ministers should open the books to their own parliaments and ensure that their new partners employ Africans, pass on vital skills and respect local labor and environmental laws. If this once-in-a-century opportunity is wasted, it is they, and not the Chinese, who will rightly bear the blame.

Michela Wrong writes on Africa. Her third book, "It's Our Turn to Eat. The Story of a Kenyan Whistle-Blower" was published in June.

Aug 10, 2009

Rights Group Criticizes Saudi Arabia's Al Qaeda Reeducation Program

| Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

Saudi Arabia's much praised rehabilitation program for terror suspects is under fire from the US-based Human Rights Watch because its participants are detained for lengthy periods without charges.

The program – a key part of Saudi Arabia's counterterrorism campaign – relies on preventive efforts to teach detained men that terrorism is un-Islamic. But since most of the detainees haven't been convicted of any crime, it violates international law, the group argues in a report released Monday.

"Except as part of a sentence imposed after conviction for a crime, international human rights law does not permit the detention of persons to undergo a reeducation program," the report says. Such programs "cannot be forced upon persons whose guilt has not been established."

Rehab program praised by US

The program has drawn praise from US and Saudi officials who argue that conventional policing alone is insufficient to control Islamist militants.

While the program "may deserve credit for its intentions, innovations, and apparently low rate of acts of violence pursued by those released," Human Rights Watch says, those extolling it overlook that its enrollees "were not convicted criminals but rather men held in long-term detention without charge."

The report also says that the convictions of 330 Al Qaeda terror suspects announced by Saudi Arabia in July were "flawed" because the trials were held in secret. It criticizes the Saudi Interior Ministry for detaining thousands of suspects for years without charges, and in some cases, refusing to comply with court orders to release prisoners.

Gen. Mansour Turki, spokesman for the Interior Ministry, said in an e-mail that he was unable to comment on the report until he had discussed it with ministry officials. An e-mail seeking comment to the Ministry of Justice spokesman went unanswered.

Indefinite detention is 'wrong'

Saudi human rights activist Mohammad Al Qahtani praised the report because "it documented the process of arresting people in indefinite detention." He disagreed with the protestation of a Saudi official quoted in the report, who said that public trials for terrorism suspects are unsuited to Saudi Arabia's tribal society.

"This is very wrong," said Mr. Qahtani. "A modern society should apply the law. This is an excuse to get away with illegal things. It doesn't make sense to hold secret tribunals."

The program has not been without its problems. In January of this year, Saudi Arabia disclosed that 11 graduates of the program, some of whom had previously been detained at the US prison camp in Guantánamo, Cuba, have been re-arrested for joining militant groups. Still, US Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair described the program in glowing terms in a memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this year, calling it "the most comprehensive of its kind [designed] to address the religious, psychological, and socio-economic issues that contribute to radicalization."

The Human Rights Watch report follows a July 21 study by Amnesty International that alleged Saudi Arabia's counterterrorism campaign led to increased human rights violations.

One response to 2003 attacks

Saudi Arabia was rocked by a wave of violence from Al Qaeda extremists in 2003 and 2004 that left 74 security personnel and 90 civilians dead, according to Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz, Saudi interior minister. Another 1,096 persons were injured.

The government responded with mass arrests. An unknown but large number of the 9,000 civilians detained since 2003 are still held, though Saudi law stipulates that six months is the longest a person can be jailed without charges. Some detainees are held even after the rehabilitation program or Saudi courts recommend their release.

The rehabilitation program began in 2004. Using psychological and religious counseling, it aims to convince prisoners to abandon what Saudi officials call the "deviant" or "misguided" beliefs that led them into extremist groups.

Saudi officials have said the program is voluntary but also acknowledge that completing it is a condition, though not a guarantee, for a prisoner's release.

Half-way house added

In 2007, a second component to the program was added with a half-way house to ease prisoners back into society. Of the 270 detainees who went through this part of the program, 117 were former inmates at the US-run Guantánamo Bay detention camp.

The latest Human Rights Watch report also criticizes the lack of information about the trials of 330 terror suspects. "The absence of public observers at these trials cast significant doubt on their fairness, underlined by indications that defendants do not have legal assistance and adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense," the report says.