The earthquake that has just struck Haiti is a natural disaster of massive proportions, and it’s very difficult for us to wrap our heads around it. The current estimated death toll is 30,000 to 100,000 - which is a huge number. According to Tales From the Hood

And even at the low end of that estimate, it is still a big number. Typhoon’s Morakot, Ketsana and Parma, plus a tsunami in the Samoa Island Group, plus both of last Fall’s earthquakes in Indonesia, combined did not reach a death toll of 30,000.

According to MSF, there are no working hospitals in the country; the National Palace and other major government buildings have collapsed; many of the U.N. offices have been damaged and U.N. officials killed. My prayers go out to all those affected by this disaster. I cannot even really fathom the magnitude of pain these people must be going through.

What has impressed me is the extent this disaster has reverberated through social media channels. Through Twitter and blogging, people shared their sentiments about the disaster. Citizen journalism was at its best, with Haitians reaching out to provide news updates via Twitter despite chaos, confusion and damage to regular communication channels. People across the globe have, amazingly, been able to follow the developments practically in real-time. Earlier today Daniel Morel created a Twitter account, @photomorel, and posted a series of shocking high-quality photos depicting what exactly was happening in Haiti. @marvinady has also posted photos of the devastation; these were some of the first photos of the devastation. Hashtags #Haiti and #Haitihelp are being used to keep tabs on Haiti updates.

Social networking sites have provided something incredibly important that the New York Times or BBC simply cannot provide: a human connection. By following someone on Twitter and seeing their pictures, we feel closely connected to them. Social media, by connecting people, has allowed for an outpouring of empathy that simply isn’t possible through the mainstream media. We’re getting information as it happens from those suffering or witnessing this destruction. It’s not some abstract natural disaster - it’s happening to real people. People we can identify and follow on Twitter and via blogging. This intensely human connection is social media’s most powerful tool.

Social networks have also proved invaluable in gathering much-needed donations for relief efforts. Wyclef Jean took Twitter by storm and mobilized followers to donate to his Yele Haiti Foundation even before most NGOs started their relief efforts. Today afternoon, Yele was the #1 trending topic on Twitter, followed closely by the Red Cross at #2. Non-profits have creatively utilized social networks to make donating as easy as possible. The Red Cross and the IRC have both created ways for supporters to quickly donate $5 or $10 by texting to a certain number; these messages have been Retweeted, spreading like wildfire through the social web. These text message campaigns have been very successful, raising millions in the past couple of days (some are a scam, but these two are not — so do make sure you check out who you’re texting to).

This was truly a social media response, and I’m proud to see my fellow citizens working together to disseminate important news and ramp up donations. This is social media at it’s best: people collaborating and reaching out to do something good.

Immediate disaster relief is vital, but we can’t forget that the hardest work is yet to come. This earthquake will have a devastating longer-term effect on Haiti. Already a poor country, Haiti will suffer immensely from the aftermath: failed and broken infrastructure. It will be difficult to pick up the pieces and rebuild the country again. While I’m glad to see the impact of social media, I only hope the momentum lasts enough to provide continued support for future rebuilding efforts. So keep Haiti in mind even after a few weeks when the situation may not be all over your Twitter of Facebook feeds!

Here’s a quick roundup of some excellent posts to keep up with news on Haiti/figure out where to donate:

• Change.org War & Peace: Haiti Rescuers are Racing Against Time
• UN Dispatch: Haiti’s Coming Public Health Challenges &  Haiti Earthquake: The Day After Part II
• Helpful tips on what to do about Haiti and who to donate to, from an experienced aid worker
• Some background thoughts from Marginal Revolution: Why is Haiti so Poor?
• Aidwatch has a nice post on navigating the complex terrain of disaster relief
• Good Intentions are Not Enough: good post on wisely choosing NGOs to donate to
• Make sure you check out Haiti.Ushahidi.com for crowd-sourcing disaster map, news, info

My personal recommendation for donations is Partners in Health:

Thanks to Running Chicken, I found an excellent new article by Hunjoon Kim and Kathryn Sikkink: Explaining the Deterrence Effect of Human Rights Prosecutions for Transitional Countries. The article basically concludes that:

We find that human rights prosecutions after transition lead to improvements in human rights protection, and that human rights prosecutions have a deterrence impact beyond the confines of the single country. We also explore the mechanisms through which prosecutions lead to improvements in human rights. We argue that impact of prosecutions is the result of both normative pressures and material punishment and provide support for this argument with a comparison of the impact of prosecutions and truth commissions, which do not involve material punishment.

If the article’s findings are correct and the statistical methodology is sound, then this is a great finding and can really help international justice move forward more confidently in the future. I am especially impressed by the finding that the normative impact of prosecutions has actually resulted in deterrence, since many have argued that international justice has not been communicated well on the ground, thus resulting in little impact on deterrence. More quantitative studies should be done on this particular question to further confirm these conclusions.

One of the questions that I had when I first read this was whether there would be a difference between post-conflict transitional justice and justice during conflict - such as the intervention of the ICC. Certainly, post-conflict transitional justice is often undertaken by regimes that are willing to prosecute members of a previous regime, and it would be understandable for those countries to ultimately have a better human rights record. However, the same cannot be said for international bodies undertaking prosecutions during a conflict, as indicted war criminals could simply exacerbate repression and continue to flout international law.

However, they addressed these questions as well, finding that prosecutions under civil wars do not have a different impact on repression than those in peace; indeed, prosecutions during civil wars may even lead to greater improvements on human rights records than prosecutions during peacetime. This is an incredible and truly groundbreaking finding, because it has applied statistical methods to the peace v. justice argument that has thus far been based on mostly qualitative case studies.

Indeed, I do think that many people are coming to the conclusion that the peace versus justice is a false dichotomy. While there was at first much backlash regarding cases in Uganda and Sudan, ultimately those who are indicted are responsible for massive human rights violations; while “peace” might depend on them temporarily, it would probably be best in the long-run if those responsible are simply taken out of the picture. I think the question now shouldn’t be whether we should wait to indict a war criminal or not, but should be about the enforcement of these arrest warrants. Faster and more efficient ways of apprehending war criminals would not only contribute to the deterrence effect, but it would also reduce the possibility of an indicted perpetrator continuing to wield power and exacerbate conflict at home.  Certainly, the challenges are numerous — but I really do think the next step should be to innovate better ways to arrest war criminals and gain international cooperation for their work, rather than to continue the debates about peace versus justice.

Charles Taylor Trial (Credit: BBC)

I just ran across this fascinating Time interview with Stephen Rapp, who was previously chief prosecutor for the Special Court for Sierra Leone (H/T Shelby Grossman). Rapp states:

The concern all of us had was that we were conducting justice in a comfortable courtroom with long trials and well-paid attorneys. Prisoners had single cells, and they had committed the worst crimes. A mile away in the local prison there were simply no resources. Cases can’t go forward, witnesses are lost, and people stay in detention for many years at a stretch. [If I was] to do it over, I would try to develop a court within the national system. That would be my preference. Maybe not a court that costs $30 million a year like the Special Court, but an appropriate court.

This is something I thought about while writing the post “Villains & Supervillains,” after my trip to The Hague with the ICC Student Network last year, but never fully articulated.

I understand that many of these “supervillians” - war criminals, genocidaires, leaders who have led crimes against humanity, are some of the worst perpetrators in that world. For that reason, they receive special attention, and they are given fair trials and adequate living conditions. They are allowed to represent themselves in court, and a great deal of attention is paid to their trials to ensure they are truly fair. This all makes complete sense, because their trials are, and should be, high profile and well publicized in order to draw attention to their horrific crimes and resulting punishments, and thereby contribute to ending the atmosphere of impunity worldwide. Without fair trials and without widespread publicity of these proceedings, there is no chance that the justice being done will deter future perpetrators (though the possibility of deterrence itself is arguable).

But the greater travesty and grosser injustice is the fact that we are pumping millions of dollars into international courts which have doubtful impacts, and are simultaneously completely ignoring the life-threatening conditions in the national justice systems of many developing countries. Isn’t this ironic? While war criminals are getting the royal treatment, everyday people - many of them poor - are arbitrarily detained in various African countries, often for stealing a piece of bread or for political reasons. In many African countries, torture continues to be widespread as an interrogative tool despite laws in the books prohibiting it.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), 80% of prisoners are in pre-trial detention, and there is no law criminalizing torture. In Kenya, even petty offenders must wait an average of 5 years to have their case heard. In Kampala, Uganda, many prisons are overcrowded, often at 300% of capacity. And in Nigeria, women are held alongside men in prison, often leading to rape and sexual violence. In Zimbabwe, news reports have shown emaciated inmates starving to death from lack of food, often forced to catch and eat rats to survive.

The criminal justice systems of many developing countries are in far worse conditions than that of the U.S., and are arbitrary, unfair, and life-threatening. If the international community devoted one-tenth of the attention to this issue as they do to providing fair trials to supervillains, then many more innocent lives would be saved.

As the status quo stands, a guy who is responsible for the genocide of thousands gets a lawyer of his own and a fair trial, while the poor, innocent, arbitrarily detained are tortured and starve to death without ever having access to counsel. Is this fair, or just? I don’t think so. This doesn’t mean we should pay less attention to war criminals, but that we should work harder to ensure a fair trial to those who are not.

I’m a strong proponent of studying or working abroad, especially for college students in the U.S. who can afford the experience. I’m incredibly lucky, because this year - as a junior in college - I’ve had the absolutely amazing opportunity to study abroad at the London School of Economics (LSE) for the entire school year. Before I left for England, I was afraid that I wouldn’t be gaining too much out of studying abroad considering I was headed to an English speaking country whose culture is admittedly not all that different from American culture. Would I be getting enough out of the experience without language immersion, without suddenly jumping into a wholly unfamiliar situation? Would the similarities between the U.S. and the U.K. really make this learning experience less than extraordinary?

But really, I needn’t have worried at all. True, perhaps I didn’t substantially improve my Spanish skills or live with a host family. Perhaps I didn’t learn too many local customs and traditions, especially since most of my friends are international students. But I learned so much this year that it’s literally changed the way I view the world around me. London is probably one of the most internatonal cities in the world. The student body of LSE, especially, is composed of about 60% international students. This means that I haven’t befriended too many British kids, but instead I’ve met students from all over: Germany, Norway, China, Korea, Colombia, Slovakia, India, Italy, Pakistan, Kenya, Portugal, and of course dear old America. And, as a testament to the international focus of LSE, all my classes include case studies about different countries around the world. I’ve covered issues like economic history in Argentina and Brazil, democratization in Iran and Southern Europe, and economic development in India and Indonesia. I’ve also been so lucky to have the chance to travel: Greece, Spain, Ireland, and Scotland have been my destinations throughout the year.

And you know what? This year in London changed my life. Prior to studying at LSE, I had a much more limited knowledge of critical global issues. I was intending to focus on American government and politics through my political science major, and was hoping to attend law school in the U.S. To be sadly honest, I was much less interested in what was going on in far off places than in domestic politics and issues. But after talking with students about their experiences in Uganda, or Vietnam, or about Norwegian politics - and after traveling so much and becoming something of a nomad - I can’t stop thinking about international issues and development. There is such a vast body of knowledge to be gained by looking beyond the boundaries of America, and I feel the urge to know, learn, and act on this. Studying abroad has opened my eyes - but most importantly, it’s made me feel like a global citizen. Of course, I’m still proud to be an American citizen; but more than that, I’m proud to feel a strong connection and commitment to the world as a whole.

A lot of the undergraduates I’ve met at LSE are older. In Europe, it’s actually very common for students to take a gap year (or years!) after graduating from high school in order to volunteer or work abroad, especially in the developing world. I know students who have gone to Africa and Southeast asia after high school to work in international development and teaching english. Why is it so uncommon in the U.S.? If I had been able to work abroad before entering college, I’d probably have a much clearer idea of my interests and passions, as well as a sense of humility and global citizenship. I’d probably have gained a lot more out of my undergraduate experience if I had worked abroad beforehand. More students need to start having and taking advantage of such opportunities; if not before college, at least during college, or as a gap year after college.

Now, I know not everyone has the financial means or opportunities to go abroad. That’s why I want to highlight an innovative new non-profit organization, Global Citizen Year.

Global Citizen Year is a non-profit organization which is building a movement of young Americans who engage in a transformative “bridge year” between high school and college.  Through an innovative cross-sector model that partners with high schools and colleges in the US, and NGOs around the world, we create opportunities for emerging leaders to work as apprentices in Asia, Africa and Latin America.  By providing intensive training and support, we ensure that our Fellows develop an ethic of service, the ability to communicate across languages and cultures, and a deep commitment to becoming agents for social change.

I think this is what our country really needs. When we young Americans live and work abroad - especially in the developing world, we gain something absolutely invaluable: perspective. We learn to view ourselves as privileged, lucky to have the opportunities we’re afforded. And we learn to feel connected to the world around us - something that we can’t gain from the skewed news reporting, media, and popular culture in the U.S. There’s a sense of disconnect from the globe, that we’re fine in our own little bubble. I hope that Global Citizen Year can change this and play a vital role in changing the perspectives of the young Americans who will grow up to be our country’s leaders.

Picture credit: JPJ Mag

I recently ran across the University of California Berkeley Human Rights Center, which held a Mobile Challenge to invite projects and innovations utilizing cutting-edge mobile technology to aid human rights work. I immediately fell in love with this project because it’s something I strongly believe in: law and human rights working together can benefit so much from technology and innovation. Mobile technology has thus far been leveraged so successfully in the fields of banking (mobile banking), entrepreneurship (Grameen’s village phone ladies), global health, and agriculture (to help small-scale farmers gain market information) to name a few. Since people in the developing world have much easier access to cell phones than to computers, mobile technology has become a focal point for further development and innovation, and is playing a key role in bridging the international digital divide.

But I hadn’t heard much about how mobile technology is being implemented to monitor and end human rights abuses until I saw UCB Human Rights Center’s Mobile Challenge, which recognized the top 10 project ideas for doing just that. So naturally, I was excited. Let me highlight a few of the projects which I found exciting and potentially powerful (although all of them were):

IJCentral: A movement to support global rule of law - The ICC desperately needs the cooperation and support of the international community in order to succeed in its mission to end impunity. Many major countries like China, Russia, and the U.S. have not ratified the Rome Statute and thus do not support the ICC. Studies have shown that when people know more about the ICC, support for the Court increases. IJCentral thus aims to inform more people about the ICC by using geolocated mobile phone SMS text messages, Twitter, an IJCMap, and a website with a blog, IJC News, and an IJC Video gallery with ICC footage updated weekly and links to relevant information and NGOs. This is a unique project, and though I am not sure how much impact it can have on changing the policies of major countries, I would be interested in seeing how it could shape popular sentiment towards the ICC.

Face the change: This project aims to put a human face on global warming and include in the debate human rights problems resulting from natural disasters and forced migration. Face the Change will highlight the social - not just environmental - impact of climate change, and will empower poor and vulnerable communities to participate in national policy debates. The web-based platform will use mainly video and other multimedia to document this impact; those without Internet access can use SMS and multimedia messaging to report about impoverished communities who are threatened by the effects of climate change (e.g. rising seas, drought). I like this idea because climate change really does lack a human face; people feel like helping the environment isn’t necessary because the negative effects seem so far away. This project will show that the negative impact has already begun.

Freedom Fone: This project helps communities and individuals communicate with one another without the need for internet access. It provides personal information 24/7 by storing audio files in the Freedom Fone’s Content Management System, which is updated through a simple to use browser interface. Callers can navigate the audio clips for the information they want, and can access the information in their preferred language. Each person can contribute questions, content, and feedback by leaving voice messages through the interface; people can call in for free using toll free numbers, for instance. It seems almost like a wikipedia - on a phone! It seems like a simple idea that can prove to become highly popular and helpful.

Handheld Human Rights: This project provides a hub for groups documenting human rights abuses. It allows people - especially those who are experiencing or witnessing human rights violations - to submit data and information about these abuses from their mobiles. Abuses and alerts will be channeled through the hub and mapped, and this information will be raised to raise international awareness and support advocacy campaigns. Handheld Human Rights wants to make human rights data more accessible and more actionable. It is currently focused on the human rights abuses occurring in Burma, but I see potential to scale it up for situations around the world. This project is simple, yet has the potential to be effective.

But this begs the question: how much innovation is needed? The problems I saw with many of the other entries for this contest is that much of this has already been done, and some of the innovations didn’t seem to contribute anything significantly groundbreaking. Most of the ideas were focused on reporting human rights abuses/violations/problems as soon as possible using mobile technology so that reporters and the international community could view the information. But is this much constant innovation necessary, or do we already have ample technology and innovations that simply need to be properly implemented?  I asked my twitter buddies about this, and here are some of the responses I got:

@CarlosMic: We shouldn’t stop innovating, but we shouldn’t try to implement properly EVERY innov. Ppl should split the work
@ExpressPros: Innovation and action need to be better friends. Otherwise, great ideas don’t mean better work. They should.
@leslieforman yes, i think innovation=necessary, implementation=even harder!
@jamestodhunter It’s the implementation & achievement of adoption of an inventive idea that transforms it into a useful innovation.

My conclusion is that innovation for the sake of innovation is useless. Innovation is only necessary, and useful, if it is actually implemented. Technology is great, but new ideas go waste - even if they are amazing - if they aren’t marketed well, put into place, and really utilized to make a difference. So although I see constant social entrepreneurship and innovation contests everywhere these days, I think people need to keep this in mind: before you innovate, ask yourself whether this is really needed. Or if you can have the same impact by working to put in place or improve some pre-existing systems, technologies, products or ideas. Really dig deep. Because innovation for the sake of innovation - is worthless.

Photo credit: here and here