Education - The Key to Success
by Anna Kimura
Stevenson Elementary, Bellevue
Fifth Grade

The President of the United States has a very big role because his/her decisions will affect everyone. As the President of the United States, I would focus my attention on education around the world. Education is important because if we teach everyone about what the problems are in the world, everyone can help solve the problems. There are many other important issues in the world, such as global warming, poverty, over-population, war, and pollution - education is the key to solving all of these issues. This is because if more people understand the cause of the problems, they can help provide or be part of the solution.

Have you ever read or heard about a girl longing for an education, but needed in the home so she cannot go to school? In many countries, girls drop out of school at the age of 10 or cannot go at all. Since girls drop out so early, we are losing many promising scientists, doctors, and teachers. Girls are just as smart as boys, but they do not get the chance of having a full education. Many children sometimes cannot go to school because of different reasons and fall behind in their studies. In this way, children are behind in their grade according to their age (UNICEF, 2006).

If women have a formal education, they may not have as many children. This will help the problem of over-population, and there is less chance of a child being unhealthy. Many women can barely read, let alone write their name. This is how poorly women and girls are educated. One reason why girls cannot go to school is there may not be a nearby school (UNICEF, 2006). Some families stick to the past and do not want their daughters to go to school. They say that girls are better off working at home.

The United Nations has a program called the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF). UNICEF has many projects that help provide education to everyone. They give supplies to schools and, in countries with little education they help train people to become teachers. In Afghanistan, UNICEF built schools in small towns for not only boys, but girls too. UNICEF is also working on “girl friendly” schools. These schools have teachers that have a flexible schedule in case a student must leave. They have both gender bathrooms in the school. UNICEF builds the schools near the homes of girls and they encourage gender equality to be taught in the curriculum. UNICEF wants both boys and girls to have equal educational opportunities.

Another solution that UNICEF is working on is the School Fee Abolition Initiative (SFAI), which started in 2005. The SFAI is a program to abolish school fees. School fees are a major obstacle for poor families because they cannot afford the cost to go to school. Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, and other countries have eliminated school fees (UNICEF, 2006, p. 46-47). This is a big improvement for countries that are developing their educational system.

The United States gives foreign aid, but not specific aid for education. As President, I would propose a program that specifically contributed to education aid. This aid will help many countries have better schools and an improved education system. I would give textbooks, school supplies, and money to build more schools or to spend on remodeling schools. Giving textbooks is the first step to getting every child a good education. Other important resources are computers because there is a huge amount of information on the Internet.

Another program I would propose would be for the United States. At schools, students are required to learn a foreign language. But, there is only a limited amount of languages available. The most common languages are Spanish, German, and French. Most schools do not offer languages from Asia and Africa. Since not many schools teach an Asian language or an African language, it is hard to interact with these parts of the world. During World War II, many Americans knew how to speak German, so they could help the government translate. Even in the Pacific, there were Japanese-Americans that could help translate what the Japanese were saying (Hakim, 2002). But now when we go to the Middle Eastern countries, there are very few translators because very few Americans speak Arabic. The men and women in service in Iraq cannot understand what the Iraqis are saying because they do not speak Arabic. In this way, we are half deaf to the world because we cannot understand and interact with others. Recently, Bellevue Community College added a class that teaches Arabic (Lacitis, 2007). In this way, we are slowly adding languages we are not learning. I would make sure there are a variety of languages to learn at U.S. schools.

With all of these programs to help education in foreign countries and the U.S., it will help the whole world because many people from countries with poor education will have a chance to share their thoughts as scientists or doctors to the rest of the world. I think everyone should have a chance to make a difference in the world, but that freedom is not available for many. Like the proverb, “If you fish for a man, you feed him for a day; if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for life,” if you solve a problem for people, you help them for a day; if you teach people how to solve a problem, you help them for life.

Bibliography

UNICEF, 2006. THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CHILDREN 2007. New York.

Hakim, Joy. War, Peace, and All That Jazz (A History of US Series #9), Vol. 9. Oxford University Press, United Kingdom, 2002.

Lacitis, Erik. “At BCC, Arabic goes to the head of the class.” Seattle Times Newspaper, March 22, 2007.

 

back to top

-

Iraqi Refugees
by Naphtali Moulton
North City Elementary, Shoreline
Fourth Grade

Did you know that the United States turns away hundred of thousands of Iraqi refugees at its borders every year? Only 466 refugees from Iraq have been allowed asylum since the war began in 2003. If I were elected President, I would do something about this! If elected, I would also work on helping the 1.8 million internally displaced people (IDP's) in Iraq.

What is the problem? Why should we care?

Refugees and IDP’s all over the world have no secure place to live their lives. A refugee is a person who has fled his/her original country due to fear of persecution. An IDP (internally displaced person) is a person who has fled his/her original region or home, also due to fear of persecution, but has not crossed any international borders. Some of the reasons that refugees and IDP’s are afraid of persecution are their race, religion, nationality, or membership in a political or social group. That is why there are so many different refugees and why they are such an important global problem.

What is the United States’ responsibility for Iraqi refugees?

The United States invaded Iraq in 2003 and hasn’t helped civilians, IDP’s, and refugees sufficiently. The United States spends eight billion dollars per month on the “War on Terror” but only spends twenty million per year on refugees all over the world. Obviously something needs to be done. The United States has allowed only 466 refugees from Iraq into its country since the invasion in 2003. This is compared to approximately one million refugees allowed into Syria, seven hundred fifty thousand into Jordan, and one hundred thousand into Egypt, as well as many other in surrounding countries. There are almost two million IDP’s in Iraq to be considered. The United States started the war so we must do more!

Who is helping/hindering refugees now?

Refugees need more help. The United States donated four hundred thousand dollars to the United Nations for refugee resettlement efforts. That is equivalent to twelve cents per refugee. Forty thousand to fifty thousand refugees leave Iraq for other countries each month. This means that the number of refugees in surrounding countries quickly adds up. Several year-long waiting lists, slow bureaucratic procedures, and lack of money hinder refugees from finding asylum in the U.S. so our government must make resettlement a reality soon.

How will I help solve the problem?

First, if I became president I would donate at least one billion dollars (approximately $295 per refugee) to the United Nations High Commission on Refugees for Iraqi’s. With that amount of money the commission could actually get something done.

Another way to help the refugees is to let more into the U.S. I would change the government regulations to allow more Iraqi refugees to resettle the country.

I would also make sure that the military budget was dismantled and channeled into rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan. That way those two countries would stop their creation of refugees, the civil war would end, and some Iraqi’s might even return to their original homes.

Conclusion

If I were president I would make sure that the problem of refugees is solved. I would make UNHCR into a much more successful agency and would rebuild countries to stop the flow of refugees. This would mean that almost every Iraqi would have a home. Refugees would have jobs, there would be less persecution, and their country would be more stable.

back to top

-

Picture yourself helping your mother in a rice field in Cambodia. You see your brothers and sisters playing around. Your mother tells you to go inside the hut to get something. You start running back home when suddenly an explosion fills the air. People start to panic. You run to the explosion and you see your brother laying on the ground bleeding to death; imagine that happening every day all around the world.

The global issue that I will focus my attention on as a candidate for president is anti-personnel landmines. They cause deaths and injuries. If you chose me as your president, I would work to end this problem. I would work to enact legislation that would fund hiring mine experts to find landmines and then destroy them. Also, I would join with other countries to ban anti-personnel landmines from the world completely.

Today, there are over 100 million landmines in 70 countries, according to one international organization. Each year there are about 15,000 to 20,000 casualties due to landmines. Kids are losing legs, limbs, and other parts of their bodies and others are killed by landmines. This happens because kids play and live close to old military bases. Also, some poor families have to pick up old metal scraps so they can exchange them for money. Unfortunately, these people often step on mines that were left behind from wars.

In 1994, President Clinton was the first leader to call for an international ban on anti-personnel landmines. Countries agreed to meet each other in Ottawa, Canada, to sign a contract to ban the use of landmines in 1997, but the United States did not attend the meeting. President Clinton did not join the majority of the nations in signing the Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty. As of 2006, the United States still held over 10 million anti-personnel landmines in their military bases around the world.

During a war, the armies lay these mines down around their bases to defend and kill their enemies. Once the war is over, some landmines are left behind that didn’t explode. People step on them when they are in their rice fields, crossing mountains, walking through forests, or building roads in Cambodia, Vietnam, Iraq, and other European countries that still have anti-personnel landmines buried in their soil. It is estimated that there are ten million mines left from the Khmer Rouge era in Cambodia and its civil war in the early 1970’s and 1980’s. Also, some Vietnamese workers still step on mines left over from the U.S.-Vietnam war.

In 2004, President George Bush’s administration made a speech that it would not join the Ottawa treaty, because, “They would have to give up military capability.” The United States became the first country to say that they will never join the Landmine Ban Treaty. President Bush’s landmine policy turned its back on the hidden weapons that kill thousands of people each year. The Landmine Ban Treaty was signed by forty countries committed to get rid of this unseen danger.

Today, there are a total of 149 countries who have agreed to ban landmines around the world. These countries are helping each other to remove the landmines from their countries. Their military personnel and mine experts have worked in Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Iraq, and Southeast Europe to remove the landmine fields. It’s time the United States helped fund this cleanup.

According to a United Nations (UN) study, the costs to plant these mines are cheap; however removing them costs $1000 per mine. These costs do not include people injured and killed to remove the mines. To remove a mine, people use a magnetic detector in an open area to find landmines. After that, they lay on the ground so they can investigate a possible mined area, using a rod to find the buried object. Next, they carefully dig out the mine. When they are done digging they must defuse it or put a charge on top of the mine. All of this costs numerous dollars and lives.

Today with the technology we have around the world, we can use many methods to remove landmines around military bases. I would support a law banning the use of landmines. Instead, we could use radar, alarms, and traps. If we do this it will reduce the number of casualties once the war is over. The United States also needs to help pay for removing landmines and to give medical assistance for those hurt by landmines. We need to make the world a safer place.

back to top

-

We the People
by Whitney Miller
5-12 Learning Community, Clover Park
Seventh Grade

As a presidential candidate for the United States of America, I thank you for taking time to review my platform. My main area of focus as a female candidate is the issue of women's rights. Women around the world are treated as second class citizens compared to their male counterparts. Susan B. Anthony once said, "It was we the people; not we the white male citizens; nor yet we the male citizens; be we, the whole people who formed the Union... men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less." Those wise words represent what we, as citizens of the United States, should remember. We have made great strides in the U.S. to improve access to positions of influence. But what we as citizens should remember are that women's rights are an issue around the world. Women in places such as the Middle East and North Africa do not have the same rights as the women such as myself have. One focus I have as President of the U.S. would be to empower women in these areas of the world.

In countries such as Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia women’s rights are not protected by the government, but rather governed by religion. Some may believe that in the 21st century women are treated equal everywhere. But many of the religious laws in these countries treat women essentially as, "Legal minors under the eternal guardianship of their male family members.” Legal minors are people that are not adults by law. Essentially these women are treated as children (http://hrw.org/women/overview-mena.html). These laws deny women equal rights, and sometimes even human rights to do things such as: marriage, divorce, child custody, and inheritance. In Lebanon, a woman cannot file for a divorce in an abusive relationship unless they have an eyewitness to say that the woman was in fact abused, even if they hold the black and blue marks of unequal rights. These are the kind of injustices that I want to eliminate.

The injustices in the Middle East regarding women do not stop at marriage rights. Many Middle Eastern countries make it illegal to have consented sex outside of marriage. In Jordan, women who have “degraded” the family’s value by having sex out of wedlock are beaten, shot, or even stabbed to death by their male dictation that they call family. What consequences do the men receive for their actions? They get reduced sentencing and sometimes even got away with their actions because the judges, who are of course male, place the crime under honor killing. As president, I would work with the ambassadors of these countries that fall to the senseless violence taken place because of the inequality of women. I would work out a compromise with the ambassadors and have them talk to the leaders of their countries.

But the Middle East is not the only place that needs to change the rights that women receive. North Africa is just as bad, if not worse. Many countries in the sub-Saharan region have no laws against domestic violence. Worse than that, spousal rape has not been turned into a criminal offense. “Husbands have an absolute right to their wives’ bodies at all times.” (http://hrw.org/women/ overview-mena.html) Basically, these men can do whatever they want to their wives with no consequences. We should change this sickening fact, and soon. We as Americans have a duty to do something about mistreated women. As president, I would not, and will not, just stand by and let this happen.

There are many ways that we can help the current situation. As president, I would use US aid as a prerogative to show that we care about the welfare of those countries, and as a jumpstart for the changing of women’s rights. With US aid, it would be easier to change the burned in values of treating women inferior. I would also start an exchange program with the countries in the Middle East and North Africa that are home to inequality. This program would educate the youth of those countries to reexamine their thinking. They would be trained to become great leaders for their countries. After 1-3 years in the United States, they would be sent back to their home countries, so that they can implement the leadership and equality towards women that they have observed and been taught. If no one is there to help the youth re-examine their thinking, then the problem cannot be fixed.

What we need to remember is that women are not property, yet women in these countries are treated that way. Women’s issues are not a thing of the past. Our future generations should not have to go through the unfair treatment that many generations before us have suffered. The great suffragist, Susan B. Anthony once said, ”The older I get, the greater power I seem to have to help the world; I am like a snowball- the further I am rolled, the more I gain”. She understood that anyone can change the world; they don’t have to be a certain age, race, shape or size to cause change. That is why I am confident all Americans could help this injustice. With these strategies, women’s rights will never be considered a second-class issue again.

Bibliography

http://hrw.org/women/overview-mena.html

http://www.quotationspage.com

http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/WomensRights.asp

back to top

-

The War on Terror - Fact or Fiction?
by Sina Duvernoy
The Northwest School, Independent
Eighth Grade

       The world remembers the day of September 11, 2001. Schools compose a moment of silence on the anniversary of that date. The friends and families who lost loved ones are reminded of their loss once a year. Now, six years from the day planes crashed into the World Trade Center, the War on Terror, a part of which being the Iraq War, rages on. Saddam Hussein has been executed and the tactical "surge" of troops has been commenced. People have returned to their daily routines in life. Yet one cannot go through a day, a week, a month, without at least wondering when the war will "end." I find myself realizing that a soldier in Iraq could be wondering if he or she will ever see their child in the future. That thousands of soldiers are sleeping, eating, killing, dying, all in the name of our country while I complain about the next day at school. I cannot help but think, "What is the true meaning of this war?" And this is why I would like to focus my attention on the global issue of the War on Terror.

It began four years ago this month. “The Iraq War.” People across the country put out their yellow ribbons, their American flags, proudly supporting their country. The news was filled with details about what was going on over there, across the ocean. Video clips of soldiers departing would flash through the news channels. It became a topic of daily conversation. But then as the days passed by, people slowly started losing the intensive interest with the war. The ribbons started disappearing, the flags put away for another time. Newspapers chronicled more close-to-home incidents, television stations back to local news. The citizens would react when the media hit a spike concerning the war, and the talk would buzz up again, only to fade away just as quickly as it started.

I remember not understanding what all the fuss was about several years ago, when I was too young to comprehend “war.” But now, seeing the pictures and movies of the horrors that occurred and are still happening to this day, I find myself saying, “What defines ‘terror’?” Given that there is no globally accepted definition to “terrorism,” it is a difficult question to answer. I remember a political conversation about terrorists my class had the other day at school, one quote from which stays in my mind: “Do they commit acts of violence because they are inspirers of terror, or because we call them terrorists?” This moved me to truly contemplate the meaning of terror. Why is it that when our troops unleashed bombs upon the military facilities in the cities in Iraq, when the civilians living in those cities were roused from their beds and looked outside to see the fiery clouds of destruction ravaging the skies, why is it that that is not called “terrorism”? Is it not fundamentally the same thing, destroying property and taking lives, despite the reasoning? It is horrific to think that the people of those cities were any less terrified than the citizens of New York were when planes crashed into the Twin Towers.

President George W. Bush claims, “The fight in Iraq is more than a conflict in one country, it is part of a larger struggle against extremism that is unfolding across the broader Middle East.” Nonetheless, the vast majority of US troops are stationed in Iraq, and they don’t seem to be leaving any time soon. The President’s reasons for entering Iraq have evaporated. Saddam Hussein has been dealt with, yet no traces of Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found. We are supposedly helping “stabilize the government,” trying to get the Sunnis and Shi’ites to stop fighting. One would think, “Are we really helping to fix things, or making it worse?” Iraqis have said that America should never have gone into Iraq, that the government was more stable when Hussein was in power, sadistic dictator or not. The thought that some would prefer a leader such as Hussein to the situation now is truly disturbing, yet we have as of now no intention of discontinuing our efforts in Iraq.

Peace rallies have occurred, fund raising drives and donations are still sending money in hopes of improving the safety qualities of the troops’ equipment. Everyone hopes that the war will end soon, that the troops will come home, that everything will stabilize. While these things may not happen in the near future, democrats in Congress are still pressing the President to set a deadline on withdrawal from Iraq and end this madness, hopefully by August of 2008. The American commander in Iraq, David Petraeus, has said that we should be able to determine the effects of the strategy of the surge in Iraq by late summer this year. Whether or not the outcome will convince the President to set a deadline is undeterminable, despite what we may hope for.

If I were elected president, I would declare a strong and sensible deadline for complete troop withdrawal from Iraq, and I would push on negotiations with the Sunnis and Shi’ites. I would push the Sunnis and Shi’ites to come to a compromise regarding their conflict, or at least get both groups to sign a treaty retraining violence. If that failed, I would still set a deadline for troop withdrawal but I would press negotiations for a peace treaty until it is signed. I would also focus on the War on Terror as a whole, not favoring the Middle East. I would make sure to remain calm and cautious about entering any war in the future, not deploying our military unless absolutely necessary, and negotiating for acceptable peace terms before taking any violent action. Always striving for peace before conflict is what a leader should do, and as a prospective candidate, that is what I would always set as my goal as president of the United States.

Bibliography

Friedman, Thomas. “Democrats must continue to press president on troop surge.” The Olympian. 25 March 2007. The Olympian Online. 25 March 2007, http://www.theolympian.com.

“National Security.” The White House. The White House. 25 March 2007,
http://www.whitehouse.gov.

“Terrorism.” Foreign Policy Association. 2005. Foreign Policy Association. 25 March 2007, http://www.fpa.org.

Zacharia, Tony. “After four years, whither Iraq.” Daily News. 25 March 2007. Tanzania Standard Newspapers. 25 March 2007, http://www.dailynews-tsn.com.

back to top

-

back to top

-

Benjamin Franklin wrote in Poor Richard's Almanac, "When the well is dry, we learn the worth of water." Across the world, people are finally understanding Franklin's words. Ultimately, the survival or destruction of civilization will depend on the availability of water. I present this scenario: in the near future, a single drop will stand between war and peace. Thousands of civilian lives may be lost over a lake, river or reservoir. As a presidential candidate and human being, I feel that it is appropriate for water scarcity to be the focal point of my campaign. It is the most important international issue that results from a variety of factors, leads to myriads of problems, cannot be easily solved, and is ripe for both governmental and moral corruption.

The 2003 World Water Development Report stated that accelerating population growth, pollution, and global warming will collide to form the greatest threat mankind has ever faced: a lack of water. In the 20th century the rate of global water usage was almost double population growth (Kirby). Severe water shortages will strike the Southwestern United States by 2025 and affect 4 billion people worldwide by 2050 (Vergano). Most Middle Eastern and North African countries are already considered to have absolute water scarcity (International). In 2025 this group will have expanded to include Pakistan, South Africa and large sections of India and China. The effects of pollution will also spread.

The increased use of pesticides and fertilizer taints clean groundwater and surface water. Large amounts of raw sewage are unceremoniously dumped into streams and oceans daily due to irresponsibility and urban overcrowding. Millions will soon join the 1.5 billion people who currently possess no access to clean drinking water (Mutume). Diseases such as cholera, malaria, and typhoid will rage through the world’s regions. These water-borne illnesses already claim two million lives annually (Cuciniello). Coupled with altering precipitation patterns due to global warming, the problems will multiply.

Water shortages will undoubtedly spawn starvation, threatening the lives of hundreds of millions of people (Borenstein). Those below the poverty line in Asia have diets relying on cereals, which compose up to 70% of their nutritional intake (Barker). Irrigated farming in Africa accounted for 88% of total water usage (Smith). In the U.S., the statistic is 80% (United). Both the underprivileged and privileged will suffer. Importing grain is an expensive option the impoverished cannot afford. One pound of beef requires 2,500 gallons of water, stretching the resources of nations that embrace Western-style diets (Shah). Clashes will erupt between urban and rural dwellers, agricultural and domestic sectors, and countries for precious water reserves.

Water plays an increasingly important role in international, as well as domestic politics and conflicts. Tamil Tiger rebels in Sri Lanka refused to open a sluice gate in July of 2006, preventing water from reaching rice farmers. Military action was taken. After the chaos subsided, seventeen aid workers were dead. Competition is also severe between India and Bangladesh, a situation mirrored between Turkey and Syria (Watkins). Notably, all recent peace agreements in the Middle East included specifications on water, where it is considered to be a “strategic resource” (Lonergan). Relations between the U.S. and Mexico were strained after the latter failed to comply with a 1944 water-sharing treaty, resulting in a “water debt” that was repaid after more than ten years (“Mexico’s”). Irrigational water from the Republican River was the subject of a heated dispute between Nebraska and Kansas, and Montana’s disagreements with Wyoming over the Tongue and Powder River basins were eventually brought to the U.S. Supreme Court (“Drought”). Not only does water scarcity threaten peace and stability, it also presents the opportunity for corruption.

Various corporations and organizations, including sections of the U.N., have encouraged privatization of water, leading to unequal access and distribution, poor quality, and high prices. In early 2007 a New Zealander stole water from kindergarten school between he could neither afford nor receive the amount of water he needed (“Water”). Financially, water shortages are a nightmare for the majority of the world’s citizens. The sole beneficiaries in this case and countless others are water companies, who have reaped huge profits resulting from the misfortune of others. Yet, while some attempt to undermine the public’s well-being, there are realistic policies that the American government can implement to improve the situation.

In order to increase corporate accountability and the conservation of water resources in general, the federal government must enact stricter laws concerning pollution. Companies must be required to devise more efficient methods of production. It is astonishing that a thousand gallons of water are required to yield a single liter of orange juice (Shah). In addition, the U.S. must increase pressure on other nations to assist in a global effort against water scarcity. Consumers must lead this movement. Though the aforementioned options cannot single-handedly halt water shortages and will cost the public, they are steps in the right direction. The cost of ignorance and inactivity will cost much more.

Grave questions arise. Is access to clean water a human right or a business transaction? What sort of legal framework should there be between countries on water resources, if any? The answers are not simple nor should they be. Water scarcity is greater than a matter of supply and demand. Governments worldwide must realize that water is not an infinitely exploitable resource that magically sanitizes and replenishes itself. Instead, it should be treated as a precious gift that is disappearing at an alarming rate. The urgency for action is immeasurable. Mark Twain once said, “Whisky is for drinking, water is for fighting over.” Water scarcity is the crisis of the future, a result of many influences, and already a major challenge, but must not become another political platform built on hollow promises. If addressed, it has the potential to bring peace. If left unaddressed, it will become a matter of violent conflict. The choice lies in your hands, my fellow Americans.

 

Bibliography

Barker, Randolph and Barbara von Koppen, et al. Water Scarcity and Poverty. 11 March 2007 <http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/pubs/WWVisn/WSandPov.htm>.

Borenstein, Seth. “Expect water shortage in 20 years.” The Gazette. 11 March 2007. 11 March 2007 <http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=effa8d22-3dd4-474f-96cd-cedb75731da5&p=2>.

Cuciniello, Christine. “Water was plague Canadians.” The Brock Press. 6 March 2007. 11 March 2007 <http://media.www.brockpress.com/media/storage/paper384/news/2007/03/06/Focus/Water.Wars.Plague.Canadians-2761188.shtml>.

“Drought triggers U.S. water wars, pits Montana against Wyoming.” U.S. Water News Online. Feb 2007. 15 March 2007 <http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcconserv/7droutrig2.html>.

International Water Management Institute. Projected Water Scarcity in 2025. 22 Feb. 2007 <http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/home/wsmap.htm>.

Lonegran, Steve. “Water and war.” Freshwater (1998). 22 Feb. 2007 <http://www.ourplanet.com/imgversn/154/lonegran.html>.

Kirby, Alex “Water scarcity: A looming crisis?” BBC News. 19 Oct. 2004. 22 Feb. 2007 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3747724.stm>.

McCarthy, Michael. “Water scarcity could affect billions: is this the biggest crisis of all?” CommonDreams.Org NewsCenter. 3 Mar. 2003. 22 Feb. 2007 <http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0305-05.htm>.

“Mexico’s Rio Grande water debt repaid.” U.S. Water News Online. October 2005. 15 March 2007 <http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcglobal/5mexiriox10.html>.

Mutume, Gumisai. “Rough road to sustainable development.” Department of Public Information: United Nations. July 2004. 22 Feb. 2007 <http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol18no2/182environ.htm>.

Shah, Anup. “Water and Development.” GlobalIssues.Org. 24Nov. 2006. 11 March 2007 <http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Development/water/>.

Smith, Russel. “Africa’s potential water wars.” BBC News. 15 Nov. 1999. 22 Feb. 2007 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/454926.stm>.

United States Department of Agriculture: Economic Research Service. Irrigation and Water Use. 1 Feb. 2001. 11 March 2007 <http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/WaterUse/Questions/qu2.htm>.

Vergano, Dan. “Water shortages will leave world in dire straits.” USA Today. 26 Jan. 2003. 15 March 2007 <http://www.usatoday/com/news/nation/2003-01-26-water-usat_x.htm>.

“Water wars on Waiheke.” NZ City. 11 March 2007 <http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/default/aspx?id=70668>.
Watkins, Kevin and Anders Berntell. “A global problem: How to avoid war over water.” International Herald Tribune. 23 Aug. 2006. 22 Feb. 2007 <http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/23/opinion/edwatkins.php>.`

back to top

-

After declaring my run for President, I prepare myself for months on the campaign trail, ready to endlessly speak and hear of the perpetual ideals of freedom, equality, and prosperity. Yet, I know that as I speak those words, the rhetoric rings empty to much of the world's population. While a privileged few bask in the luxury of modern civilization, many more live without the basic necessities and comforts of a dignified life. It is with this in mind that I determine to focus my attention on the issue of extreme poverty. Given the devastating extent of this global crisis, I possess a strong commitment to utilizing the role of the President of the United States to bring about an end to world poverty.

A quick examination of our world today reveals that a variety of woefully unnecessary barriers keep millions of individuals trapped in extreme poverty, where life is inhumanely harsh and short. Extreme poverty is widespread, as 2.7 billion people currently fight to survive on less than two dollars a day. The effects are brutal. Every day, 1 million Africans die of AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and every night more than 800 million people go to bed hungry. This humanitarian crisis is devastatingly self-perpetuating. Economic improvement requires capital, and in destitute villages where disease, starvation, and illiteracy have crippled the workforce and little to no economic infrastructure exists, such as when roads are not available, the extreme poor are seemingly trapped by their own poverty. For example, while in 1960 Africa was a net exporter of food, today the continent imports one-third of its grain (Fast). As the agricultural infrastructure began to collapse, resources could not be mustered to reverse its decline, and poverty became further entrenched. Such helplessness is the norm in many parts of the world.

The United States has the ability to break this self-replicating chain of global poverty through taking a leadership role in providing direct aid to the world’s extreme poor. It should be the objective of the developed world to harness the energy of the struggling poor by providing the basic necessities of life, such as sources of water, vaccinations for deadly diseases, and the technology to increase crop yields. This provision of a basic infrastructure to the undeveloped world is a prerequisite to any other economic or political advancement because only when communities have a sound base of healthy existence can they gain a foothold in the global economy. Furthermore, providing basic needs to all of the world’s extreme poor would require less than one percent of the GNP of developed nations (Sachs 304). Aid based relief has proven effective, such as in the Green Revolution in Asia, when the Rockefeller Foundation developed and promoted high-yield crops in nations such as India, and massive starvation was avoided. It is abundantly clear that the United States has the resources to affect massive change on a global scale; it is simply a matter of possessing the will to do so.

In addition to direct aid, the United States can help lead global efforts to promote a healthier world economic order. Foremost, the president of the United States should call for the International Monetary Fund, or IMF, and the World Bank to relieve the debts of the most highly indebted nations. Without this forgiveness of debt, “many developing countries simply cannot grow” as “huge portions of their current exports go to repaying loans to the developed countries” (Stiglitz 243). In addition, the United States can utilize its global trading authority to actively push for a reform of currently unfair trade practices such as unnecessarily high tariffs “on the products that poor countries export, like apparel and agricultural commodities” (Offenheiser 3). Indeed, direct aid will not be as effective if struggling nations cannot actually enter the global market. Finally, one of the most important steps for global reform is to give the world’s poor a greater influence in international economic matters, by taking such steps as granting developing nations more voting rights at the IMF and World Bank. Only when everyone’s voice is heard can truly global solutions be developed.

The reasons for taking these types of action are compelling from a myriad of perspectives, for there is not only a direct moral imperative to act, but eliminating poverty also benefits the United States’ national interest. Humanity is faced with the unsettling truth that over one billion people live in nearly constant suffering as a result of absolute poverty. To act is to reject complicity with the status quo and recognize the moral responsibility one has to those who have nothing. Indeed, a 2001 survey showed that an “overwhelming 87 percent” of Americans favor the United States giving aid to those in need (Sachs 340). It is time to awaken the underlying compassion of the American people and translate this ideal into action. Furthermore, economic collapse and state failure in poverty ridden nations often lead to subsequent military intervention by the United States, such as in Somalia in 1992 and 1993. Also, these failed states, where persistent hopelessness and insecurity reign, serve as havens for terrorists. Through action in addressing the horrors of extreme poverty, the United States can recognize its responsibility to the world and serve its self-interests simultaneously.

My dream of becoming president is intimately linked with the vision of utilizing the vast resources of the United States to address extreme poverty. Given the gravity of the situation, the possibilities for improvement, and the strong moral imperative to act, the issue of global poverty could not be more important. I will galvanize the American people to work towards fulfilling the obligations that world leadership entails. Perhaps then, we can take hope in noting that the too often empty rhetoric of freedom and prosperity can, with effort, be the guiding principles in an international endeavor to better the lives of all the world’s people.

Bibliography

"Fast Facts: the Faces of Poverty." Millennium Project. United Nations 2006. 21 March, 2007, http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/resources/fastfacts_e.htm.

Friedman, Thomas. The World is Flat. 1. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005.

Offenheiser, Raymond C. United States. Cong. House. Hearing on the U.S. Trade Agenda. 14 Feb. 2007. 20 Mar. 2007, http://www.oxfamamerica.org/newsandpublications/publications/briefing_papers/oxfam-america-testimony-on-u-s-trade-agenda/Oxfam_America_testimony_on_%20US_Trade_Agenda_021407.pdf/?searchterm=offenheiser, pp. 1-10.

Polaski, Sandra. "Winners and Losers." The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 2006. 17 Mar. 2007, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/BWfinal.pdf, pp. 53-73.

Sachs, Jeffrey. The End of Poverty. New York: Penguin Books, 2005.

Stiglitz, Joseph. Globalization and its Discontents. New York: Norton, 2003.

Teslik, Lee H. "Courting WTO Concerns." Council on Foreign Relations 2007. 21 March, 2007, http://www.cfr.org/publication/12918/courting_wto_concerns.html?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F2%2Feconomics, pp. 1-2.

back to top

-

back to top