Pound for Pound Matching: What is the Deal?

If you have ever donated money to charity you will be familiar with the ‘if you raise £1 then we will match it’ scheme. It is a method via which big donors can encourage you to donate to something they feel is important, to kick start a campaign, and raise awareness.

I have never really thought about these matching schemes but in reality it is confusing to say the least. Why would corporate organisations want to match equally the money raised by its employees to a wide range of charities? Well… because it is a nice thing to do obviously!

I am sceptical of this and companies’ policies often back this up. Companies tend to back a certain set of charities because a particular company director has a personal affiliation to one, it has some benefit for the company or a company genuinely feels guilty about the effects of their actions.

For instance, The Shell Foundation was caught in a scandal in 2006 as “An attempt by Shell to portray itself as a model of corporate social responsibility was undermined last night after Whitehall documents showed its charitable arm discussing a key commercial project with a British government minister”.

Shell has been cited in scandals. Do we want to get banks involved in more?

However, I am not discounting the honest work that many corporations do and the ability that these matching schemes have to encourage people to donate. What I am concentrating on is the influence matching has upon our donations. Can we justify the matching schemes ability to take donations away from those organisations that we may ‘value’ more? Money is not the end game; it is how effectively it is used that matters.

If you work at a corporation you should review the charities you are matched on as to whether you feel they are effective. If you do not then perhaps you should call a vote on them? As a corporation in a democratic society you have a right to!

Combining this with a recent TED talk by Michael Metcalfe entitled ‘We need money for aid. So let’s print it’ promises an interesting discussion.

(Insert little bio from TED which summarises it better than I could.)

During the financial crisis, the central banks of the United States, United Kingdom and Japan created $3.7 trillion in order to buy assets and encourage investors to do the same. Michael Metcalfe offers a shocking idea: could these same central banks print money to ensure they stay on track with their goals for global aid? Without risking inflation?

Interested? Watch the video here!

The bank would evidently work as the matcher, would print money to encourage confidence in the aid sector and then support the charities work. Great idea.

Yet, if this is combined with the theory discussed above then this places the banks in a powerful position. They would become the influencers in the business word and the aid sector. Often aid works to reduce the affects that corporations have upon the developing so the power which would be held in the banks mandate would surely negate this. Banks have not proven to be the most reliable in recent years.

Think before you donate!

I want to believe in the good of humanity, but just in case I would recommend not going down the lines Michael suggests.

That is it. But, I would appreciate your thoughts!

Has Iran replaced Saudi Arabia in the Middle East?

America and Iran is meeting today to discuss the latter’s nuclear policy and future relations. This development in the international community is to be honest rather obscure and not a transition many predicted. The main question this article asks is why the pleasantries? What has changed in the region that has made America keen to engage with Iran?

Likely Allies? American and Iranian talks continue.

The Near East/Middle East (yes there is a difference) is evidently a complex web of state relations. A brief overview of the area is practically impossible but I will attempt below to layout the relational history of the states discussed in this article.

America and Israel – Typically strong allies as Israel has been seen as a bloc against the extremism so feared by the Americans. Yet, with the 24^th November 2013 Geneva Interim Agreement, which eased economic sanctions on Iran in return for a freeze on its nuclear program, the relations have worsened between America and Israel. With this second round of talks Israel is watching the development with intense focus.

America and Saudi Arabia – A checkered relationship typifies the relational foreign policy of these two states. The first conflict between the two states centred on the creation of Israel and since then it has been dominated by this issue, oil, and counter-terrorism. By partnering with Saudi-Arabia, America has reduced Arab defiance to the Jewish state.

Israel and Iran – In 1947 Iran was among 13 countries that voted against the UN Partition Plan for Palestine. Two years later, Iran also voted against Israel's admission to the United Nations, and showed tacit solidarity with the Arab states during the 1948 Palestine war. After the 1979 Revolution, Iran severed all diplomatic and commercial ties with Israel, and its government does not recognize the legitimacy of Israel as a state.

However, this is a broad overview. In reality the states all help and work against the other states in divergent ways. For instance, only yesterday an article was published on Israel attempting to sell arms to Iran.

Why Iran?

So why is America courting Iran when Saudi Arabia can provide the oil needed to keep its international dominance?

Simply, it does not have enough. The Saudi oil production is beginning to flatline and thus America is looking elsewhere for oil, mainly Iraq and Iran.

Saudi Arabia's Oil dominance is showing signs of waning.

With Iraq’s security issues, Iran is a tempting partner for American oil interests but is displeasing to Israel as demonstrated by this rather untactful article in ‘The Jerusalem Post’.

Though, Ayatollah, the Iranian Supreme :eader, is not optimistic about the talks today we should not read too much into this statement. After years of opposition it would be strange for Iran and America to become strong allies. Approaching the talks with scepticism simply safeguards the Iranian government against its developments and may help to further reduce the sanctions placed on Iran.

Furthermore, this is the not the first time the Americans have worked with the Iranian. During the Bonn Conference concerning the future of Afghanistan the Iranians were vital to securing American intentions (read After the Taliban: Nation Building in Afghanistan by J. F. Dobbins for an in-depth account of this period).

It is an interesting shift in politics in the region and I look forward to the progression in these talks. It may have a knock on effect for the talks on Syria as well.

The West and its Fight against Tradition

Those familiar with Edward Said’s ‘Orientalism’, or even its source Maxime Rodinson’s ‘The Mystique of Islam’, will be aware of the orientalist vs. the oriental argument.

Yet, I would contend that we are all aware of this divide. The ‘subtle and persistent Eurocentric prejudice against Arabo-Islamic peoples and their culture’ abounds in our everyday media.  It is an ‘us against them’ mentality that has been fostered by each side to mobilise support and vilify the ‘other’.

(For a quick summary of ‘Orientalism’ by Haroon Khalid click here)

Rhetoric embedded within this perspective repeatedly fuels a misguided opinion and furthers the continuing conflict between Western and other cultural values. It becomes an ‘I know better’ format of international aid which frequently fails to understand the subtle cultural ties and aggravates current issues.

Gender disputes further complicate this debate.

I try every day to browse the BBC website to keep up to date with the news but frequently I become distracted by some obscure articles. I feel many of us suffer from this short attention span and random features grab our highly ‘media focused’ minds. The article “Kenya’s Battle to End ‘Sex for Fish’ Trade” is one such topic that drew my attention away from Syria and the like.

(Read it here)

Fishing is the major economy around Lake Victoria

A Differing Perspective

Evidently what is occurring on the shores of Lake Victoria is ‘wrong’ from a Western perspective as women are trapped into a situation which they cannot avoid. It concerns and centres upon their livelihoods.

It is encouraging to hear of Agnes Auma’s self-mobility as a product of a targeted international aid project. Her self-mobility is the form of aid that I have been suggesting to the international aid community for a while now when I speak on these issues. By creating an example of how the gender roles may be altered it encourages other women to mobilise and for men to realise their own shortcomings.

Nonetheless, it is important to recognise that by bashfully trying to 'educate' cultures and declare what is ‘wrong’ or right’ is firstly hypocritical and secondly negates its causal nature.

As a Western culture we have a certain set of values and standards which are not necessarily ‘right’ though I hope that many would agree that we have progressed a long way. Freedom of speech, universal suffrage and the right to a fair trial are honest intentions though often our systems fall short. Surely, that is just human nature we cry? Our traditions are born out of centuries of trial and error which we cannot confess to be the ultimate format. 

Causally, men are simply following the traditions passed down by their fathers. They may have some innate idea that what they are doing is ‘wrong’ but it is wrongly/rightfully legitimised by the tradition they have inherited. By attempting to rapidly change this we risk alienating men who feel threatened by this new force in their community. They may regress to even more traditional understandings of gender relations in an attempt to consolidate their prominent position in society.

In summary, some practices conducted by men in the developing world are not ‘right’ but we must understand that we are approaching these issues with a wholly Western perspective. We should work to comprehend the community’s traditions and encourage women to self-mobilise their rights. By women advocating their rights with international support these sort of practices are likely to change for a better future.

Flooding: It's Time for an Individual Response

As my car immobiliser suffers from water damage due to Renault’s somewhat lacklustre attempt at engineering I cannot help think of the plight of others within the UK. We are in a severe situation as the Governor of the Bank of England has mentioned that the effects on those flooded will influence the UK’s economic situation. Forgive me for taking on the often quoted Darwinian phrase but is it ‘survival of the fittest’ when we consider flooding?

Flooding has become an issue that this nation continues to suffer from and the future does not appear to be forgiving. As a nation we are over-populated and continuing to place houses on flood plains is common alongside a form of flood defence to alleviate issues. Yet, as humans are we taking a step too far? Can nature truly be restrained?

Simply, yes we are fighting a battle we cannot win. Nature has no master, is relentless, and attempting to build large-scale flood defences has had limit success. The failed flood defences of Ruthin, North Wales in late 2012 offer a typical example of these ineffective solutions.

The UK seems to have limited solutions to this issue as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) wrote a consultation paper in 2013 to ensure ‘property insurance continues to be widely available and affordable in areas of flood risk in the UK’. This is a resolution rather than prevention to flooding.

Flooding is only going to get worse

From a macro consideration the world is consistently impacting human activity yet other states have learnt to adapt. Japan is afflicted by earthquakes and has adopted measures to reduce the damage it can bring. Surely we should adopt a similar response.

But it is not a national response but an individual response. We need to move on from a reliance on state because in this present economic situation the state can do very little. If you live in a flood-prone area it may be time to adapt. We cannot consistently rely on insurance (though you should check if you can get it!) You must research the area before you move there to prepare yourself for the eventuality.

This is a good video on how a couple in Oxford have adapted

It’s time to leave the government and the economy to deal with the plight of farmers as their entire life is at risk. Damning rivers or stopping floods flooding the flood plains can only logically cause issues. Consider how you can make your homes more resistant and check out the area before you move. It may be ‘picturesque’ now but it will not be when 3ft of water comes smashing through the door. It won’t even knock.

Karzai Renegades on Allied Support

Two prisons both central to concerns over human rights. One prison released its inmates against American wishes and one prison holds 166 detainees despite being the focus of an executive order.

What is all this about?

In the news today 65 detainees of Bagram prison have been released by the Afghan government. Bagram has often been described as the Guantanamo Bay of Afghanistan and contains the alleged troop commanders, bombers and other notables of the Taliban forces. With the upcoming Afghan elections on the 5th April it is worth considering why Karzai has done this? It has affected the relationship between the American and Afghani government. So was it all worth it?

Discussion over Afghanistan's future centers on whether the Taliban will regain control of the region. Karzai is aware of the threat the Taliban hold and therefore seems to be edging away from the Americans to secure the progression he has made.

A few factors support this:

1. Karzai has backed away from signing the Bi-Lateral Security Agreement in November as he wishes to forestall it till after the next elections. Yet, this contradicts the Loya Jirga, a grand assembly of elders, who approved of the agreement and asked Karzai to sign it as soon as possible. The rational behind his refusal to engage in this agreement is likely linked to the calls by the Pashtun to take a harder stance against the Americans.

2. Aid is another concern. After skimming through the book 'War Front to Store Front' by Paul Brinkley I was surprised to learn that 60% of the GDP of Afghanistan is foreign aid, 30% is from the narcotics trade, and 10% is economic activity. Drawing conclusions from these figures, I consider Karzai to be concerned about is whether the government he leaves behind will function without American backing. If American backing is pulled from Afghanistan and the government is wholly reliant on it then it will collapse. Karzai is attempting to make the government independent from America to encourage other sources of economic support and growth.

Bagram is another disagreement between Karzai and America

What makes this situation challenging for Allied Forces is that they are unable to logistically plan for the future of Afghanistan. Do we continue to fight to secure what we have gained or do we except that we have lost the fight and leave it to the Afghan people to dictate their future? Will Karzai's attempt to distance his government from America help weakening his government and enabling the Taliban to gain further control?

Finally, how can America be so committed to removing Guantanamo Bay but then condemn Karzai's decision to close Bagram? Human rights and the hypocrisy we often breed is concerning.