Happy Mothers Day!

Posted: May 12, 2012 in Uncategorized

To all the women that have struggled to make this world a better place for other women – you are all of our mothers!  thank you!  

 

Image

Enough Project has worked with funny or die – to produce a pretty funny short film – its a parody on KONY 12 – however what it is really is a call to action – the action however does not claim to end a war – its goal is to build awareness and to inspire people to send the letter below to President Obama.  This is a realistic goal that does not cost much more than some time and a phone call and is an action the primary viewers can do to impact policy.  There is a clear connection between the action and the result.  Unlike KONY 2012… where buying a bracelet and targeting youth who are unable to vote to END a WAR surely is a bit off target.

Here is the video and below is the is the letter… and here is the enoughproject site to get more info

 

 

 

Dear President Obama,

I applaud your decision to deploy U.S. military advisors to assist regional counter-LRA efforts. This is an important step towards a more effective strategy to bring an end to the LRA crisis. But unless an urgent need is addressed, it will be nearly impossible to find Joseph Kony. The main force trying to find Kony has been cut in half and is not allowed to operate in Congo, where most of the LRA is located. A robust Africa-U.S.-Europe partnership is urgently needed. The four key elements of this partnership should be:

1)    Troops: President Obama should call on African governments to deploy capable forces to help find Kony;
2)    Intelligence: A surge of U.S. intelligence support; and
3)    Transport: Logistical assistance from European countries.

4)    Defection strategy: aid and radio towers to make sure that LRA fighters know they have a safe place to come out.

I urge you to reach out to your African and European counterparts to secure their support.

When you signed the historic, widely-supported LRA legislation into law last May, you called the nearly 25 year-long LRA crisis a “unique crisis of conscience.” It’s time for your administration to act with all the urgency required to fulfill congressional intent and create a African-U.S.-European partnership capable of finally ending the LRA.

 

President Barack Obama

Phone:(202) 456-1111
Fax:(202) 456-2461

Sincerely,

The making and breaking of Kony 2012,

most things about KONY 2012 have been said.. and mostly said very eloquently, ubiquitously and oftenly (?).  The good, the bad and the ugly have taken over our FB newsfeeds and Twitter streams… while perhaps Invisible Children have gained in popularity – over exposure of social media has also come at a price.  Jason Russell was arrested for being drunk and masturbating in public at 11:30 AM Thursday 3/15/2012 in San Diego.

This is really tragic.  It’s sad for Jason, his family and Invisible Children as an organization.

It is also tragic for those that have lived under the tyranny of the LRA in Uganda, Congo, South Sudan etc..  It is sad that it seems their future hangs in the balance of the good or bad behavior of a marketing/advocacy organization far removed from the conflict.

Sustainable peace can only come when there is an INTERNAL effort to push for it.  Military force, outside mediation, blockades or huge media campaigns can change dynamics for a while.  But unless the INTERNAL actors have a voice and say in their own future,  it will always be a foreign element.  I do believe that Invisible Children was trying to amplify and augment that voice, unfortunately it became more about their (Invisible Children) organization and less about the cause.  These are distractions, sad sad distractions… My only hope is that we can focus on the real issues here.

Reblogged from my post on www.osocio.org

- google logo in the USA 1/18/2012

Its Hollywood VS Silicon Valley

SOPA: Stop Online Piracy Act
PIPA: PROTECT IP Act

Jan. 18, 2012 is the designated SOPA blackout day.  In protest prominent websites: Wikipedia, Go Daddy, Reddit and over 10,000 other sites are planning to go dark to contest two bills working through Congress. The bills will go before the US Congress on Jan 24th, where they will vote to pass internet censorship in the Senate, even though the vast majority of Americans are opposed.

The bills are supported by Hollywood and the entertainment industry – Silicon Valley, representative of many who want to kill the bill in the House, say they want to protect rights to free speech, privacy, and prosperity.  


The campaign to boycott is mostly crowdsourced in that individuals, groups, organizations and internet business have created their own content to express themselves.  Twitter especially has seen large numbers of avatars covered with a black box censored. Youtube, at the time of writing had over 30,000 video results to the SOPA search.  Wikipedia is shut down – only with a message requesting Zip codes which directs viewers to contact their local government officials

WANT to PROTEST? If you would like to participate with changing your avatar or shutting down your website for a day here’s a great link http://sopastrike.com/

From Wikipedia:

“Call your elected officials.

Tell them you are their constituent, and you oppose SOPA and PIPA.
Why?

SOPA and PIPA put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material and call for the unnecessary blocking of entire sites. Small sites won’t have sufficient resources to defend themselves. Big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for their foreign competitors, even if copyright isn’t being infringed. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won’t show up in major search engines. SOPA and PIPA build a framework for future restrictions and suppression.

In a world in which politicians regulate the Internet based on the influence of big money, Wikipedia — and sites like it — cannot survive.

Congress says it’s trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the “cure” that SOPA and PIPA represent is worse than the disease. SOPA and PIPA are not the answer: they will fatally damage the free and open Internet.”

Recently I have been writing/developing what I am calling “The SSBCC for Peace Framework.”  It  aims to be comprehensive yet simple and user friendly method which  shows the integration of social marketing and communications strategies with conflict resolution/ peacebuilding interventions which may be applied to universally to conflict contexts.

Strategic Social and Behavioral Change Communications for Peace

The SSBCC for Peace framework, much like what should ideally take place in the conflict resolution and peacebuilding field always begins and ends by listening to the target population and understanding the needs and wants that drives behaviors.

The framework calls the targeted audience “conflict consumers.”   The term highlights the environmental factors that are a reality for conflict consumer in that as actors in a conflict they function within a conflict economy and make use of the goods and services generated within it.

A conflict consumer has the agency to change their own personal knowledge, attitudes or behavior and influence others to do so and thus impact the conflict dynamics. The status of “conflict consumer” is one, in which the actor currently finds him/herself, not the state they could or would like to be in.  A conflict consumer is for the most part inextricably connected to the conflict and thus are central to the causes and dynamics of a conflict.

Since the conflict consumers are central to any strategic communications or behavioral change communications program, listening to them takes place at the beginning and throughout the process. And strategy begins and ends with the Conflict Consumers.

But…its not so easy…

Changing behaviors in conflict areas is a difficult task – mostly because many do not have the self efficacy to do so.

Last November Monica Cyberland, communications professional who blogs at eventures in Cyberland posted an entry called : Video Clip of The Month: Do Aid Workers Need PR 101 about Amy Lockwood’s  TED talk  (her current role is deputy director of Stanford’s Center for Innovation in Global Health)

The talk is called “Selling Condoms in Congo” 

The crux of Amy Lockwoods talk was about the seemingly lack of knowledge the development field has of  who the target audience is – specifically of Health Communications and Social marketing interventions in Congo aiming at increasing condom use.

Monica in Cyberland  responded with some great insight. I will quote her since I cannot say it better,  She said:

“After viewing her talk, I was a little stunned. Unlike every other TED video I’ve seen (I love, love, love, TED Talks), her talk was filled with misinformation, half truths, and flawed health communications concepts:

  1. Lockwood assumes people in the DCR are thinking about sex before they use condoms. That certainly is true in the United States. But years of brutal civil war have helped make the prevalence ofrape and other sexual violence in the DRC arguably the worst in the world. In conflict zones, rebels storm villages in the dead of night, setting homes on fire, shooting men, gang-raping women, and committing other atrocities that will literally give you nightmares. According to USAID, about 25.6 percent of women who have suffered sexual violence in the DRC’s conflict areas are HIV-positivecompared with 1.8 percent of women in the general population. Obviously, a significant proportion of at-risk people involved in sex acts in the DRC have terror and aggression, not sex and fun, on their minds. Marketing perpetuating the message that women are objects would likely only aggravate this nightmare.
  2. Just because the veiled promise of sex sells perfume, jeans, and underwear doesn’t necessarily mean the certainty of sex sells condoms. I’m doubtful of that leap. Lockwood’s four-minute talk doesn’t address any quantitative or qualitative measures she used to document the marketing superiority of generic brands with provocative packaging. She only mentions some anecdotal evidence she obtained through her personal conversations. To convince me, you would need to point to some surveys, focus groups, observational studies, etc. to support such claims. You’d also need to show the competing products were otherwise the same and price, quality, and placement/availability weren’t contributing factors.
  3. Fear is not typically a message major donors would use to promote condom use or most other types of desired behavior change. Fear messages often don’t work because information has little or no effect on behavior. Rather, your marketing and messages need to give people a sense of self efficacy or invoke social pressure/community norms among other things. For example, a sex worker (a critical audience segment) in the DRC who needs money to feed her family and pay her children’s school fees (school there is not free) must feel she has the power to insist her clients use condoms without risking losing them. Neither fear messages about the dangers of AIDS/HIV nor provocative packaging will give that to her. What does developing messages that address self efficacy or social pressure/community norms typically entail? Not simply knowing who your audience is. It means researching what members of each key audience segment perceive as the benefits and barriers to changing their behavior.
  4. I personally find it hard to believe many donor agencies put funding statements on condoms as a marketing strategy. USAID, for example, does sometimes get flack for putting its logo and “this assistance is from the American people” on aid items. Condoms, however, are one the exceptions to its contract marking policy (see section 320.3.2.5). I find it odd the picture Lockwood used to demonstrate her point in her presentation says UNMIL. UNMIL, as far as I know, stands for the United Nations Mission in Liberia. Liberia is nowhere near the DRC.
  5. Off the communications topic but still noteworthy, Lockwood claims the DRC is the largest country in Africa. It’s not. Algeria recently became the largest country in Africa after South Sudan broke away from Sudan, which used to be the largest, in July. Perhaps she misspoke and meant sub-Saharan Africa? If not, the comment makes her appear to be a rookie.
  6. Also off the communications topic, Lockwood attributes the lack of life-saving drugs for HIV/AIDS victims in the DRC to “poor infrastructure.” The DRC is one of the poorest countries in the world and some bush areas are inaccessible in the rainy season. Many people in the DRC do not even have access to aspirin, refrigerators to safely store life-saving medicines and vaccines, insecticide-treated bed nets to combat malaria, or basic sterile supplies to help prevent mothers from bleeding to death in childbirth. Unfortunately, HIV/AIDS drugs are just one of a zillion unmet needs there. Brutal civil war, extreme poverty, and donor prioritization in the face of heart-breaking need, not “poor infrastructure,” are to blame.
  7. Perhaps most importantly, condoms are simply not available in most areas of the DRC. For this reason, it’s a little far fetched to suggest marketing or packaging are to blame for only 3 percent of the population using them.”
While peacebuilders do not “sell” condom use, we do “sell” peaceful beliefs, attitudes and behaviors we would like the the conflict consumers to adopt.  Also in a conflict context like the DRC, the conflict consumers may be the same people so the example is very valuable and applicable.
The most important here is the issue of self-efficacy. That is “Who really has the choice to decide to use or not to use condoms…and is making mad passionate love, really the main reason people are having unsafe sex in Congo? While these may be very difficult questions to prove, they are important to research and gather data about.
In peacebuilding we have similar questions;  do the people we are reaching have the choice to reconcile? can they stop their involvement in the conflict, can they choose to join the “other side” etc?
Or perhaps instead are there structures and forces at work that make it difficult?  While I do not believe in a structural only orientation to peacebuilding interventions, nor an actor only orientation, rather it might be a System Approach that is called for.
 Often a conflict consumer is chosen because they have the ability to change the dynamics and factors of the current conflict.  It may also be that investing in these particular conflict consumers  may curb the possibility of future conflicts.
Depending on the type of intervention the most appropriate conflict consumer will be chosen.
It could be working with the most vulnerable or the most victimized in a conflict: women and children, but it can also be groups who may be actively involved in perpetuating the violence because their interests have yet to be met. They can be unengaged populations, aloof leadership, rebel groups, ex-combatants, or youth gangs.
Interventions may attempt to counter extremism, foster atmosphere of hope in the future, engage idle hands, demobilize, and counter temptations to go back into criminality, rebuild social networks, mediate grievances between hardline members and help them resolve their own conflicts.
One important aspect of identifying the conflict consumer is to not categorize by groups, but by the behavior that is sought to change and if the conflict consumers have ability to perform it.
Subnote:
in all fairness – here is Amy Lockwoods response to Monica’s evaluation on her Blog: From My Soapbox – It Stings Like a Slap in the Face
Where she admits the talk was just her opinion and not based on research into how the targeted populations were chosen by the implementing agency and if there were other factors involved…

Please take poll,  If you know of any specific cases, tv, radio or media programing that has shown incitement or de-escalation I am especially interested. You can post these below or attach them to a twitter reply for @peaceforsale  on the left hand side, or click like on the facebook page and post there.  I will be posting results and analysis on Facebook in the coming week/s. 

Media and Communications in peacebuilding

By: ICTWorks

Avoiding the Digital Divide Hype in Using Mobile Phones for Development To all of you digital divide warriors out there – nice work. With over 483 million mobile phone subscriptions in low-income countries – an estimated 44.9% penetration rate, few will deny the success of your efforts to expand mobile technology in the developing world. Rapid mobile growth rates further exhibit success in dissemination, and stats such as, “There are more mobile phones than toilets in India,“ and “There are more mobile phones than light bulbs in Uganda,” make us smile and feel all warm and fuzzy inside. While it’s true that, in most cases, these numbers exhibit stimulation in local economies, there are some fuzzy lines when it comes to determining what these numbers mean in terms of mobile phone access and development. The data shows that mobile technology is expanding, but does this necessarily mean that access to technology is coinciding with the expansion? Unfortunately, the answer to this question is somewhat blurred. UNDP’s report, Mobile Technologies and Empowerment, attempts to thoroughly and accurately depict the current contexts of mobile technologies in the developing world and then goes on to recount and suggest effective means for applying them to promote sustainable development. Practitioners can throw out all sorts of promising data about mobile phone subscriptions, but the fact is that these numbers do not equate to mobile phone ownership. In fact, according to the report, only 10% of the population in the world’s least developed countries has an individual mobile phone subscription, and 40% of the population in these countries is not even covered by mobile phone networks. Why is ownership so much lower than penetration? The report goes on to point out that costs for mobile technology ownership in the least developed countries remain high, potentially amounting to 15.75% of monthly average per capita income. In such cases, “mobile phones [can] actually undermine development if they only create further expenses for poor people.” While the poorest individuals in a country may not be able to afford a mobile phone, others may have more than one subscription, boosting penetration percentages. Access to mobile phones becomes even blurrier when considering that an estimated 80-90% of the people in these countries can access a cell phone within their community regardless of financial status. I hope that this doom and gloom spiel on the current standings of mobile technology didn’t dampen your spirits too much. Knowing where we stand in terms of mobile technology penetration is pivotal to successful M4D initiative development. Now that we’ve clarified the context of mobile penetration, it is possible to highlight some considerations for mobiles in development. 1) Like it or not, the digital divide still exists. Don’t ignore it. With relatively few individuals in developing countries actually in possession of a personal mobile device, expansive development initiatives need to avoid the expectation of ownership. The report asserts: Given the still relatively high cost of mobile phones and services in developing countries, specially in the LDCs, projects targeting broad development goals such as democratic governance, health, education, and justice, for instance, should not fall in to the “digital divide” trap and emphasize ownership of devices. 2) A mobile in the hand is worth nothing without effective means for use in the bush. By themselves, mobiles do not have the power to alleviate poverty. They should therefore always be part of larger development programs that address broad development goals. Getting phones in the hands of individuals is meaningless if the users do not understand the ways in which they can be leveraged. The point here is that mobile phones alone are not a solution to any problem, but, with well-developed planning, they can be effective tools for solving a problem. UNDP’s report describes numerous instances where mobile technology was effectively used as a tool for addressing a broad development goal within the context of the developing world. The advantages that mobile technologies can provide over other ICTs in developing countries are irrefutable. They’re less expensive. They enable two-way conversation. They don’t require high literacy. The list goes on. There’s no question that mobiles can play a significant role in the developing world, but their implementation requires consideration of concrete contexts and plans for sustainable goal achievement. UNDP’s report describes these contexts and provides considerations for implementing mobile technology in order to empower people in developing countries.
Via www.ictworks.org

Media and Communications in peacebuilding

A senior United Nations official who has visited the Libyan cities of Bani Walid, Sirte and Misrata, which saw some of the most intense fighting during last year’s military campaign to oust Muammar al-Qadhafi’s regime, said today he was impressed…
Via www.un.org

Media and Communications in peacebuilding

Beth Liebert, a Google Project Manager who presented at the discussion, highlighted the speed and impact of such tools. Referring to the use of crowdsourcing in the immediate aftermath of March’s earthquake in Japan, Beth explained that …
Via www.crowdsourcing.org