Comments (0)

By Debbie, June 20, 2010

Guest Blogger: Anna Sandor

Maternal Mortality—Progress, but not Enough

43^rd Commission on Population and Development

The theme of the 43rd UN Commission on Population and Development concentrated on Health, Morbidity and Mortality; however, a primary sub-topic was that of extending health care to all by exposing and rectifying gender inequality. Protecting women is important for multiple reasons—the most obvious being that they are the key to ensuring a healthy population and sustainable birth rates. Birth rates, in turn, directly impact economic development through human capital.  Thus, if a sustainable and healthy growth rate of economic development is directly in the country’s interest, and this economic growth can only be reached only through gender empowerment, it is imperative for countries to address the specific health care access issues that women face.  The New York Times, during the convention, published an article about the decline in overall maternal morbidity globally.  Despite this, a common theme at the convention was the use of the NYT article by NGOs and country representatives as motivation to continue efforts to reduce gender inequalities instead of as a reason to slow them down.  After all, the situation remains dire in developing and least developed countries.  Pregnancy and childbirth is still the leading cause (globally) of death in 16-25 women.  54 million people worldwide still suffer from complications with pregnancy. In addition, sexual and reproductive problems are still 18% of the global disease burden. Maternal mortality is especially grave in Sub-Saharan Africa, where women face a 1 in 16 lifetime risk of dying from pregnancy related causes. Every country has a responsibility to reduce maternal mortality rates in order to advance human fulfillment, as well as economic development Thus, a major theme at the conference was that the recent NYT article should not dissuade us from continued efforts towards progress, but should remind us of all the work that is left.

Despite the positive advancements globally, maternal deaths in East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa fail to be adequately addressed. Moreover, the international community has a moral and social obligation to commit to addressing maternal mortality in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals 4, 5, 6, and 3. These involve reducing child mortality, improving maternal health through universal access to reproductive health care, combating HIV/AIDS (1.5 million of the 2 million that die each year from HIV are children and women and women are 1.2 times more likely to be infected than men), and promoting gender equality. Three of the eight Millennium Development Goals are related to health.  Most of these, particularly reproductive health, are important for the short-run, as well as long-run Millennium Development Success.

In order to continue advancing towards the goal, barriers in ensuring women’s health must be tackled.  Unequal access issues must be addressed. Tackling these barriers requires initiatives at local and national levels to ensure sustainability. One barrier to access is the lack of a working health care system.  Delivering an functional health care system requires effective engineering.  The second large barrier is social inequality. Social and legal disadvantages yield unequal power relations and are a major obstacle in health care access for women. Empowerment of women is vital to ensure women’s health and ensures lower rates of gender based violence. This is vital, because women that are abused are 50% more likely to be HIV positive (according to Planned Parenthood).

Another barrier is the lack of access to family planning. Funding for this globally has almost halved and universal access to reproductive health has suffered as a result.  According to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, one of the main pillars of development is family planning.   Efforts to reform family planning should continue through civil society organizations that complement government organizations. After all, the facts are stark: 215 million people don’t have access to contraceptives.  Access would prevent millions of unwanted pregnancies.

Global cooperation is clearly needed on the issue of maternal morbidity.  Internationally funded support programs are imperative.  This requires advocates and politicians to raise awareness.  Many NGOs at the Commission recommended increased budget allocations towards women’s health. Some even recommended that donor countries commit . Seven percent of GDP to global and domestic programs for reproductive rights. The next commission will concentrate on adolescence and youth, and the role of maternal morbidity will be a continuing theme at this commission as well.

Comments (0)

By Debbie, June 15, 2010

GUEST BLOGGER: JEN KALAIDIS

From a Delegates Perspective: the 43^rd session of the UN Commission on Population and Development

By Jen Kalaidis

The 43^rd session of the United Nation’s Commission on Population and Development, entitled “Health, Morbidity, and Mortality,” met April 12-16, 2010 in New York City.

The main focus of this year’s Commission addressed the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and their likelihood of success as the 2015 deadline draws near.  While reports indicate that countries made commendable progress in areas such as eradicating extreme poverty and hunger and reducing childhood mortality rates, much of the progress varies by region.  Many middle-income countries, such as Brazil, South Africa, India and China have succeeded in cutting the proportion of inhabitants living in extreme poverty, despite the growing income disparities.   The least developed countries (LDCs), particularly those in Sub-Saharan Africa, however, are falling short of these goals.

While the Committee noted that there is still much work to be done to achieve those particular MGDs, it focused more heavily on two other goals, improving Maternal Health and Promoting Gender Equality/Empowering Women, two shortcomings which transcend regional borders.

One of the most effective means to improve maternal health is increasing the accessibility to affordable and quality healthcare.  This means that a woman needs to have the option of seeing a primary care physician throughout the term of her pregnancy to guarantee the healthy progress of both herself and her unborn child.  Currently many women do not get this support.  They may see a physician only for delivery or, in many cases, not at all.  Building more hospitals, especially in rural areas, along with devising a more progressive universal health care plan, are a few of the realistic means proposed by the Commission to achieve this MGD.

Another component to improving global maternal health is increasing reproductive health education and accessibility.  While these programs would be much less expensive than expanding primary care, they face many cultural and religious boundaries.  Women speaking openly about their questions about sexual health remains taboo in many regions of the world.  Thus, many women are unable to receive education about sexual health or receive family planning services that would increase maternal health.

Similar cultural barriers also threaten the achievement of the other MGD, Promoting Gender Equality/Empowering Women.  Despite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the de jure guarantee of gender equalities, many women from all parts of the world are treated as second-class citizens.  In large families, the sons go to school and the daughters stay home, which perpetuates the second-class citizenship of women.  Additionally, employment across the globe is gendered, where women receive significantly less remunerations for the labor than men. The Commission did take into consideration cultural sensitivities, but it advocated for giving each country and each woman the option to participate in programs that promoted gender equality and the empowerment of women.

Another significant topic of this year’s commission was the rise in non-communicable diseases overtaking communicable diseases as the leading cause of global mortality (60% of all deaths are now due to non-communicable diseases).  While life expectancies are rising in most of the world, this trend is problematic for countries’ continuing development because it leads to populations who are less healthy, less productive, and who are draining their countries budget by skyrocketing medical costs.

The Commission traced the roots of this trend to new agricultural practices coupled with urbanization and industrialization.  Rapid industrialization has changed the way food is produced, which directly affects the availability of foods.  Individuals used to eat locally grown food, with an emphasis on grains, vegetables, and legumes, with meat seen as more of a luxury. Yet, due to factory farming and increased exports/imports, individuals today have a diet that is high in meat and diary and low in whole grains and vegetables.  Additionally, populations now consume more sweetened beverages due to water scarcity and decreased prices.

The more sedentary lifestyle associated with urbanization also contributes to the increased mortality rates from non-communicable diseases.  As more and more people are moving into cities and industries are moving away from manual labor, people are becoming less active.  These new trends in food consumption, diet, and lifestyle play a large role in increased rates of obesity, which leads to many of the above mentioned non-communicable diseases.

While these new trends remain problematic, the good news is that non-communicable diseases are preventable.  Barry Pompkin, Professor of Nutrition at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and author of the book The World is Fat, presented many solutions to combat mortality rates due to non-communicable diseases.  Pompkin’s approach stressed prevention over curing, and he proposed many ideas how to reverse the trends.  For one, Pomkin stressed the importance of education to make people more aware of what they are eating and how it affects their health.  While he did not propose any significant reforms in subsidies, he did advocate for a more regulatory governments to help promote good health.  He cites many effective initiatives done by the French and British governments to help reduce the consumption of unhealthy diets.  Both countries prohibit or limit the accessibility of sweetened beverages in schools, as well as provide healthy meals.  Additionally, France prohibits television advertisements for young children to try to reduce the demand for unhealthy products.  Many governments are also pressuring corporations to exclude many additives and preservatives that have an adverse affect on health.

In short, the 43^rd Commission of Population and Development, entitled “Health, Morbidity, and Mortality”, focused specifically on the two MGDs of improving maternal health and promoting gender equality, as well as analyzed the new trend of the highest rates of global mortality being attributed to non-communicable diseases.  Working towards ameliorating these problematic trends, then, would lead to healthier, more productive societies that would make achieving all the MGDs, as well as development more broadly, more likely.

Comments (0)

By Debbie, June 13, 2010

Fundraising Board Member Job Description

CASIN seeks an enthusiastic individual with experience in fundraising to become a member to the board of directors. This unpaid position, approximately 5 hours a week, is a great opportunity for someone looking to gain more experience in nonprofit fundraising.

CASIN: The Council for American Students in International Negotiations is a membership-based society that strives to deepen the commitment of American students to multilateral discourse through scholarship and engagement with intergovernmental and supranational institutions and the processes that govern them.
CASIN is an educational non-profit, non-governmental 501(c)(3) organization providing young Americans unprecedented access to the international policymaking process. Its primary activities consist of (1) organizing student delegations to meetings of supranational and intergovernmental bodies such as the United Nations, the Assembly of States Parties of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the Pan-American Health Organization, and the Biennial Meeting of States on Small Arms; and (2) the production of peer-reviewed scholarly journals on topics of international importance.

Required Skills:
-Successful fundraising experience
-Knowledge of funders
-Grant-writing skills
-Passion and commitment to CASIN’s mission
-Experience with nonprofits or international organizations

Preferred Skills:
-Experience with international negotiations, law or the UN system
-Leadership experience with student organizations

Please send cover letter and resume to board@americanstudents.us by July 1, 2010

Comments (0)

By Debbie, June 3, 2010

Great Opportunity to get involved in our organization for those with social media skills. This will be conducted completely with online communication and can be done from home!

Social Media Intern

CASIN seeks a budding social media guru to aid in revamping CASIN’s social media strategy and outreach. This is an unpaid, part-time internship with opportunity to develop communication, outreach and marketing skills at a nonprofit with national reach.

CASIN: The Council for American Students in International Negotiations is a membership-based society that strives to deepen the commitment of American students to multilateral discourse through scholarship and engagement with intergovernmental and supranational institutions and the processes that govern them.
CASIN is an educational non-profit, non-governmental 501(c)(3) organization providing young Americans unprecedented access to the international policymaking process. Its primary activities consist of (1) organizing student delegations to meetings of supranational and intergovernmental bodies such as the United Nations, the Assembly of States Parties of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the Pan-American Health Organization, and the Biennial Meeting of States on Small Arms; and (2) the production of peer-reviewed scholarly journals on topics of international importance.

The ideal candidate will have
- Proven success with social media strategy
- Photoshop skills
- HTML skills
- Commitment to CASIN’s mission
- Experience with student organizations

To apply please send a resume and a cover letter to board@americanstudents.us. We are looking to fill the internship ASAP.

Comments Off

By Bernhard Kuschnik, April 12, 2010

On 31 March 2010, Pre-Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court (ICC) held by majority decision that the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) may commence an investigation proprio motu for crimes against humanity allegedly committed in the Republic of Kenya in relation to the post-election violence of 2007 – 2008. Ratione temporis, the OTP may now investigate crimes from 1 June 2005 (the date of the Rome Statute’s entry into force for the Republic of Kenya) to 26 November 2009 (the date of the filing of the Prosecutor’s Request to allow the investigation).

The Decision, which can be accessed at http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc854562.pdf, has great political and legal implications, as it represents the ICC’s first major ruling showcasing its understanding of the legal elements of crimes against humanity as stipulated in Article 7 of the ICC Statute. ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo opened the OTP Press Conference on 1 April 2010 by reiterating the Decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber, stating “The judges decided. There will be justice in Kenya.” Ocampo stressed that the OTP will conduct the investigations with fairness and impartibility, and with respect for every party in the proceedings, holding “I will engage in this process with the Kenyans, with all the communities. This Court is their Court. Kenyan leaders – women, youth, tribal, judicial, political, religious, all have a role to play. I want to understand them and analyze how my office and all Kenyans can work together to prevent of future violence.”  Ocampo’s eagerness to highlight the process was possibly due to the trouble the OTP faced in the Lubanga and Katanga/Chui trials regarding compliance with the law on disclosure – particularly Article 54(3)(e) of the ICC Statute.

From a legal perspective, the Decision touched on some of the very foundations of the law governing the ICC. The majority found that in accordance with the purpose of the ICC Statute, the general threshold for authorizing an investigation are to be seen as rather low, claiming that, at this stage of the proceedings, the OTP may present to the Chamber any information that may lead to the result when there is a reasonable basis to believe that crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC had been committed. The Chamber held that the wording ‘reasonable basis to proceed’, included verbatim in Articles 15  and 53 of the ICC Statute, concerned with the role of the Prosecutor and the initiation of an investigation, respectively, displays the same harmonized standard.

As for the interpretation of the legal elements of crimes against humanity, the Court interpreted the contextual element of ‘attack’, which, pursuant to Article 7(2)(a) of the ICC Statute, includes ‘a State or organizational policy’, progressively. The Court held that not only state, or de facto state policy, but also a non – state policy may be sufficient. Not the formal nature and the level of the ‘organization’ should be decisive to form the required policy, but the level of infringement of basic human rights.

ICC Judge Hans Peter Kaul disagreed in a comprehensive and well-written dissenting opinion comprising of no less than 80 pages.  Regarding the standard for opening an investigation, and while agreeing with the majority on the general standard of ‘reasonable basis to proceed’, Kaul stressed that some caution should be exercised as to what sort and quality of information may satisfy this standard. Kaul claimed that contrary to national prosecutions, the OTP should not be allowed to present simply any sort of information, but rather only information that is adequately reliable and credible, because opening proceedings at the ICC may lead to serious multilateral implications. Furthermore, the ICC only concerns itself with the gravest international crimes of universal concern. Thus, the well known national standard of ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ should be handled more strictly in ICC proceedings. In the case at hand, Kaul concluded that the OTP had not presented adequate material particularly with regard to the contextual element  of ‘attack’.

Concerning substantive criminal law, Kaul claimed that great caution should be exercised to transplant case law from international and internationalized tribunals – such as the ICTR, ICTY and SCSL – to ICC law for purposes of legal interpretation.  Simply, the ICC Statute does not mandate that the ICC follow precedents of other Courts. Finally, and by relying on the legal and factual history of crimes against humanity, Kaul made a case for interpreting the term ‘organization’ conservatively as to only include State and state-like entities. Without a stricter interpretation, Kaul believed that the concept of crimes against humanity may expand to ‘any infringement to human rights’, blurring the lines between human rights law and international criminal law. Even though I don’t espouse Kaul’s perspective on this issue, I consider his view reasonable and comprehensible.  What limits me from embracing his opinions is the fact that acts of ‘ad hoc macro-criminality’, such as the drop of an atomic bomb, the poisoning of a city’s water supply system, or an intentional plane crash into a skyscraper might possibly not be included when applying Kaul’s interpretation, yet they should qualify as crimes against humanity due to comparable quantity and quality of damage caused (elaborated upon elsewhere, see B. Kuschnik, Der Gesamttatbestand des Verbrechens gegen die Menschlichkeit, 235 et seq).

Since the majority of ICC Pre-Trial Chamber II refused to concur with Kaul’s conservative interpretation on the term ‘organization’, the ICC will be free to possibly handle such scenarios under its jurisdiction in the future.

Comments (0)

By Sarah Repucci, March 26, 2010

Cooperation was discussed on the morning of the second day of the 8th session of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) of the International Criminal Court (ICC).  On the surface, it was a relatively noncontentious subject.  The purpose of the discussion was to clarify how the ASP Review Conference in June will consider how states and non-states parties cooperate with the court.

The United States made its first statement of the ASP during the cooperation discussion.  Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Stephen Rapp made a statement that the United States has cooperated with both the ICC and the various ad hoc tribunals in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.  The statement made clear that the United States will cooperate whether or not it ratifies the convention – it was up to the listener to decide which outcome was more likely.  Various NGOs in attendance speculated that the United States had reserved its statement on aggression for Tuesday afternoon in order to be able to first make this positive statement on cooperation.

There was not much discussion of the U.S. statement at the time.  However, on Thursday, the ASP was tasked with approving the summary of the week’s proceedings.  Suddenly, cooperation became the major issue.  In the draft summary, there was Paragraph 19 mentioned in general terms the substance of the U.S. statement – the United States was not named, and the comment was attributed to the general discussion.  But Venezuela opposed inclusion of this paragraph.  According to the Venezuelan delegation, it was irrelevant to mention the ad hoc tribunals in this context, and the paragraph should be rephrased.

The discussion steadily degenerated into a microcosm of world politics.  Venezuela, the United States’s perpetual rhetorical foe in contemporary foreign policy, stood firm that the language must be changed.  The representative spoke only Spanish.  Meanwhile, the United States’s traditional allies, both at the ASP and more broadly, spoke in defense of the paragraph.  Regardless of their native language and the available interpretation, nearly all spoke English (with the notable exception of France).  Until late in the discussion, no one mentioned the United States by name.  Three or four delegations would support leaving the paragraph, and then Venezuela would make another plug for alteration.  A few states, including Cuba and Argentina, defended Venezuela.  Progress beyond this one paragraph was at a standstill for nearly an hour.

Ultimately, language was chosen that satisfied all in the room; perhaps most delegates were simply too worn out to object.  The final word on the infamous Paragraph 19 was Canada’s.  That delegation had asked to speak before Venezuela had made its initial comment.  The Canadians had wanted to add something to the summary about a secondary point they had made on Tuesday.  But after all the vitriol that had filled the room over ad hoc courts, Canada said they would withdraw their request and would prefer to move on.  Leave it to the Canadians to smooth things over.

Comments (0)

By Sarah Repucci, March 24, 2010

This week was the eight session of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) for the International Criminal Court (ICC) in New York.  The purpose of this meeting was to give states parties, as well as interested observers, an opportunity to prepare for the upcoming Review Conference, when they will take stock of the progress the court has made thus far and prepare it for its next phase.  The major point of contention is the so-called crime of aggression.

As is well known, the Bush administration was extremely hostile to the court, thinking that it would target American soldiers and generally impinge on U.S. sovereignty.  The second concern is certainly justified.  The countries that are members of the court – including all of our European allies, Japan, Australia, and most of South America and Africa – either believe that this is a small price to pay for peace and justice (generally the former), or gain more power through participation than the little they have on their own (the latter).  Countries that view their freedom to act as a boost to their power, including Russia, China, Israel, and Iran as well as the United States, remain on the sidelines.

The Obama administration has been more friendly to the court, but this is not saying much.  Thus, the mere fact that the administration sent a delegation to participate in the ASP was considered progress.  Progress on substance is secondary, and slow.  The major positive statement from the United States at the meeting was a pledge to cooperate with the court.  The pledge was carefully couched in language noting that even non-states parties can cooperate (i.e. the United States may not ratify the Rome Convention).

The United States will not ratify the convention before the Review Conference, or soon thereafter.  However, its position is affected by the crime of aggression.  This crime has been discussed since the very beginnings of the ICC, and currently has perhaps the greatest state-party support it has had to date.  Since the United States is one of the minority of countries in the world that has engaged in any activity that might be termed such aggression, it is unsurprisingly opposed to the addition.  But, as it has not ratified the convention, it does not have a vote.

So this week the U.S. delegation concentrated on two tactics: a targeted statement explaining its position, and pressure on its member-friends to take its interests into account.  The statement said that the crime of aggression could politicize the court, leading it to take on cases that are more about world politics than peace and justice.  The crime of aggression, they said, is different from the other crimes the court handles, such as war crimes.  And at this time of ICC review, states parties should consider what would strengthen the court, while a new crime of aggression might instead place new burdens.

Incidentally, the arguments made by the countries opposed to the U.S. stance dovetail perfectly with those used by the superpower.  The United States advocates allowing the UN Security Council as a filter to approve any possible investigation of a crime of aggression, which is widely viewed as exactly the kind of politicization (given the United States’s veto) that the United States claims it abhors.  Most delegations in their statements said the crime of aggression is specifically not different from other crimes.  And they believe it would strengthen the court, a consideration to which they also attach utmost importance.

There were several thinly veiled stabs at the United States during the delegation statements.  Venezuela led the charge that approval of cases by an outside body (such as the Security Council) would impinge on the court’s independence, ignoring its own assaults on the national judiciary.  Cuba (a non-member) mentioned that aggression could be economic as well as military.  Many states also referred to the fact that there has been an open consultation process on aggression to date, implying that the United States could have participated and yet it did not.  This, of course, was because the Bush administration wanted nothing at all to do with the court.

Based on the overwhelming support expressed for adding a crime of aggression, it appears likely that some amendment will pass at the June meeting.  Depending on how the amendment is phrased, this could lead the United States to pull back again.  If the United States does not feel it will be protected against investigation as an aggressor, any hope of ratification will be dashed.  In fact, regardless of the crime of aggression, it is generally believed that there is no hope of the United States ratifying the convention at least until a potential second Obama administration.  Health care has taken too much of his early political capital, and Obama and other democrats cannot jeopardize their re-election prospects over the ICC.

Comments (0)

By Debbie, February 4, 2010

Sudan’s Leader May Be Accused of Genocide

The president of Sudan, who is already facing an international arrest warrant, came under new legal scrutiny on Wednesday when appeals judges at The Hague reopened the possibility that he may be charged with genocide.

The Sudanese leader, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, became the first sitting president to face an arrest order by the International Criminal Court in March, when pre-trial judges said he should be tried for crimes against humanity and war crimes in Sudan’s region of Darfur. But the judges rejected the prosecutor’s request to charge Mr. Bashirwith genocide, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient.The court’s appeals chamber, in a short session on Wednesday, directed the judges to reconsider the prosecution evidence and to decide anew whether Mr. Bashir’s actions could amount to genocide. They found that the judges had used far higher standards of proof than were needed for an arrest warrant, and that the dismissal of the prosecutor’s genocide charges therefore amounted to an “error or law.”

Lawyers following the proceedings said that to sign an arrest order at this court, judges must find that there are “grounds for charges” but that in this case the judges had sought a level of proof needed to find someone guilty or innocent.

The re-opening of the genocide question may not bring Sudan’s president, who has thus far defied the court, any closer to trial in The Hague. But genocide charges carry a heavy weight that could affect his international dealings and isolate him.

For Entire Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/world/africa/04bashir.html?scp=1&sq=bashir&st=cse

Comments (0)

By Debbie, January 17, 2010

In light of the outpouring of concern among University students here in the United States, the Council for American Students in International Negotiations (CASIN) would like to recommend a few charities to our members if they are interested in donating to the relief efforts. Our mission is intricately tied to deepening the understanding of international issues and we know Haiti will continue to be at the forefront of the international agenda for years to come. Please feel free to post other charities on the CASIN blog. We welcome other suggestions!

Partners in Health – pih.org

Zanmi Lasante (“Partners In Health” in Haitian Kreyol) is PIH’s flagship project – the oldest, largest, most ambitious, and most replicated. The small community clinic that first started treating patients in the village of Cange in 1985, has grown into the Zanmi Lasante (ZL) Sociomedical Complex, featuring a 104-bed, full-service hospital with two operating rooms, adult and pediatric inpatient wards, an infectious disease center (the Thomas J. White Center), an outpatient clinic, a women’s health clinic (Proje Sante Fanm), ophthalmology and general medicine clinics, a laboratory, a pharmaceutical warehouse, a Red Cross blood bank, radiographic services, and a dozen schools. ZL has also expanded its operations to eight other sites across Haiti’s Central Plateau and beyond. Today, ZL ranks as one of the largest nongovernmental health care providers in Haiti – and the only provider of comprehensive primary care, regardless of ability to pay, for more than half a million impoverished people living in the mountainous Central Plateau.

Doctors Without Borders- http://doctorswithoutborders.org/

Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is an international medical humanitarian organization created by doctors and journalists in France in 1971.

Today, MSF provides aid in nearly 60 countries to people whose survival is threatened by violence, neglect, or catastrophe, primarily due to armed conflict, epidemics, malnutrition, exclusion from health care, or natural disasters. MSF provides independent, impartial assistance to those most in need. MSF reserves the right to speak out to bring attention to neglected crises, to challenge inadequacies or abuse of the aid system, and to advocate for improved medical treatments and protocols.

In 1999, MSF received the Nobel Peace Prize.

MSF teams are working to provide surgery and basic care to as many patients as possible, but needs continue to outstrip available resources.

• Surgical Teams Work Round the Clock; Assessments of Other Affected Areas Planned
• “Patients who were not critical three days ago are now in critical phases”

Red Cross- http://www.redcross.org/

Haitian Red Cross at the Heart of Relief

By Gennike Mayers, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, reporting from Port-au-Prince

Sunday, January 17, 2010 — At the St. Pierre square in Pétionville – a small suburb to the east of Port-au-Prince – hundreds of earthquake survivors have taken refuge. Families have set up make-shift tents using sheets, curtains or whatever could be salvaged from their crumbled homes.

Across the road, just a few meters away, is a small branch of the Red Cross working out of a garage beneath the Mayor’s office. It bears very little resemblance to a first aid station – the space is cramped and full of cars. But these are some of the conditions to be overcome in order to provide support to injured, explains one Red Cross volunteer.

“It may not be the best place with all these cars around but plenty of people are coming in and we are caring for them,” says Rita Aristide, a Haitian Red Cross volunteer since 1999. ”We have been dressing wounds for hundreds of people already.”

The range of injuries vary from scrapes and scratches to deep gashes, open head wounds, and fractured arms and legs.

Dr. Grégory Gué, a physician from the southern town of Jacmel travelled to Port-au-Prince to work alongside Red Cross volunteers.

“I came where there was need. We have to do what we can to help our people. Haiti needs all the help it can get. Help will come from outside very soon but we also have to help ourselves,” he explains.

Among the steady stream of wounded persons receiving medical attention from Dr. Gué and the Red Cross first aid team were two pregnant women who suffered damage to their backs during the quake. Both had been hit by falling blocks. One of the women lost her child. They were brought over on stretchers from the square to the Red Cross station. Serious injuries, like these, are being treated where possible and referred to the nearest hospital.

On January 16, a Red Cross convey arrived in Port-au-Prince, having travelled overland from Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic. It included a 50-bed hospital. Earlier in the day, the first of three basic health care teams landed in the city as well. This unit can provide basic but vital heath care to 30,000 people.

You can help the victims of countless crises, like the recent earthquake in Haiti, around the world each year by making a financial gift to the American Red Cross International Response Fund, which will provide immediate relief and long-term support through supplies, technical assistance and other support to help those in need. The American Red Cross honors donor intent. If you wish to designate your donation to a specific disaster, please do so at the time of your donation by mailing your donation with the designation to the American Red Cross, P.O. Box 37243, Washington, D.C. 20013 or to your local American Red Cross chapter. Donations to the International Response Fund can be made by phone at 1-800-REDCROSS or 1-800-257-7575 (Spanish) or online at www.redcross.org

How to Help

• We are not accepting volunteers to travel to Haiti. If you would like to volunteer for the American Red Cross, please contact your local chapter.
• Persons in Haiti and abroad can search for and register the names of relatives missing since the earthquake at www.icrc.org/familylinks. The International Committee of the Red Cross is helping to reconnect separated families within the country.
• People trying to locate U.S. citizens living or traveling in Haiti should contact the U.S. Department of State, Office of Overseas Citizens Services, at 1-888-407-4747 or (202) 647-5225.

About the American Red Cross:
The American Red Cross shelters, feeds and provides emotional support to victims of disasters; supplies nearly half of the nation’s blood; teaches lifesaving skills; provides international humanitarian aid; and supports military members and their families. The Red Cross is a charitable organization — not a government agency — and depends on volunteers and the generosity of the American public to perform its mission. For more information, please visit www.redcross.org or join our blog at http://blog.redcross.org.