Today, our first baby is due to arrive on the world stage. My life is about to change. It is a plunge, like no other, into the unknown. But this is what I hope for:
1. Please God, that the little one doesn’t inherit my knobbly knees
2. That she'll never be afraid to speak the truth and defend nobility
3. That she will want to hug and be hugged in return
4. That she'll pursue life with energy and a sense of adventure
5. That she'll be no doubt that she is a miracle of inestimable worth
6. That laughter is central in our journey
7. That she grows up thinking freely
8. That I’m not one of those pushy dads – living their dreams through their kids
9. That one day our child will say 'I was there when Brighton won the Premiership'
10. That she'll grow up inspired to live bravely
ENDS
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Excuse me, Mr Clinton….
Last week, Mr Clinton was on a tour of Indonesia, Thailand and India. He was there in his capacity as UN special envoy for tsunami aid.
He made some comments which are potentially very damaging. Mr Clinton said that only about a third of those affected by the disaster were back in permanent housing. The insinuation being that the relief effort had somehow run aground. He said more action was needed.
More action needed. That is easy to say when you parachute into a situation and then jet off again.
This week, I sat in a session with Christian Aid’s staff from India and Sri Lanka. They were in London to report back on the lessons learnt from the relief effort and remind people exactly what has been achieved. They had read the Sunday Times stories about tsunami victims being left high and dry. They wanted to put the other side of the story.
Their record of achievement is extraordinary. Christian Aid’s partners have build 45,000 homes since the tsunami. The policy has been ‘build back better’ so the concrete structures are much bigger, stronger and safer than those washed away on Boxing Day 2004.
Last year alone in Sri Lanka, the numbers of homes built was 20 times that of a normal year. Put another way, that is 20 years’ worth of construction completed in one year. When you consider the skills base available for that sort of work in Sri Lanka, that is remarkable.
It is true as Clinton suggests that not everyone is in permanent housing. To achieve that in 2 years was always going to be very ambitious. However, according the Christian Aid’s staff on the ground, very few people are still in emergency shelter. Nearly all have been moved to temporary housing (which is still a better standard than the homes that were washed away) while the building of the permanent homes are completed. Thousands of families have been provided with bikes, fishing nets, micro-loans, sewing machines and IT training to secure their livelihoods in future.
It is so important that people here this message. The money wasn’t squandered by bureaucracy and corruption; it did reach tens of thousands of victims. Your generosity did make a difference.
Not everything went smoothly of course. When 200,000 people are killed virtually over night and millions left homeless, no relief effort will be perfect. The scandalous discrimination against groups like the Dalits (who were excluded from getting emergency aid because they are considered untouchable in Indian culture) went unnoticed by NGOs at first. Christian Aid is still the only International NGO focusing its efforts on providing sustainable livelihoods for the Dalit community.
I like Mr Clinton. He is someone trying to make his influence count. However, his comments played into the hands of the cynics. He should have applauded what has been done and then encouraged all concerned to finish what has been started.
He made some comments which are potentially very damaging. Mr Clinton said that only about a third of those affected by the disaster were back in permanent housing. The insinuation being that the relief effort had somehow run aground. He said more action was needed.
More action needed. That is easy to say when you parachute into a situation and then jet off again.
This week, I sat in a session with Christian Aid’s staff from India and Sri Lanka. They were in London to report back on the lessons learnt from the relief effort and remind people exactly what has been achieved. They had read the Sunday Times stories about tsunami victims being left high and dry. They wanted to put the other side of the story.
Their record of achievement is extraordinary. Christian Aid’s partners have build 45,000 homes since the tsunami. The policy has been ‘build back better’ so the concrete structures are much bigger, stronger and safer than those washed away on Boxing Day 2004.
Last year alone in Sri Lanka, the numbers of homes built was 20 times that of a normal year. Put another way, that is 20 years’ worth of construction completed in one year. When you consider the skills base available for that sort of work in Sri Lanka, that is remarkable.
It is true as Clinton suggests that not everyone is in permanent housing. To achieve that in 2 years was always going to be very ambitious. However, according the Christian Aid’s staff on the ground, very few people are still in emergency shelter. Nearly all have been moved to temporary housing (which is still a better standard than the homes that were washed away) while the building of the permanent homes are completed. Thousands of families have been provided with bikes, fishing nets, micro-loans, sewing machines and IT training to secure their livelihoods in future.
It is so important that people here this message. The money wasn’t squandered by bureaucracy and corruption; it did reach tens of thousands of victims. Your generosity did make a difference.
Not everything went smoothly of course. When 200,000 people are killed virtually over night and millions left homeless, no relief effort will be perfect. The scandalous discrimination against groups like the Dalits (who were excluded from getting emergency aid because they are considered untouchable in Indian culture) went unnoticed by NGOs at first. Christian Aid is still the only International NGO focusing its efforts on providing sustainable livelihoods for the Dalit community.
I like Mr Clinton. He is someone trying to make his influence count. However, his comments played into the hands of the cynics. He should have applauded what has been done and then encouraged all concerned to finish what has been started.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
10 reasons why I admire Ignatius of Loyola (1491 -1556)
1. Ignatius taught that we can find God in all things.
2. Ignatius was courageous – his leg was famously broken by a canon ball when French soldiers attacked the town of Pamplona, in 1521. When it did not set, Ignatius demanded it be re-broken (without anaesthetics) so that it could heal properly.
3. Ignatius gave up his ‘old plans of romance and worldly conquests’ to pursue without reservation what was more important (which for him meant taking vows of chastity and poverty and becoming a priest).
4. Ignatius’ ideas stood the test of time - he founded the Jesuit order which today has over 20,000 people serving communities in 112 nations
5. Ignatius said that the central ingredient for spiritual growth was gratitude
6. Ignatius combined intellectual integrity with a clarion call to serve the interests of the poor.
7. Ignatius believed that personal fulfillment was dependent upon reflection. He developed the Examen of consciousness – a call to discern God’s spirit by reflecting on our emotions, decisions and attitudes.
8. Ignatius harnessed the power of language. He used poetry as a medium for prayer.
9. Ignatius was a radical man whose convictions were strengthened not diminished with age. At the foundation of his spirituality was a continuous search for how best to love as an authentic human being before a loving God.
10. Ignatius was a natural born communicator - despite being twice jailed during the Inquisition, Ignatius kept teaching, discussing and sharing the ideas he valued.
2. Ignatius was courageous – his leg was famously broken by a canon ball when French soldiers attacked the town of Pamplona, in 1521. When it did not set, Ignatius demanded it be re-broken (without anaesthetics) so that it could heal properly.
3. Ignatius gave up his ‘old plans of romance and worldly conquests’ to pursue without reservation what was more important (which for him meant taking vows of chastity and poverty and becoming a priest).
4. Ignatius’ ideas stood the test of time - he founded the Jesuit order which today has over 20,000 people serving communities in 112 nations
5. Ignatius said that the central ingredient for spiritual growth was gratitude
6. Ignatius combined intellectual integrity with a clarion call to serve the interests of the poor.
7. Ignatius believed that personal fulfillment was dependent upon reflection. He developed the Examen of consciousness – a call to discern God’s spirit by reflecting on our emotions, decisions and attitudes.
8. Ignatius harnessed the power of language. He used poetry as a medium for prayer.
9. Ignatius was a radical man whose convictions were strengthened not diminished with age. At the foundation of his spirituality was a continuous search for how best to love as an authentic human being before a loving God.
10. Ignatius was a natural born communicator - despite being twice jailed during the Inquisition, Ignatius kept teaching, discussing and sharing the ideas he valued.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Where have all the brave people gone?
The goal of eradicating extreme poverty is within the means of this generation. Never before has it been more important that we make courageous decisions, driven by compassion and love.
What depresses me is how desperately conservative, cautious and risk-averse so many of our choices are.
I may still be in culture shock. Earlier this year, we were living and working on Thai/Burma border. We travelled inside Burma to visit internally displaced Karen and Shan communities. These people have been forced from their homes by the Burma Army. These are surviving in the jungle – refusing to leave their homeland or come under the control of their enemies.
In Burma, I learnt the meaning of courage and of resilience.
I will never forget a man I met in Shan State in Burma, called Waling. He had and epic story of survival. He told me that a few years before the military junta had attacked his village in Northern Shan State. Of the 70 families in his village, only 4 made it to safety; he didn’t know what happened to the rest.
What was shocking was that when I asked him if he’d lost any members of his family in the attack, he said that his elderly parents had been too slow and that they had been burnt alive in their home.
The Burma Army had taken everything from him bar his dignity and yet he could look me in the eye, without a trace of self pity. That is courage.
The Burma Army has destroyed 1800 villages like Walings’ – displacing a million people. There is plenty for the people to complain about – plenty of excuses to give up. Yet they fight on. The men and women I was with never complained. Furthermore, they maintained their sense of humour. That is resilience.
So, I am frustrated returning to the UK. There is no correlation between our security, wealth and opportunities and the levels of fear and worry that seem so evident. We are so often protective, so insular, so suspicious. This is scandalous given all that we have. Why? Because in our forensic interest in our own lives, we forget that places like Burma exist and we can legitimise our indifference to the suffering of men like Waling.
In five weeks time, I will become a father. If I don’t bequeath anything else to my child, I hope to inspire him or her to live bravely.
What depresses me is how desperately conservative, cautious and risk-averse so many of our choices are.
I may still be in culture shock. Earlier this year, we were living and working on Thai/Burma border. We travelled inside Burma to visit internally displaced Karen and Shan communities. These people have been forced from their homes by the Burma Army. These are surviving in the jungle – refusing to leave their homeland or come under the control of their enemies.
In Burma, I learnt the meaning of courage and of resilience.
I will never forget a man I met in Shan State in Burma, called Waling. He had and epic story of survival. He told me that a few years before the military junta had attacked his village in Northern Shan State. Of the 70 families in his village, only 4 made it to safety; he didn’t know what happened to the rest.
What was shocking was that when I asked him if he’d lost any members of his family in the attack, he said that his elderly parents had been too slow and that they had been burnt alive in their home.
The Burma Army had taken everything from him bar his dignity and yet he could look me in the eye, without a trace of self pity. That is courage.
The Burma Army has destroyed 1800 villages like Walings’ – displacing a million people. There is plenty for the people to complain about – plenty of excuses to give up. Yet they fight on. The men and women I was with never complained. Furthermore, they maintained their sense of humour. That is resilience.
So, I am frustrated returning to the UK. There is no correlation between our security, wealth and opportunities and the levels of fear and worry that seem so evident. We are so often protective, so insular, so suspicious. This is scandalous given all that we have. Why? Because in our forensic interest in our own lives, we forget that places like Burma exist and we can legitimise our indifference to the suffering of men like Waling.
In five weeks time, I will become a father. If I don’t bequeath anything else to my child, I hope to inspire him or her to live bravely.
Monday, October 23, 2006
The New Philanthropist
Charles Handy, listed as one of the world’s top ten gurus, has a new book out.
The New Philanthrapists documents the lives of 23 individuals and their contribution to, you guessed it, philanthropy.
Certainly, philanthropy is experiencing something of a renaissance. It may be to do with the unprecedented wealth that has been generated over the last ten years. In the UK alone, there are approximately 450,000 millionaires. These are people with cash assets of more than a million and don’t include the countless more sitting on millions in their properties.
Handy has built his career on spotting the signs of the times. He has discerned that these new millionaires are becoming increasingly engaged in making a social return. After they have achieved great wealth, they want to use it. In the words of one leading industrialist ‘I don’t want to be the richest man in the graveyard!’
These individuals are different from the traditional donor. Scarily, they want to be involved. This is sending shivers through the voluntary sector. I mean, who do these people think they are - telling us professional charity types how to do our job?
These individuals talk not of donations, but of investments. They want to see deliverable outcomes, measurable results, a tangible difference. Again, this is new for the sector. Again, many charities would prefer to run for the hills.
Charities have been used to taking people’s money, spending it and then sending a report a few months later. That won’t do. The New Philanthropists don’t just have big wallets but sharp minds. They want to see what value for money really looks life. Most importantly, they want to know that their hard earned cash will not be squandered in office refurbishments or water coolers or whatever.
Before we scoff and dismiss these individuals as conscience appeasing capitalists, seeking atonement for their years of exploitation, we would do well to thing again.
Individuals such as Gordon Roddick, Ram Gidamool and Tony Adams are not just seriously rich. They are serious about seeing social transformation. They are increasingly seeking partnership with those in the voluntary sector.
The sector must rise to this challenge. Most importantly, we must inspire this group of individuals with a vision of what can be accomplished through them and with them.
The new philanthropists are good news for our sector. Their financial and human capital must be harnessed to add ever greater effectiveness to our work.
The New Philanthrapists documents the lives of 23 individuals and their contribution to, you guessed it, philanthropy.
Certainly, philanthropy is experiencing something of a renaissance. It may be to do with the unprecedented wealth that has been generated over the last ten years. In the UK alone, there are approximately 450,000 millionaires. These are people with cash assets of more than a million and don’t include the countless more sitting on millions in their properties.
Handy has built his career on spotting the signs of the times. He has discerned that these new millionaires are becoming increasingly engaged in making a social return. After they have achieved great wealth, they want to use it. In the words of one leading industrialist ‘I don’t want to be the richest man in the graveyard!’
These individuals are different from the traditional donor. Scarily, they want to be involved. This is sending shivers through the voluntary sector. I mean, who do these people think they are - telling us professional charity types how to do our job?
These individuals talk not of donations, but of investments. They want to see deliverable outcomes, measurable results, a tangible difference. Again, this is new for the sector. Again, many charities would prefer to run for the hills.
Charities have been used to taking people’s money, spending it and then sending a report a few months later. That won’t do. The New Philanthropists don’t just have big wallets but sharp minds. They want to see what value for money really looks life. Most importantly, they want to know that their hard earned cash will not be squandered in office refurbishments or water coolers or whatever.
Before we scoff and dismiss these individuals as conscience appeasing capitalists, seeking atonement for their years of exploitation, we would do well to thing again.
Individuals such as Gordon Roddick, Ram Gidamool and Tony Adams are not just seriously rich. They are serious about seeing social transformation. They are increasingly seeking partnership with those in the voluntary sector.
The sector must rise to this challenge. Most importantly, we must inspire this group of individuals with a vision of what can be accomplished through them and with them.
The new philanthropists are good news for our sector. Their financial and human capital must be harnessed to add ever greater effectiveness to our work.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Faith in Progress
Robert Louis Stevenson summed up how many of us feel when he wrote; ‘The world is so big and I am so small, I do not like it at all, at all.’
The world faces a giddying array of problems. At times they seem to dwarf hope, intimidate courage and undermine action.
I work in International Development. One of the great challenges we face is convincing partners, supporters and stakeholders that progress and real accomplishment is possible. We need not be on the losing side.
The Make Poverty History coalition was a testament to that. Hundreds of organisations, hundreds of thousands of individuals energised and enthused with a freshly articulated vision.
Inspiring confidence that we can make a serious dent to poverty is critical. Every generation has to re-discover this idealism. Every generation has to decide how highly it values changing the world.
However sympathetic people are to cause, if they are not convinced that progress can and will be made, their support will not be forthcoming. And without that belief, the chances doing something extraordinary vanish.
A pre-cursor to change is a credible and intelligent vision that harnesses the latent hope inside every human heart. Development agencies have a special role to play in that. Their mission is to be David, fighting against a mighty Goliath, undeterred and confident of success despite the odds.
I was recently involved in a competitive application for a seven figure sum of money with 20 other charities. The private donor wanted to fund 3 or 4 charities. They wanted to be presented with clear value propositions which under-girded the proposals that each charity submitted. 8 charities were invited to make a presentation following the proposal phase.
In the end, only two charities got the funds. Only two had been able to inspire, to articulate with conviction the case for support. I was delighted that our presentation was one of the two successful bids.
It reminded me though that people are willing to be convinced. There is a no law that dictates that injustice and poverty need always be with us. Perhaps more than other, development agencies need to promote a faith in progress in order to change the world.
ENDS
The world faces a giddying array of problems. At times they seem to dwarf hope, intimidate courage and undermine action.
I work in International Development. One of the great challenges we face is convincing partners, supporters and stakeholders that progress and real accomplishment is possible. We need not be on the losing side.
The Make Poverty History coalition was a testament to that. Hundreds of organisations, hundreds of thousands of individuals energised and enthused with a freshly articulated vision.
Inspiring confidence that we can make a serious dent to poverty is critical. Every generation has to re-discover this idealism. Every generation has to decide how highly it values changing the world.
However sympathetic people are to cause, if they are not convinced that progress can and will be made, their support will not be forthcoming. And without that belief, the chances doing something extraordinary vanish.
A pre-cursor to change is a credible and intelligent vision that harnesses the latent hope inside every human heart. Development agencies have a special role to play in that. Their mission is to be David, fighting against a mighty Goliath, undeterred and confident of success despite the odds.
I was recently involved in a competitive application for a seven figure sum of money with 20 other charities. The private donor wanted to fund 3 or 4 charities. They wanted to be presented with clear value propositions which under-girded the proposals that each charity submitted. 8 charities were invited to make a presentation following the proposal phase.
In the end, only two charities got the funds. Only two had been able to inspire, to articulate with conviction the case for support. I was delighted that our presentation was one of the two successful bids.
It reminded me though that people are willing to be convinced. There is a no law that dictates that injustice and poverty need always be with us. Perhaps more than other, development agencies need to promote a faith in progress in order to change the world.
ENDS
Thursday, October 12, 2006
To buy or not to buy
We are all embroiled in retail. And I mean all of us. No one can opt out. From the moment we existed, we became a consumer.
But something has changed. Like never before, we are all connected. What our generation eats, buys, wears and even cheers on a Saturday afternoon hails from a foreign land.
A global work force is deployed in the search to manufacture products at a price that will meet our insatiable desire to consume. This unfettered desire is a threat to our future but may also hold the key to a brighter tomorrow.
Bono’s new Product (Red) is a case in point. It aims to harness consumer power not undermine it. A percentage of the profits generated by its branded items (now including trade-mark Bono wrap arounds, mobile phones, shoes, clothes and credit cards) go to fight AIDS in Africa www.joinred.com. The products aim to rival any on the market. They aim to win you as a consumer (and as a compassionate, enlightened human being.)
Bono makes one emphatic point: as consumers, we have a powerful choice. We have an opportunity. What we collectively choose to buy or not to buy can change the course of history. International development organisations are increasingly waking up to this. Their message has changed. They are not just interested in your one off donation; they are interested in challenging your lifestyle.
I’m not just talking about boycotting blacklisted apparel companies or confectionary conglomerates. I’m thinking about more penetrative, positive choices.
Increasingly consumers can choose an ethical alternative: from your ISPs to your holidays abroad, from the wine you drink to the food you eat, from where you invest your savings to the clothes you wear.
When we go out today, there are choices we can make which can make this world stronger, safer, fairer.
We have to decide though: will we use our power?
ENDS
Saturday, August 12, 2006
indifference is unacceptable
in a world of spiralling injustice and poverty, why are so many of us unconcerned, unnaffected and disconnected?
despite globalisation, it seems our worlds are becoming smaller, our perspectives narrower.
my experience working on the thai/burma border augmented in me a conviction that we mustn't let a gulf between those who are suffering greatly and the rest of us remain unchallenged.
how can we find a way of inspiring this generation to be more engaged, more active, more alert and more compassionate? how much further can each of us grow in our capacity to be kind, couragageous, and loving? I believe it is possible to build an army of young people who are inspired to stand up for the marginalised, who will defend the rights of the innocent, who will take responsibility for the future of our planet.
returning from abroad, it becomes apparent that deep set indifference is common. that is not a judgement, it just the truth. yet the onus of us to live with compassion and reject apathy has never been more vital. like apartheid, indifference is justified and defended and seen as legitimate. Just like apartheid, we must fight against it until it too is viewed as an immoral world view from a different age.
we must acknowledge that we have become too self-absorbed. we have allowed great evil to prevail without lifting a finger of protest. we simply haven't cared even though we say we do.
a values revolution is necessary. it has to be modelled by example. it has to start with you and me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
