SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
children s rights
Those Who Violate the Rights of Children in War Must Be Held Accountable
When this does not happen, it signals that no one is safe, that the agreements we’ve made in global fora like the U.N. will not protect anyone, especially not the most vulnerable.
Jun 25, 2024
This week, the United Nations will hold an open debate on violations of children in wartime, and while this topic would seem morally clear, the debate is sure to be contentious. Earlier this month, with the
U.N. Secretary-General Annual Report on Children and Armed Conflict, the armed forces of Israel, as well as Hamas and Palestine Islamic Jihad, join the armed forces of and armed groups in Russia, Congo, Myanmar, Somalia, Nigeria, and Sudan as documented perpetrators of grave violations of the rights of children. In nearly 33,000 documented incidents, children were killed, starved, maimed, kidnapped, and recruited as soldiers in more than two dozen war zones.
The secretary-general’s annual report and its annexed list of perpetrators, the so-called “ list of shame,” have served as a unique and largely effective tool for identifying perpetrators and pressuring them to end violations and protect children in times of war. The report’s impact and credibility rely on applying the same standards to all parties across all armed conflicts. Protecting children from war should not be subject to political considerations. And yet, in this week’s debate perpetrators and their allies will surely disagree about the inclusion of parties that have harmed or killed children in war.
As a full-time advocate working for accountability for violations against the rights of children, I can say the global situation for children in conflict has never looked more dire. The U.N. secretary-general has recently reported that the proportion of children killed in 2023 tripled as compared with 2022, with 40% of global killings of children happening in Gaza. Leading child protection organizations have documented that 468 million children (or more than 1 in 6 children globally) live in areas affected by armed conflict. There has also never been the same level of witness to violations committed against the rights of children. Intense, bold campaigns in the news and on social media have captured the engagement and compassion of millions of people outside of war zones, resulting in calls for increased aid, intervention, and cease-fire.
The suffering and death of children in war—from the kidnapping of nine-month-old Kfir Bibas by Hamas, to the 46 Ukrainian children placed for adoption in Russia, to the Palestinian children with their names written in ink on their bodies so they can be identified when they die—have been incredibly brutal.
Parties involved in armed conflict must respect and ensure respect for international law, particularly international humanitarian law and international human rights law. This means not recruiting children, not subjecting them to sexual violence, not torturing them, not bombing hospitals or schools, and not creating famine. These frameworks do not consist of mere guidelines but binding commitments signed by states designed to protect individuals affected by armed conflict, including children. Violations of international law should not be tolerated—not by other states, not by the U.N. Security Council, and not by the citizens living in countries that are party to these laws.
Accountability efforts must be strengthened. This includes both political and financial efforts at domestic and international levels. Cases of universal jurisdiction have been undertaken for war crimes in third countries, but this has had a limited impact on crimes committed against children. States can do more, bringing those responsible before justice. When states and armed groups are not held accountable, it signals that no one is safe, that the agreements we’ve made in global fora like the U.N. will not protect anyone, especially not the most vulnerable. This inevitably impacts global cooperation. Diplomats are recalled, trade agreements become tenuous, travel between nations is discouraged or prohibited.
As the director of a network of organizations working to protect children from the effects of war, I must note that the work to protect children is cross-cutting. Addressing the problems faced by children in war requires a holistic approach that integrates child protection into all humanitarian and development efforts. The international aid community should consider the impact of its work on children first and collaborate across disciplines to adopt strategies that address the needs of children. By viewing child protection through this integrative lens, these organizations can create more effective and sustainable solutions, enabling more children to survive war.
The suffering and death of children in war—from the kidnapping of nine-month-old Kfir Bibas by Hamas, to the 46 Ukrainian children placed for adoption in Russia, to the Palestinian children with their names written in ink on their bodies so they can be identified when they die—have been incredibly brutal. But until we begin to meaningfully hold accountable those who commit these grave violations, naming and shaming and engaging with parties to armed conflict will remain among the best tools we have for perpetrators to change their behaviors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Next Few Years Will Decide What Kind of Future We Leave for My Grandchild
Everyone’s job this decade is to arrest the sudden and sickening lurch upward in temperature, so that there’s somewhere at least a little stable for young people to stand as they build that new world that must come.
Mar 31, 2024
Asa Caleb Crane was born over the weekend; he came into the world with a full head of hair, and on first impression an undeniable charisma, a full array of important moral virtues, and a calm but determined approach to the new world in which he found himself.
And I found myself both entirely agog at his general niftiness, and bowled over by the fact that I now know, very intimately, someone who God willing is going to exist in the 22nd century.
I can compass the passage of time; my grandmother, who I knew well, was born in the latter part of the 19th century, and I can imagine most of the changes of her life—feel in some visceral way the increase in mobility, in communication, in opportunity, in ease. My parents were born in the Depression and came of age in the great postwar boom; my daughter was born just as the internet was getting off the ground. It all makes more or less sense to me; but of course the future is harder, and the future now is harder than ever. In fact, there have been a spate of stories this week pointing out that even our greatest climate scientists are having a hard time explaining the rapid rise in global temperature over the last 12 months—and others explaining just how hot it has become. Here’s a compelling Guardian account of the record heat across much of Africa in recent weeks.
Tarly in Ivory Coast explained: “All I can do is open the windows and the door to let the air flow, but even the air doesn’t move.”
He lives with a one-year-old child, who cries at night because he is hot, and his two teenage daughters, who wake up in the middle of the night to shower before returning to bed where they lie in front of the fan. Still, the heat clings; it does not go away.
“At four in the morning, it’s when it’s least hot and you can sleep better, but I have to wake up to go to work,” Tarly said. “When it’s this hot, mixed with humidity, time stands still.”
Of course time in the larger sense, rushes on—and right now the very real-time acceleration of warming scares me more than I want to admit. It also makes me think—as you might guess from the title of this newsletter—that the next few years may be the crucial ones between now and 2100, maybe even between now and 5100. Because if we don’t break the momentum of the warming then it will build unstoppably on itself—and that will foreclose all kinds of options.
It’s keeping those options open that matters to me. I don’t think we can reasonably plan all that far into the future—new technologies, new politics, new attitudes will inevitably shape how things happen 20 or 60 years from now. But I do think we can see the outline of our politics through the end of the decade, and I think it basically involves a single choice: Do we go all-in on the energy transition as the world pledged in December at the last global climate talks, or do we back off, following the advice of, say, the (wildly applauded) Saudi Aramco CEO who said last week at a Houston energy conference that “we should abandon the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas and instead invest in them.”
The first option—going all-in on the energy transition—doesn’t get us where we need to go, and certainly not by 2030. I don’t see any chance that the temperature won’t still be rising then. But done with vigor it keeps possibilities open: Politico this week reported, for instance, on the growing competition among blue-state governors to come up with more renewables and more efficiency, and the remarkable Kingsmill Bond at the Rocky Mountain Institute reported on the growing competition between the superpower blocs for green energy supremacy.
China, Europe, and the United States make up 80%–90% of deployment of key clean technologies.
China dominates the supply chain, but change is happening. China has outspent the United States and Europe 10-fold in the past five years to achieve market share in manufacturing of over 90% in solar and 70% in batteries. But United States and European capital expenditure is set to increase 16-fold by 2025, and opportunities for leadership abound; only 20% of final energy demand has been electrified; and technologies to enhance flexibility are still in the early stages.
Europe leads in solar and wind share of generation. Europe has the largest share of electricity from solar and wind, and all three regions are moving rapidly up the S-curve towards solar and wind dominance.
What I’m trying to say is, we have the chance to move over the next five years to establish a counter-momentum to the rising temperature. If we do, by 2030 we’ll be in a place to weigh the options going forward; if we don’t then nature will be making decisions for us, and we’ll be reacting.
For those like me of a certain age we have no real business telling young people what kind of world to build—that will be their opportunity and their responsibility, and my sense is that they have the savvy to do a good job of it. But our job—everyone’s job these next five years—is to arrest the sudden and sickening lurch upward in temperature, so that there’s somewhere at least a little stable for those young people to stand as they build that new world that must come. The best proxy for that stability is the number of solar panels and wind turbines and batteries we install between now and the end of the decade.
I’ve always thought this to be true; it’s why this newsletter is called what it is, and it’s why I do the work I do at places like Third Act. It’s just that all of a sudden I take it even more personally. Hi Asa!
Keep ReadingShow Less
Connecticut’s Baby Bond Experiment Could Help Bridge the Wealth Gap
It will take a lot to address America’s extreme wealth concentration, but one ingredient is critical: tangible financial resources.
Feb 29, 2024
Consider a tale of two babies born in the same American city, Jake and Justin. Jake, born into an economically secure white family, is primed for success. His grandparents set up a college savings plan for him. With both parents in professional careers, there’s ample income to secure him a quality education and extra-curricular activities. During college summers, Jake works at his uncle’s real estate firm, eyeing the launch of his own contracting business post-graduation.
Across town, Justin’s story unfolds in a neglected Black neighborhood. Justin’s father, hindered by a prison record, finds only sporadic low-wage construction gigs. His mother, an administrative assistant, scrimps to support Justin’s potential. Despite hurdles, Justin enters college, funding his education with loans and a campus job. Intent on securing a coveted tech internship, Justin juggles extra shifts to support his family when his mother is laid off. Struggling to balance work and studies, Justin eventually drops out of college.
The wealth gap is the ugly shadow of American prosperity, fueled by historic and ongoing wrongs.
Jake and Justin will carry the indelible mark of their beginnings throughout their lives: Jake’s life will embody security; Justin’s, the stark reality of wealth inequality.
What if, at that critical moment, Justin had resources to reduce his work hours and take that tech internship? What would his life look like?
Connecticut’s baby-bond initiative aims to find out.
America’s First Baby Bonds
Connecticut has made history as the first state to implement a baby bonds program—fully funded for 12 years of babies.
The state will invest $3,200 for each baby covered by HUSKY, the state’s Medicaid program—that’s about 15,000 babies a year and a whopping 36% of the state’s children. Kids are automatically enrolled; no action is required. Upon reaching adulthood (18-30), participants can claim funds for specific wealth-and-opportunity-building purposes like higher education, a home purchase, or starting a business in the state. To receive the funds, they have to be Connecticut residents and need to complete a financial literacy course (hopefully not one funded by self-serving Wall Street firms). The initial $3,200 investment is anticipated to grow to $11,000 - $24,000, depending on when claims are filed.
Turning the idea of baby bonds into reality was a rocky road: The Democratic-led Connecticut General Assembly passed the bill in 2021, championed by former Democratic Treasurer Shawn Wooden. However, Gov. Ned Lamont and his team initially opposed the program’s funding, citing concerns over borrowing more than $50 million annually. Internal conflict heated up, as revealed in a January 2023 investigation by the Connecticut Mirror, exposing tensions between Wooden and the governor’s staff. Yet, following the publication, the situation took an unexpected turn. The program became a reality.
The sticking point of funding was solved by a plan to use a $393 million reserve fund established in 2019 during the restructuring of the state’s cash-strapped pension fund for municipal teachers. Originally designed to cover shortfalls in pension fund contributions, this reserve could be repurposed. To safeguard the pension system and meet ratings agencies’ requirements, a $12 million insurance policy was necessary, leaving approximately $381 million available for investment in the baby bonds program.
An Economic Shadow
The wealth gap is the ugly shadow of American prosperity, fueled by historic and ongoing wrongs. Picture wealth as your financial mojo—the sum of all your assets minus debts. It won’t surprise you to hear that white men and white families are more likely to have wealth, and a hefty sight more of it, than women, households of color, or women of color.
Racial wealth gaps reflect the country’s troubled history of discriminatory policies that have barred people of color from growing wealth. The sad fact is that things have not been getting better. The Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances shows the racial wealth gap widening during the Covid-19 pandemic. Between 2019 and 2022, median wealth increased by $51,800, yet the gap surged by $49,950. This leaves a significant $240,120 difference between median white and Black households. Meanwhile, child poverty in America started surging as pandemic benefits ended and inflation hit hard: The child poverty rate actually doubled in 2022. The official poverty rate that year was 11.5% overall, but for Black Americans it was 17.1%.
Obviously, this is not a fair playing field. Kids don’t choose their economic circumstances.
Giving children a stake in America’s future is consistent with both a liberal and a conservative economic philosophy.
Treasurer Erick Russell, who got the Connecticut Baby Bonds Trust rolling, described the program as “leveling the playing field in the sense that regardless of what family you’re born into, or where in the state you’re born into, or what resources your parents have, you have a fair shot at having economic opportunity and growth right here in Connecticut.”
Notably, Russell refers to the wealth gap as “generational” rather than “racial.”
This move acknowledges that while the wealth gap in the U.S. is substantially shaped by racial injustices like slavery, segregation, redlining, and discriminatory lending, it’s a complex issue. Women generally contend with wealth-building hurdles such as occupational segregation, caregiving responsibilities, and restricted access to family planning. Additionally, many whites, including men, encounter barriers to wealth accumulation such as geographic disparities, limited education access, and family structure.
Calling the wealth gap generational is also politically savvy: It makes long-term policy fixes more appealing, taps into family values, sparks empathy among voters concerned about their descendants’ financial future, and garners broader support for anti-inequality measures. Plus, it shifts blame away from individuals and fosters the idea of fair opportunities, a concept voters across the political spectrum can cheer for.
There are several ongoing debates about the details of Connecticut’s program: What if political opponents gain the power to axe it? What happens after the 12 years is up? Might the program further stigmatize children born into poverty? Is it big enough to make a difference?
It will take a lot to address America’s extreme wealth concentration, like fairer tax policies and rigorous enforcement of anti-discrimination laws in housing, employment, and education. But another ingredient is critical: tangible financial resources.
Capitalists Need Capital
One thing is clear: Giving children a stake in America’s future is consistent with both a liberal and a conservative economic philosophy. Conservatives believe in limiting government spending, and baby bonds pass the test: A program is pretty cheap compared to other forms of government spending. It’s also consistent with a notion dear to the hearts of free marketeers: Baby bonds allow more people the opportunity to benefit from the markets.
Economist Darrick Hamilton, founding director of the New School for Social Research’s Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy and a key architect of the baby bonds concept, acknowledges the devils in the details of Connecticut’s plan. But he is optimistic that state-level programs, even if imperfect and limited in scope, serve to mainstream baby bonds and help take the idea from theory to action. The ultimate goal for Hamilton is a nationwide baby bonds plan funded directly by the Treasury, akin to Social Security.
When asked about the top issue in addressing the country’s wealth gap, Hamilton responds succinctly: “Capital.”
He underscores the fact that if you lack capital in a capitalist system, you aren’t going to get very far. You can save all you want, but if you don’t have any transfers of resources from your parents or grandparents to help with things like college or the down payment on a house, it’s going to be very difficult to build wealth. “The problem with wealth-building is not how much you actively save,” says Hamilton. “It’s access to capital.” He adds that “most people with wealth generate it from owning an asset that began with some initial capital that passively appreciates over their lifetime.”
In Hamilton’s vision of a federal program, the amount allotted to each child varies based on their family’s wealth, ranging from $500 for affluent families to up to $60,000 for those at the bottom of the economic spectrum. On average, each child would receive approximately $20,000.
Inspired by Hamilton’s work and Connecticut’s plan, state-level proposals have sprouted up all around the country, including Washington, Massachusetts, Nevada, California, and North Carolina. In New Jersey, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and 2025 Democratic gubernatorial candidate has suggested that baby bonds will be part of his agenda if he becomes governor. In Georgia, the Georgia Resilience and Opportunity (GRO) Fund is piloting a program with a simple slogan: “Wealth begets wealth.”
Undoubtedly, the wealth gap negatively impacts everyone, no matter how affluent you happen to be or what color you are. It shreds social cohesion and economic stability, limits upward mobility, and perpetuates cycles of injustice. It’s terrible for democracy, concentrating political power and paving the way to societal unrest and diminished well-being for all.
Connecticut’s experiment could be an important step in dissipating the country’s shameful economic shadow. And give the Justins a fighting chance.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular