Daily news sites

The U.N. admits that the road to gender equality has been "slow" and hampered by regression. But it has committed to accelerating its efforts in order to meet its new 2030 deadline.

U.N. Women unveiled a campaign on Friday that's urging countries to commit to achieving equal rights for women within the next 15 years. The "Step it Up" initiative tasks world leaders and governments with implementing laws and policies that will put women on equal footing with men in the areas of social, economic and environmental development.

"Creating a world with greater equality for generations to come is the defining and most urgent challenge of this century," Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, executive director of U.N. Women, said in a statement. "Gender equality and the realization of women's and girls' human rights are fundamental for achieving human rights, peace and security and sustainable development."

The initiative was timed to coincide with International Women's Day and the 20th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. When that plan was put forth, advocates at the time had "high hopes" for putting an end to human rights violations against women, but it has fallen short, Mlambo-Ngcuka said in a taped statement.

In its exhaustive analysis of how women have fared over the past two decades, U.N. Women outlined how progress has been "uneven" and what it will take to establish gender equality.

The report pointed to a number of areas that have shown some promise.

Girls' enrollment in primary and secondary education has improved, for example. Maternal deaths have dropped. Women's participation in the labor force has increased. In some regions, incidents of such harmful practices as female genital mutilation and child marriage have declined.

Even these victories, however, are tenuous because they are threatened by rising extremism, deep-seated discriminatory norms and stereotypes.

Such systems have allowed plaguing human rights abuses against women, which in some areas are worse now than they were when the Beijing plan was put forth, to persist.

In all regions, the rate of violence against women in disturbingly high, with 35 percent of women having experienced physical and/or sexual assault. Globally, young women have a 50 percent higher risk of becoming infected with HIV, compared with their male peers. Women are also more likely than men to live in poverty.

Women's earning potential remains compromised, especially in developing countries.

In Africa, for example, 70 percent of crop production depends on women, yet women own less than 2 percent of the land.

"The overall picture is of slow and uneven implementation, with serious stagnation and even regression in several areas," Mlambo-Ngcuka wrote. "Progress has been particularly slow for the most marginalized women and girls who experience multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination."

While the U.N. is putting the pressure on world leaders to take a stronger stance, a number of inescapable crises stood in the way of developing meaningful progress.

Persistent conflicts, financial and economic crises, volatile food and energy prices, and climate change have deepened inequalities and have adversely affected women and girls, according to the U.N. report.

But the U.N. is focusing its efforts on addressing cultures of violence, masculinity and militarism.

To get there, the organization has first asked countries to definitively commit to making gender equality a priority.

U.N. Women envisions those commitments succeeding, though, on the community level with "context specific" strategies.

It wants to see media campaigns mobilize communities to reject violence against women. U.N. Women recommends fostering gender-responsive environments in schools, which would involve separate and safe sanitation facilities and addressing violence against girls. Policies could remedy discriminatory inheritance practices and improve women's access to resources. U.N. Women has also impressed the need to address data gaps in order to effectively monitor progress toward gender equality.

"No country has achieved gender parity, despite the many good laws that have been passed," Mlambo-Ngcuka said in a taped address. "This means that we cannot continue in the same way and expect far-reaching changes. Business as usual will erode the gains we have made, so we have to step it up."

Oxfam staff first met Josephine* in Juba in April 2013, in a UN base where she had fled to seek protection and medical help. She was pregnant and had left her home in the countryside with one of her five children. However her plans to return were overtaken by war and her entire life turned upside down. Since then, she hasn't seen or spoken to her husband and has been separated from the three children she left behind. Josephine is one of the two million people now displaced by war in South Sudan.

This week, she wanted us to help her relay a message, and this is what she said:

In many wars, women and children are left behind. This is happening in South Sudan and I'm sure it is happening in other parts of the world too. I want to tell women in a situation similar to mine to have courage. Take heart and be strong because your family needs you. Take good care of your children because sooner or later, you will go home and continue protecting their future. Sooner or later, we will need all families to come together.

The theme for this year's International Women's Day is "Make It Happen". Josephine is an inspiring example of the challenges that many women in South Sudan are stoically facing and overcoming, against all odds. But they need so much more help.



Women in South Sudan are resilient, empowered change-makers: they are farmers, journalists, youth leaders, teachers, poets. They support each other, their families and their communities. In a country at war, women have become the backbone of their communities because so many men have been killed or are away fighting. The women have been left to take care of homes and families, the sick and wounded, to tend the crops and livestock, and make all the decisions. Women are the unsung heroines in South Sudan's turbulent history.

However, despite their resilience and strength, the levels of sexual and gender-based violence they are facing are severe, shocking, debilitating -- and getting worse by the day.

Rape, sexual assault, harassment, domestic violence, forced marriage, and survival sex were persistent problems in South Sudan even before the war, exacerbated by high levels of gender inequality and a lack of justice for survivors. Since December 2013, when this phase of the conflict blew up, the violence against women has worsened because of mass displacement, and the presence of more men with guns and the impunity under which they are left free to act.

UN Human Rights reports say that all sides to this conflict -- soldiers, police and security forces -- have committed acts of sexual violence against women of different ethnic groups. Rape has been used as weapon of war. Sexual violence has been committed as a form of collective punishment. Zainab Bangura, UN Special Envoy on Sexual Violence said in her visit to South Sudan in October that the levels of rape in South Sudan were the worst she had ever seen, reporting horrific accounts of women, children and the elderly being repeatedly raped. The UN's Human Rights Chief recently highlighted that fighters engaged in a "month of rape" against women.



While war underpins this terror of sexual violence, so does an on-going food crisis in South Sudan. The country remains the world's worst food crisis, and the world's largest recipient of aid. Around 2.5 million people are "severely food insecure". Women are now having to take dangerous risks to feed their families just to supplement the aid they are receiving. They are forced to leave UN protection sites to collect firewood, fuel, water, food and shelter. Often they have to walk a long way to seek food, often having to cross frontlines where they can be stopped, harassed, raped, abducted, and even killed. In parts of South Sudan, Oxfam is distributing charcoal vouchers, fuel-efficient stoves and grinding mills in an attempt to lessen these dangers. But in light of just how severe this sexual violence is, a systematic response is needed. Above all, the South Sudan government and opposition must take immediate command and control of their troops and show zero tolerance for rape and other acts of gender based violence. The international community must give more to programs aimed at protecting women and girls and promoting gender equality because what they are giving now is nowhere near enough, given the scale of the problem.

Protection of women is consistently under-funded compared to other needs. The UN is seeking USD $1.81 billion to fund the response to the crisis in South Sudan, yet just $70 million of that is allocated to specialist protection programs, and only $15 million for addressing gender based violence. Despite prioritising protection of civilians, the international community must do more to urgently fund the response to these risks. Specifically, more attention must be given to specialized health, psychosocial, safety, and economic and transformative leadership programmes catering for survivors and vulnerable women. When it comes to tackling sexual and gender based violence, as well as gender equality, it's time for leaders in South Sudan and the international community to follow the leadership displayed by Josephine and the inspiring women of South Sudan.

Last month, a 20-year-old first-year college student, Özgecan Aslan, resisted rape and was brutally murdered in Turkey. Just because she was the last passenger on a minibus. Just because she was a woman. 27 other women were killed by men the month before in Turkey and a total of 281 in 2014.

Once again, we're reminded that we need to address the power imbalances that limit opportunities for girls and women to live their lives to the fullest. Tackling this issue requires a change in a society's understanding of "what a woman can or can not do." Policies help. Signing treaties help. Yet, advocating a change in mentality requires reframing the conversation at the policy level. There is a big gap between the laws on paper and their implementation. Additionally and more importantly, men, a large segment of the society, were mostly left out of the conversation and sometimes demonized in this context. The solution lies in men taking ownership. We need men to join the conversation. We need men to take responsibility.

In Turkey, one of the biggest obstacles in front of gender equality is the mindset. Women are not seen as independent individuals, but as a part of the family and society. This way of thinking has shaped government policies as well. The "State Ministry Responsible for Women's Affairs" was turned into "Ministry of Family and Social Policies" in 2012. Women organizations viewed this move as emphasizing family integrity over a woman's individual rights and highly criticized it. Right after Özgecan's death, Minister of Family and Social Policies, Ayşenur İslam, admitted that the number of women killed increased by some 35 percent from 2011 to 2013 in Turkey. However, Minister İslam associated this hike to the global pandemic of societal violence. She also recommended a change in mentality. However, she did not refer to altering the way the Turkish society perceived women. She highlighted the need to transform the values of the society in large. It is clear that the Ministry that deals with violence against women does not see the correlation between the rise in violence and the status of women in Turkey. I believe that this mentality has to change.

Even though Turkish laws and regulations are in place, Turkey's gender gap and statistics on violence against women are some of the highest in the world. This requires a deeper look into the gaps in outcomes, not just in means or inputs. During the 1995 World Conference on Women, 189 governments signed the 1979 Convention that outlaws discrimination, and committed to equal access for women. However, most of the countries, including Turkey, still not translated these commitments into reality. The attainment of these rights continues to be a challenge despite the numerous advancements, particularly in the Constitution, the Criminal Code, the Civil Code and the Labor Act. A strong legislative response is an important first step, yet, however well intentioned, it is not enough to change the mentalities in an abidingly patriarchal nation such as Turkey. Social norms and traditions actively constrain opportunities for girls and women, and inhibit the promotion of gender equality between men and women. The Twitter campaign, #sendeanlat -- or #tellyourstory -- where over one million women shared their personal sexual harassment stories, was a testament that the culture that presides in Turkey has not changed with signed treaties or domestic laws preventing violence against women. We need norms to evolve to allow greater agency for women and girls. The gender gap and related violence will not disappear in Turkey and elsewhere, otherwise.

If men join the conversation, we have a better chance towards eliminating gender gap. This approach was fanned by the speech of UN Women's Goodwill Ambassador, Actress Emma Watson in September of 2014. Her speech was to introduce UN Women's solidarity movement, HeForShe to encourage men and boys to be advocates of gender equality and take action against inequalities faced by women and girls. As Emma Watson has noted in her speech, "how can we effect change in the world when only half of it is invited or feel welcomed to participate in the conversation?" I believe her speech struck a chord with many as several new campaigns involving men were initiated since then.

Lean In, the organization established as the next chapter to Sheryl Sandberg's famous book, launched a public awareness campaign, #LeanInTogether, on March 5th in partnership with ESPN and the NBA/WNBA focusing on men and their important role in reaching gender equality. HeforShe campaign actively launched in Turkey as well with #bendegilsemkim -- or #ifnotmewho -- hashtag trending on twitter this week with supports from many corporations. The Twitter campaign, #sendeanlat -- or #tellyourstory -- also ignited a reaction from males. Men from Turkey and from neighboring Azerbaijan showed solidarity by posting their pictures with miniskirts on Twitter with the hashtag #ozgecanicinminietekgiy -- meaning "wear a miniskirt for Ozgecan." Some even took their skirts to the streets and joined several protests in İstanbul. The goal was to show that wearing miniskirts does not mean immortality. The campaign even got support from Emma Watson. This is a great step towards a change in mentality in Turkey.

However, there is room for more effective policy implementation and more men. All governmental agencies should accept the fact that violence against women continues to grow in Turkey because women are not seen as individuals, and should work in a concerted way work to change that mentality. And, of course, even some men are on the streets protesting violence against women, changing a mindset that has been residing over a culture for many years, requires involving all men. Dear Men, please join our movement!

Somewhere out there, a robot is scheming to take my job.

About a year ago, a breaking news story about a Los Angeles earthquake was fully written by a robot. Gathering data it received from the U.S. Geological Survey, an algorithm wrote and published the story on the Los Angeles Times' website less than three minutes after the trembling began.

News organizations freaked out, some labeling the event as the "rise of the robot reporter," sending all of us into a soul-searching quest to defend ourselves in the face of such a formidable adversary. "But my writing is original, and it oozes with style," many a reporter defiantly told themselves. "A data-crunching robot could never fill my position!"

At The WorldPost's Future of Work Conference, a partnership of The Huffington Post and Berggruen Institute taking place in London this week, a similar anxiety has begun to emerge -- if not with workers, then with the economists who study them.

"According to our research, 47 percent of jobs in the U.S. are at risk from technology over the next 20 years," Michael Osborne, a co-director of the Oxford Martin Programme on Technology and Employment, told me. The group's research combined U.S. Bureau of Statistics data with a complex machine-learning algorithm of its own to draw its conclusions.

For example, in retail, an algorithm might be a better predictor of customer preferences than a human salesperson thanks to the amount of data companies collect, he said. Logistics will be impacted by fast-moving advancements in autonomous vehicle technology that few took seriously just a few years ago.

"Forklift drivers, truck drivers, agricultural vehicle drivers," Osborne listed. "Those jobs could be gone very soon."

There are some recent trends experts are sharing which show how this new world might look like, when the small percentage of individuals or corporations that own machines (the means of production) are the only ones able to make money, and as the rest of us (the middle class) lose our jobs for the simple fact that #RobotsDoItBetter.

Take the most-talked-about slide of the day (seen below), courtesy of Anthony McAfee, associate director of the Center for Digital Business at the MIT Sloan School of Management. The line that has been going up since about 2002 represents total gross domestic product in the U.S. The line that is going down represents wages paid as a percentage of that GDP:

More and more of the gains going to a smaller and smaller percentage @amcafee @WPFutureSeries #FutureWork #inequality pic.twitter.com/AL5s0JMWeL
-- Adrian Brown (@_AdrianBrown) March 5, 2015

"This is not just an American phenomenon, it is not even a rich world phenomenon. This same decline in labor share is happening in most countries where we have data across the world, including places like China, India and Mexico," McAfee said.

"China is not offshoring to find cheaper labor," he added. "There is obviously something else going on here."

"It's a societal problem," Dr. Laura Tyson, professor of Business Administration and Economics, at the University of California, Berkeley's Haas School of Business, told me.

In the U.S., she notes, most job growth is already happening towards the bottom of the pay scale, much of which is driven by people whose traditional middle income manufacturing jobs have been lost to increasingly productive robots in the factory.

"I tend to worry about the quality of the job that will be available for them in the long run," she said.

Few feel that governments are adequately preparing for the shift. Some, however, feel that increased productivity thanks to machines will let humans focus on something we are infinitely better at doing than robots: creative thinking.

"The remaining jobs will be increasingly creative and increasingly social," said Osborne, the Oxford researcher who says 47 percent of jobs are at risk. "I actually think it will be better for society, because these are tasks that we tend to do in our spare time as hobbies, and as we are more displaced by machines it will leave these more fundamentally human tasks to perform."

Which sounds pretty good for people like me, who would love to refine the craft we feel most passionate about. Except... Osborne's final take on my question if this shift might benefit the arts in the long run left me feeling pretty dismal:

"Benefit? Hmmm," he started. "I think there will be new kinds of art, and more people will be freed up to make art, but wages will probably get less competitive in the arts, especially because there's going to be a lot more supply."

By law, Poland must spend at least 1.95 percent of its GDP on its military. That's just a shade under the 2 percent that NATO asks its members to devote. Aside from Estonia, however, Poland is way ahead of the rest of the region in military spending. And when President Barack Obama visited Poland in June 2014, Poland committed to upping its allocation to 2 percent, with an expectation that it will rise to 2.5 percent in 2015. The situation in Ukraine - a divided country, with Russia backing separatists in the East - is fueling security concerns in Poland and the Baltic countries in particular.

Even before the Ukraine crisis broke, however, Poland stood out in the region for its commitment to modernizing its military. "The attitude of Polish politicians is very unique and interesting," Marcin Piotrowski, of the Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM), told me in an interview in August 2013. "They usually are counting every zloty when it comes to other issues. But with the modernization there was and there is a consensus."

This consensus was strengthened by the short war between Russia and Georgia in 2008. That conflict was a wake-up call for many Poles that the security situation to their east remained unstable. "Poland was one of the leading forces pushing to change some assumptions within the new NATO strategy concept, which was approved at the Lisbon summit," Piotrowski pointed out. "We actively lobbied for emphasizing contingency planning in NATO and preparing for the worst-case scenario. Georgia, of course, was a main factor here."

Although the acute concerns generated by the Georgia crisis subsided, Poland remained committed to a substantial military modernization. "Compared to the situation after Georgia, and the reactions of politicians and the public at that time, we are much more confident about ourselves," he continued. "We might not be satisfied with all the aspects of the relationship with whole NATO. But we're satisfied with bilateral military relations with the United States."

Piotrowski dismissed concerns that Russia finds Polish modernization a threat. "It's probably not so much irritating for Russians," he explained. "They have some obsolete equipment. And we clearly have obsolete air defense systems - delivered during the Warsaw Pact period - so we must change this military equipment. Probably if the Georgians or the Azeris would start this kind of investment, we would see a strong Russian reaction. Also they recognize that since 1999 Poland is a serious member of NATO. Russia may recognize that Poland, like Turkey, must take this aspect of military security very seriously because of our specific geographic position."

Polish attitudes toward NATO missions have been divergent. There was initial support for the war in Iraq, but considerably less for the war in Afghanistan. In 2009, more than three-quarters of Poles wanted their troops withdrawn. "In Poland, even when we lost 30 soldiers in Iraq, this war was not so controversial in public opinion," Piotrowsky pointed out. "In Afghanistan, since the time when we increased our troops in 2007, public opinion has been largely negative. It became even more skeptical with the Obama policy and the surge. And now we have 41 soldiers who died in Afghanistan."

Still, he concluded that the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan were useful for the Polish military. "We have through the experiences of these expeditionary missions gained a certain amount of capital," he pointed out. "Even if we could imagine a worst-case scenario of military crisis in East-Central Europe, this kind of interoperability, getting to know American soldiers, and working under real combat conditions has been very useful for the military.

We talked about Polish-Russian relations, the shift in emphasis in Polish foreign policy toward Brussels, and the role of Polish peacekeeping.

The Interview

All the other countries in NATO are cutting their military budgets. Washington is trying to encourage its allies to increase spending, but they are ignoring Washington. NATO talks about "smart defense," but that seems like putting the best face on these cuts. Some of this is the financial crisis, but the trend began before then. How long can Poland buck this trend?

The attitude of Polish politicians is very unique and interesting. They usually are counting every zloty when it comes to other issues. But with the modernization there was and there is a consensus. In the Polish media, these national security issues are not prime time or on the front page of newspapers. We have a lot of portals, websites, blogs, and expert trade journals, and that's the place where the experts and politicians exchange opinions. But up to now national security issues are not a major topic in the mainstream media.

This wide consensus is a positive surprise for me. These expensive plans and this high level of military spending have support in the Seym and among the mainstream political parties. That's why the government has had the luxury to think in the long term about these investments into weapons and equipment. There's no panic, like we saw after 2008, but politicians are taking seriously this worst-case scenario. We have no interest in taking Minsk or Kaliningrad. Also, people who are in charge of this defense reform know more about the intentions and capabilities of Moscow.

The main investments should be in air defense. And that's an interesting topic: the competition between offers to sell us air and ballistic defense systems. Still, we have this luxury of a separate bill approved last year along with a decree by the president supporting long-term plan for military modernization. If our economy will still be in good shape, if there are no radical changes in the political landscape, which is of low probability, I am sure these plans will go smoothly.

Korea has been boosting its indigenous military manufacturing capacity to substitute for traditional imports, particularly from the United States. Has that been a debate here in Poland as well, to create an indigenous capacity?

We inherited a quite a big defense industry after the Communist period. It's clear that we cannot produce or design some types of weapons. For instance, when I was going to Washington, there was a contract with a Finnish company for armored vehicles for Polish land forces. Now we are producing these vehicles for export. The Finnish company sold us a license for this model. Now their factories can't produce it while our factories can. And we're selling them to different markets.

Americans provide licenses to allies - for tanks, for instance - for national security purposes. It usually doesn't make sense commercially. Why would the Finnish company undercut its own market by giving Poland the license?

Probably they didn't expect to undercut their own production. It's an irony.
Especially in our trade journals, there are clear concerns about lobbying from military industry companies. But it's also obvious, especially for politicians from districts where the factories are located, that this kind of equipment, like air defense or ballistic missile defense, is above our technical knowhow. One aspect of future contracts will be technical cooperation and production of some parts of this system in Poland.

Let's turn to Afghanistan. I don't remember where we are with Polish contributions.

We are still one of the biggest contributors - at least from Central Europe. We have 1,300-1,500 soldiers in Afghanistan. They moved to one or two bases in Ghazni province in eastern Afghanistan. Like many other NATO forces, they are focused on advising and supporting Afghan national forces. We had almost 3,000 soldiers in Afghanistan during the surge of 2010-2011. As I mentioned, I was responsible for the greater Middle East when I was in Washington, and I focused then on the American debates over Iraq and Afghanistan. There was an interesting paradox toward the two conflicts in Polish public opinion but also among political elites. Without conducting some sociological research or public opinion polls, I couldn't really understand why public opinion supported for such a long time the engagement in Iraq, which was criticized so strongly for instance in the United States. And yet, since the beginning, Poles always were skeptical or criticized the increased presence in Afghanistan. This would be a good topic for a political scientist or social scientist to explain this paradox in details.

In Poland, even when we lost 30 soldiers in Iraq, this war was not so controversial in public opinion. In Afghanistan, since the time when we increased our troops in 2007, public opinion has been largely negative. It became even more skeptical with the Obama policy and the surge. And now we have 41 soldiers who died in Afghanistan.

Does it have something to do with the somewhat comparable nature of the regime change in Eastern Europe and Iraq?