The U.S. is not the only country struggling with the immigration issue. An article in the May 29 edition of Newsweek reports that Israel has been jailing Sudanese refugees fleeing the carnage in Darfur. Rather than implicitly encourage Sudanese to flock to Israel, the government has been locking up those who manage to enter the country illegally, mostly via Egypt. While one cannot expect Israel or any other country to accept all of those fleeing from Darfur, the international community has an obligation to help. Wealthy countries everywhere must step up and offer asylum. The article states that it currently takes two years to process those in Israel for resettlement elsewhere. There is no reason why it should take so long.

I must say that it seems rather strange that Israel, home to those who had nowhere else to go during and after the Holocaust, is now locking up those who face similar horrors in Darfur.

There are disturbing reports today that the U.S. Senate's version of the immigration "reform" bill contains a provision allowing for a large increase in visas for nurses seeking to come to the U.S. to work. This will no doubt worsen the "brain drain" from countries such as the Philippines, India and China. What's more, it could mean increased emigration of nurses from Africa, especially from those countries where English is widely spoken. Reports indicate that the firms that recruit overseas nurses have not focused much attention thus far on Africa but there seems little doubt that they will begin to do so if this becomes law. Of course, the provision may not survive the conference committee negotiations between the House and Senate. One can only hope.

This is yet one more example of how the U.S. Congress generally pays mere lip service to assistance to developing countries. Recently, the House Appropriations Committee followed a "feel good" news conference with Bono by slashing the President's $3 billion aid request to $600 million. Moreover, Congress has never fully funded the Millennium Challenge Account program (which Mr. Bush proposed but has not pushed). Business as usual, unfortunately.

Interesting article in the Economist (May 13 edition-page 57) regarding a recent "humanitarian trade fair" in Dubai. Apparently, this is a gathering of businesses, NGOs and others involved in some way with providing goods and services for use in projects in developing countries. What was interesting to me (besides the fact that such trade fairs exist--I did not know that) is that it was held in Dubai. As the article points out, such gatherings are generally in Geneva or other places closer to the traditional homes of the NGOs and multilateral development organizations.

The location of the meeting appears to reflect larger changes in the world of international development. First, Dubai wants to take advantage of the desire of some NGOs to be closer to where they actually operate. Obviously, Dubai is closer to many developing countries than Geneva, London or New York. Second, Dubai represents a very business-oriented approach to development. This seems to be the same approach that is being adopted by many NGOs.

Query whether these factors will actually help those in need in the target countries?

I have spent a lot of time in Cambodia since 1994. One of the biggest problems facing that country is the trafficking of women and children. There are many NGOs working on this problem. One that is doing very good work in a small way is Stop Exploitation Now. (http://www.stopexploitationnow.org/default.asp) A small group of volunteers based in the Seattle area is carrying the load for this organization. They will be having an on-line fundraising auction next month. Please visit their site beginning on about June 8 and help to support them.

For a few years I have had an idea that I believe could help to boost educational opportunities in developing countries. "Zip Code Schools" would be built with funding from residents of zip codes in the U.S. Ideally, there would be matching funds from a multilateral aid foundation, the U.S. government and/or foundations. Three years ago I wrote an article for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer setting forth the idea (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/121126_ourplace09.html) so I won't repeat the details here. I do want to observe, however, that I believe the idea of having communities in rich countries band together to raise money to build schools in poor countries still makes a lot of sense.

The model for this idea, the Cambodia Schools Project ( http://www.cambodiaschools.com/), has been very successful. As of today, 282 schools have been built in villages in Cambodia, with about 20 more either under construction or on the drawing board.

Of course, it is not enough just to build the school. There must be teachers and supplies and the students must be healthy enough to attend and learn. The Cambodia Schools Project encourages donors to give enough to ensure the presence of teachers and also provides opportunities to assist the local communities in developing vegetable gardens to provide nourishment for the children (who are expected to work in the gardens). Moreover, there are also ways to provide internet connectivity, on at least a part time basis, so that these rural schools can be linked to the rest of the world.

Of course, school buildings can do more than just house schools. They can serve as community gathering places and perhaps modest health clinics for resident or roving health care givers. I envision these structures becoming the center of the community, a place to host meetings and for residents and officials to post notices. In addition, the buildings can host educational meetings for adults on topics such as how to improve crop yields, market their crops and fight malaria and AIDS.

Any thoughts?

Yesterday, I was sitting in a coffee shop with my daughter. Having just read that The World Food Program was having to cut food rations for Darfur victims in half, I reflected on how much we spend on things like expensive coffee and pastries. The small pastry I bought cost $1.29. This is more than the $1/day on which many in Sudan and elsewhere must live. How have we come to this?

I was happy to see the various events this weekend that sought to call attention to the genocide in Darfur. Publicity obviously helps. But, given what happened in, for example, Rwanda, how is it that the world, yet AGAIN, is allowing this situation to continue. The World Food Program apparently requested $746 million from donor nations for Darfur but has received only one third of that amount. Therefore, those in the camps of Darfur will receive only 1,050 calories per day, about half of what we need top thrive.

Now we read that the Sudanese government and the "rebel" groups may not reach a peace agreement in talks in Abuja. One wonders how serious either side really is. The government denies any affiliiation with the janjaweed, despite all evidence to the contrary. If the government cannot or will not reign in the murderous janjaweed, no agreement will do much.

It is time for the international community to make good on its pledges of aid and support for the people of Darfur. In addition, a NATO-led peacekeeping force must be sent to the area immediately to relieve the undermanned and rather ill-equiped African Union forces.