Alternatives International

Increasing Internet Censorship in Belarus

Liza Ponomarenko — 2012-03-01T01:40:08Z

On 6 January, Belarus's Law 317-3 came into effect, restricting Belarusians' Internet freedom with censorship similar to that of China. The new legislation implements Belarusian President Aleksander Lukashenko's Decree 60 from February 2010: “Improvements to the Usage of the National Segment of the Internet”.

In Decree 60, Lukashenko stated his plans to increase governmental control over the Internet by giving the government power to monitor users and restrict access to certain websites.

Already, the decree has led to the creation of an Operational and Analytical Centre attached to the president's office, responsible for monitoring Belorussian citizens' online activities.

It has also created a vast identification and surveillance system which can be applied to Internet service providers (ISPs) and individual users. This system also applies to computers and mobile phones.

Under Decree 60, users must provide their full names before using a computer on a “shared connection,” officially defined as any connection found in offices, cafes, and apartment buildings. The owner of a shared connection must keep a record of each user's browsing history for a year.

Law 317-3, which came into effect on January 6, imposes penalties on those who break these rules and postulates that intermediaries, such as ISPs or owners of shared connections must monitor the Internet traffic on their networks.

There is only one ISP in Belarus, the state-owned Beltelecom. However, the new law extends state power into the private realm: Owners of shared connections who fail to record the personal details of Internet users may face personal fines of up to €100. They may also face fines if they fail to block access to banned sites.

As a result of these regulations, Reporters Without Borders (RWB) has included Belarus on its annual report entitled “Internet Enemies,” a compilation of countries that restrict access to the Internet in an attempt to quell free political expression.

RWB states that Law 317-3 is leading to the “government's escalating control of the Internet [by] adding new weapons of repression.” This argument is based on RWB findings included in its report, which demonstrate that “nearly three million Belarusians actively surf the Web [because] dissidents, independent journalists and the civil society as a whole have found the Internet to be a space for discussion and exchanges of opinion that no longer exists in the traditional media.”

Belarus has a history of government attempt to restrict free speech over the Internet. In August 2007, Andrei Klimau, the first opposition activist in the country to be prosecuted for posting an article on the Internet, was given a two-year prison term for “inciting the overthrow of the regime.”

RWB's report further states that there are frequent cyber attacks against independent sites such as Charter 97, Belarus's most frequently-visited opposition website.

Similarly, Andrey Bastunets, the deputy chairman of the Belarusian Association of Journalists, belives the law as being a clear violation of freedom of expression.

Note that Belarus is not a stellar example of a democratic state to begin with. Lukashenko has been in office since 1994. His most recent election victory in December 2010 was accompanied by widespread accusations of fraud and foul play, bringing protesters out onto the streets. Lukashenko responded to these protests with a violent police crackdown and the imprisonment of presidential candidates Andrei Sannikov and Nikolai Statkevic.

Following this physical restraint of public expression, virtual restraint through Internet regulation and censorship fits the picture seamlessly.

However, Law 317-3 can also be seen as being an example of the growing worldwide awareness of Internet freedom. After the controversty over the SOPA in America, as well as the case of MegaUpload, the public is developing a realization that it must not take freedom of speech on the Internet for granted, and must fight to maintain this freedom.

Internet Censorship and The Case of MegaUpload

Liza Ponomarenko — 2012-01-30T18:49:51Z

Nations that limit access to the Internet violate a human right which has become essential to life in the 21st century: the freedom of speech and communication through the Internet. A lack of censorship within this digital platform is a precondition to efficient Internet communications, and modifications to this norm impinge on some basic democratic norms.

Universal Music Group's (UMG) recent prosecution of the Hong Kong-based online storage site MegaUpload—a site well known for illegally hosting copyright material—demonstrates how corporations are seeking to limit Internet freedoms.

On 9 December 2011, MegaUpload posted a self-promotional video on YouTube which included a number of UMG artists such as Kanye West, Will.I.Am, Jamie Foxx, Sean Combs, Alicia Keys, and Chris Brown. YouTube acted fast and removed the video.

Normally, YouTube removes videos only after a copyright holder requests such removal—in accordance to guidelines laid out in the United States Digital Millennium and Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA aims to protect both copyright and Internet freedoms, and copyright holders who abuse DMCA taked-own procedures are required to pay large monetary fines.

In this case, YouTube overstepped DMCA guidelines, as UMG and DMCA had a pre-existing agreement regarding copyrighted property. In response to YouTube's action, MegaUpload filed a lawsuit, a temporary restraining order, and a preliminary injunction against UMG for violating DMCA provisions.

On 15 December 2011, a judge gave UMG twenty-four hours to explain its actions: MegaUpload claimed that its right to free speech had been violated. It stated that Universal had “chosen to sabotage MegaUpload's promotional campaign, effectively censoring [MegaUpload's] ability to convey [its] message with [its] own original content... [despite the fact that] a significant number of today's top recording artists actively support [its] services.”

In its response, UMG claimed that the take-down was not governed by the DMCA, but by a separate agreement with Youtube which gives UMG the right to block or remove videos directly. In its own court filing, UMG stated that “the UMG-YouTube agreement grants UMG rights to effect the removal of user-posted videos through YouTube's Content Management System (CMS), based on a number of contractually-specified criteria that are not limited to the infringements of copyrights owned or controlled by UMG.”

These “criteria” have not been made public.

In other words, UMG has a private agreement with YouTube, which apparently exists outside of the DMCA. This allows UMG to remove content from YouTube, even when the content does not infringe on UMG copyrights. Undoubtedly, this is an unabashed form of censorship.

It is unclear whether whether YouTube has similar agreements with other corporations. It is clear, however, that the UMG-Youtube agreement has a score of unexplored implications for corporate Internet censorship and Internet freedoms. The fact that this agreement remained publicly unknown until MegaUpload filed its lawsuit is questionable and arguably, unethical. Internet users have a right to information regarding agreements between corporations, especially when these agreements directly affect them.

The video in question has been restored on YouTube pending the results of legal proceedings. However, the case reveals a need for international provisions regarding Internet freedoms, as national rules appear to be insufficient when large corporations and websites such as UMG and YouTube are not based out of one country.

If the Internet is to continue to be a tool that fosters free speech and communication, it must be specified what freedom on the Internet actually consists of. At the very least, private agreements such as the the UMG-YouTube contract must be made publicly known, to create a more elaborate picture of how the internet landscape is currently governed by negotiations between various megacorporations.

What is Occupy Wall Street Actually About?

Liza Ponomarenko — 2011-10-30T23:05:45Z

The Tea Party has been protesting against the United States government overstepping its boundaries and Occupy Wall Street seems to be the left-wing response to the a common frustration. For the Occupy movement, though, the real problem is corporate America, which rejects government oversight, save for when they are in need of massive bailouts.

Occupy Wall Street protests, which are quickly spreading across America and the rest of the world, are fundamentally different from other grassroots protests, like the Tea Party Movement. Usually, at least in the United States, protests are centered on one policy issue, but Occupy Wall Street does not have just one.

People are frustrated with a broad spectrum of issues, as found in the interactive list on their website (http://occupywallst.org/) that details issues from the obscenely monetized nature of American Presidential elections to inflated university tuition rates and student debt to general lack of government regulation of the market.

This protest is about the fundamental infrastructure behind policy generation, and it is not mutually exclusive from other issues such as desirable levels of government intervention. There are Democrats, Republicans, Independents alike taking to the streets out of the frustration generated by the American government working for corporations and not for the people.

In the United States, six corporations control all major media coverage and access in print, on TV, and online: General Electric, Walt Disney, Viacom, News Corps, Time Warner, and CBS. Pfizer, Merck & Co., Johnson & Johnson, and a few others concentrate the pharmaceutical industry. Monsanto controls most of America's food production. These companies do whatever it takes to maintain profits; it is what they were designed to do. With this goal, the corporations lobby the government for their own interests, disregarding the best interests of the American public.

The American people have not been blind to this, but as jobs are becoming increasingly hard to obtain and secure in an economy that is stagnating, frustration is on the rise.

Occupy Wall Street is fundamentally a protest against the loss of primary interest in citizen welfare. The American government should be focused on working for its people and not the corporations that finance their campaigns. The system is failing; government, business, civil society are ultimately caught up in a system that is not primarily concerned with the welfare of its core constituency – the citizens.

Alternatives International Journal spoke with some people participating in the protests in New York City. Of these, a commonality of frustration emerged, despite the divergence of issues they were protesting against. Many talked about how good they felt to be part of something communal, describing the self-organizing efforts of performers, people giving out clean clothes, and food.

A protester who wished to only be referred to as Joe, described Occupy Wall Street as a microcosm of what he thought America should be: community organization and localized redistribution systems. He commented on the police's disrespect for for the movement, resembling contempt. He had tried to speak to some of the officers who ignored him and told him to go home.

A key indicator of the validity and necessity of Occupy Wall Street was the fact that many Veterans were part of the protest, and joined in their uniforms. Those currently active in the government service sector are not allowed to protest as they cannot be politically partisan, but the veterans are clear regarding the reasons for being part of the Occupy Movement. They believe the government is failing to serve its citizens, regardless of political inclination.

The future of Occupy Wall Street is still uncertain, but some key facts that increase the likelihood of its influence in not only the upcoming US elections, but also in the fundamental course of the American political system. The people, the 99%, are tired of having the top 1% of the population controlling all wealth and resources.

It is a fact that big businesses such as Citigroup are making cutbacks despite making profits. It is a fact that most of the people responsible for the catastrophic mortgaged-back security crisis are still working for the same banks and still receiving big bonuses. With the Occupy Wall Street movement growing at an accelerating rate, it seems that Occupy Wall Street is here to stay.

Media Governance; A New Direction for Development

Liza Ponomarenko — 2011-10-02T23:38:38Z

Media governance is an aspect of development studies that is largely ignored in a technological world where it should be a key issue.

The history of electronic communication worldwide can provide organizations and individual project workers with great information about approaches necessary to facilitate efficiency and sustainability. Habitat for Humanity works on urban planning and housing infrastructure, and Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders works to facilitate health infrastructure, but they remain an under-promoted group of non-profit organizations working to reshape electronic media infrastructure.

The most publicized operations dealing with the issue tend to be byproducts of other initiatives. An example of this is Dr. Muhammad Yunnus's Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, a microfinance institution. One of its many initiatives has been the promotion of “Telephone Ladies,” where women are given loans to buy a phone and charge others for its use. Grameen monitors the rates charged, and has reshaped the landscape of communication in Bangladesh, in part by allowing for the implementation of a quick natural disaster warning system in rural areas. Dr. Yunnus believes it takes Grameen a day to warn the country, whereas it would take the government an entire week.

Within Canada, OpenMedia is a national non-profit organization working to advance and support open and innovative communications systems. It comprises a network of people and organizations working to institute campaigns and to spread awareness of democratic principles in media policy-making. The organization works on an issue-by-issue basis in their attempts at creating awareness. One of their campaigns, “Stop the Meter,” deals with competition and choice in the Internet service market, as a means to ensure Internet access and affordability.

“Canada is currently lagging behind the rest of the world in these respects, and needs to step up its game for the sake of our citizenry and our digital economy,” said Lindsey Pinto, OpenMedia's communications manager. She also said the organization's issue-by-issue approach has been effective in spreading awareness.

“Through our advocacy efforts, but more importantly through pro-Internet Canadian efforts at creatively and passionately spreading the word, there does seem to be a shift wherein more and more people understand just how important our communications are,” Pinto said, “We recently launched a survey which among other things asks for general comments about our organization and its values, and the answers were intelligent and impassioned like you wouldn't believe.”

There are many organizations like OpenMedia contesting media policy in the Global North. In the US, these include the Media Democracy Coalition, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Media Action Grassroots Network.

Despite this, there is widespread concern that the approaches followed by other such organizations may not be the most efficient, despite their good intention. “Much Information, Communication, and Technology for Development (ICT4D) work is often focused on giving people fish” instead of teaching people “not only how to fish, but how to create and stock their own lakes with those fish, ” said Dr Becky Lentz, Assistant Professor of media and public policy in the Department of Art History and Communication Studies at McGill University.

An example of such approaches is seen with “One Laptop Per Child,” a Microsoft-sponsored program that gives out laptops to children. Although providing them with technology, it also makes these children Microsoft consumers. Arguably, a program teaching kids how to build their own computers would go further than this approach.

The study of digital media policies is important to us all, but particularly with regard to development theories, processes, and projects. The omnipresence and accessibility of media technology such as computers and cell phones makes it easy to remain an unquestioning consumer. The infrastructure of media can have major implications for the way development projects are implemented and structure of the results produced, and thus it is vital to note this while analyzing and creating them. Furthermore, existing media infrastructure projects warrant more focus, and should receive greater publicity.

Photo courtesy of JonJon2k8 (flickr)

Taking away the abstraction from beheadings in Saudi Arabia

Liza Ponomarenko — 2011-09-01T23:34:05Z

The condemned, regardless of gender, is given a tranquilizer and taken into what is usually a public square after a daily midday prayer. The prisoner cannot see anything, only imagine the gathering public from behind a blindfold.

The police lay out a large sixteen-foot sheet on the ground. The prisoner is put in the middle; barefoot and shackled. He or she is made to face Mecca before the imminent execution. Next, an Interior Ministry official reads aloud the name of the accused and the crime. Soon, the executioner swings around a traditional Arab scimitar before approaching the prisoner. He jabs the prisoner in the back causing the head to rise on reflex and, with a single swing, decapitates them. A trained doctor standing by then sews the head back onto the body as it's taken away in an ambulance and buried in an unmarked grave in a prison cemetery. Amnesty International reports the bodies hanging up on poles to serve as a deterrent to crime, though the frequency of this occurrence is uncertain. However, this is the reality surrounding most beheadings in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is a nation that practices modern capital punishment. Any execution is gruesome, but there must be international awareness and discussion about the practice and the excessive brutality that accompanies each incident.

The criminal justice system in Saudi Arabia is based on a literal interpretation of Sharia law. The death penalty can be imposed for a wide range of offenses: murder, sexual misconduct, armed robbery, treason, adultery, fourth offense of theft, drug smuggling, witchcraft, pedophilia, home invasion, terrorism, blasphemy, sedition, apostasy, idolatry, rape, carjacking, homosexuality, prostitution. The death penalty can be carried out by stoning, shooting or scimitar beheading, the latter being most common.

In terms of the frequency of these executions, 2007 was the modern record year with 153 men and three women executed. 102 people were executed in 2008, sixty-seven in 2009, and twenty-six in 2010. Forty-seven women have been publicly beheaded from the early 1990s up to 2010; before then the policy was for them to be shot or stoned. Currently, the 2011 total number of executions has already reached twenty-six. Most executions take place in the three major Saudi Arabian cities Riyadh, Jeddah and Dahran.

Lawyers are typically absent from criminal proceedings, which violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, the government of Saudi Arabia does not subscribe to the Declaration, stating that it fails to take into account the cultural and religious traditions of Sharia law.

Governmental international organizations have yet to draw the line on the moral acceptability of this issue. Can public executions truly be an acceptable part of any culture? It is time for a serious international inquiry into the limits of moral relativism and how to prevent excessively violent acts from being carried out by governments themselves. Then again, the line has already been drawn with laws such as the Universal Declaration of Human rights, yet no one is willing to take action considering Saudi Arabia's importance in global oil supply. Moreover, some activist organizations have accused Western media outlets of intentionally underreporting the issue; they charge Western governments with wanting to avoid mass public outrage on the issue. Considering Saudi Arabia has served as an ally to the United States in the Middle East, that accusation falls somewhere between probable and feasible.

It is difficult to get true insight into the institutions of the Saudi Arabian system of law. In a rare 2003 interview the leading executioner in Saudi Arabia, Muhammad Saad al-Beshi, gave an interview to Arab News. He stated that he was proud of doing God's work and that he had executed numerous women and men. "When they get to the execution square, their strength drains away. Then I read the execution order, and at a signal I cut the prisoner's head off," he said. Al-Beshi had no qualms regarding his profession, stating he is content with the work he is doing.

It is important to note that foreigners are also subject to Sharia law, which only adds to the question of how to deal with Saudi Arabian moral inclinations, or lack there of. Effective August 1, Indonesia banned its citizens from going to Saudi Arabia as migrant workers following the beheading of one of its citizens in 2011, Ruyati binti Sapubi, who was working there as a maid. After her death, her corpse was dangled from a helicopter. Her family did not know about the execution until after it happened, something the Saudi government has apologized for, but details about her trial and why she had killed her employer are unclear. Many human rights activist organization claim she suffered abuse from her employer. She was not given a lawyer.

The ban does not affect the migrant workers already abroad, but already it is projected to cost both economies a substantial amount, particularly Indonesia, since 1.5 million of its citizens find work abroad in Saudi Arabia. The ban also comes on the tail end of many other issues of the mistreatment of Indonesian workers in Saudi Arabia, particularly maids such as Sapubi.

Photo: zbigphotography (flickr)

A Lesson to Be Learned from India's Failing Microfinance

Liza Ponomarenko — 2011-06-30T14:09:58Z

Microcredit, microfinance, and microlending are synonymously used to describe the trend policy makers attribute to significant reductions in poverty. Essentially, microfinance programs use innovative and often contractual techniques to provide loans to people who would otherwise not qualify for typical loans from banks. The concept was introduced by Dr. Muhammad Yunus in Bangladesh. He noticed that rural women needed some type of capital to launch their businesses; however, the only way to obtain such capital was through lenders who charged impossibly high interest rates. Consequently, most of the women were trapped in debt, unable to ever pay back their original lender. Dr. Yunus founded the non-profit Grameen Bank in 1976 and both eventually won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for their work as the pioneers of microfinance.

The original focus of the Grameen Bank was on rural people with no credit history and no collateral. However, the bank soon expanded and an industry started to grow around the idea of microfinance. Today, microfinance is accessible to anyone from rural Bangladeshi farmers to inner-city kids from New York. In the industry, loans are usually given to women. At Grameen, for example, ninety-seven percent of the clientele are women. This trend is based on numerous studies that show that women are more likely to spend money on improving the welfare of their children and investing in the future of their families than are men.

Typically, microfinanciers use techniques such as group lending or offering education, training, health care and other social services to offset the lack of collateral that usually prevents borrowers from access to regular bank loans. Grameen Bank's main focus is to improve standards of living and raise people above subsistence levels of existence permanently. In other words, its objective is not profiteering. Other non-profit organizations with similar vested interests are Opportunity International, Finca International, Accion International, and Oikocredit.

A client of SKS Microfinance, India

Microfinance was wildly successful in Bangladesh, which gave the illusion of a win-win situation that yielded both profits for Grameen Bank and huge improvements in development for Bangladesh. This is a tainted view since Grameen's goal was development and any profits were an added bonus. Private organizations were misled to believe they too could first and foremost profit from this type of venture while developing the country in the process. This approach which has shown little success—for instance the current collapse of several microfinance institutions in India—is a warning to the wise against mismanaged microlending.

In many ways, the microcredit crisis in India resembles the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis in the United States and may affect global markets significantly. India's microcredit industry has grown irresponsibly fast, mainly due to the pursuit of profit, which is often unregulated by the government. Until November 2010, India had the fastest microloan growth in the world. Between 2003 and 2009, the number of microloans shot from 1 million to 26.7 million. Unlike Bangladesh, most of the microlending was done by private investor-owned companies. Venture capitalists, like Vikram Akula and Vinod Khosla, have led the way in India, making tens of millions from microlending with negligible effects on the country's development. Many entrepreneurs followed their example since entry into the microcredit industry was easier once a base of consumers had been established. As a result, some villages have up to ten microcreditors offering loans.

These new profit-hungry creditors often bypass the practices of group lending and the provision of social services that in the past ensured both the repayment of loans and the success of the program. Without collateral, borrowers took out new loans to pay off the interest on the older ones. The subprime debacle in the states functioned in a similar way. Large private banks lent clients grossly overestimated mortgages that they could never pay back. The banks did so without checking their credit history or ensuring they would not easily default. Poorly-made investments became bundled up in global finance, as is the nature of the Twenty-First Century. That particular bubble burst when borrowers could not pay back their loans. Not all impoverished people are equipped to take out microloans and even those that are equipped need assistance and a development plan to help them succeed.

In India, it has been reported that loan officers severely harass borrowers. Suicide has increased due to inability to repay loans. Regardless, the Andhra Pradesh government's response to the crisis is not proactive. The government passed a law on October 14, 2010 that froze much of the microcredit across the county, similar to banning mortgages after a mortgage crisis. The ordinance is bankrupting private lenders and hurting all of the functioning microfinance programs. The objective of legislation should be to reform microfinance rather than kill it. It is unclear whether the government's new law will help or hurt the poor. However, its extremity indicates that some other measure would have likely mediated the crisis in a better way.

Meanwhile, global commercial banks such as Citigroup Inc. and Deutsche Bank AG are establishing microfinance funds. The Indian case reminds us that private microlending must be well managed. If unregulated, private firms will grow globally and surely lead to a much greater crisis than the 2008 subprime mortgage debacle.

Photos: Kalyan Neelamraju (Flickr), World Economic Forum (Flickr)

Environmental Health in China: Poised in Ambiguity

Liza Ponomarenko — 2011-06-01T21:11:00Z

A rapidly industrializing nation, the Peoples Republic of China is simultaneously lagging and leading in the field of environmental health, which specifically addresses the physical, chemical, and biological factors impacting human health.

Environmental risk factors are much greater in China than in other industrialized powerhouses, and include risks associated with undeveloped rural areas and subsistence agriculture. In these areas, poor sanitation and lack of access to drinking water have caused the spread of a spectrum of diseases. Health risk factors in China also include soil, air, and food pollution from rapid industrialization, as well as post-industrialist epidemics such as obesity and hypertension. In order to adequately address, or at least mitigate the exponentially increasing problems, the Chinese division of the World Health Organization (WHO) has spent the past decade attempting to fuse environmental policy and health policy; two areas which have traditionally been managed separately within the Chinese administration.

The 2006-2010 Five-year Plan and the 2007 China National Environment and Health Act have finally shown progress in the merger of the two formerly disjointed sectors of government, environment and health. However, the availability of strategies to deal with environmental health remains fragmented at best, and not only in China. Bret Powis, a WHO Programme Coordinator, commented on the issue, stating that the lynch pin to progressive strides in environmental health is good governance.

There cannot be significant improvements if the infrastructure of the Chinese government is not conducive to the development of environmental policy. Thus, increased environmental health in China is dependent on changes in the fundamental constructs of the public sector.

Powis also noted that he found it easier to work with the Chinese government than other governments. He claimed he was very hopeful about future progression of environmental health policy, mainly because he felt that achieving long-term policy directives was much easier in communist systems. While this may at first seem surprising, it makes sense; a communist government does not drastically change over time. It is easier to coordinate with a constant agenda, rather than with changing agendas that waver depending on a political atmosphere.

In China, WHO focuses on two major strategies towards engendering the governance needed to effectively facilitate environmental health policy. As the Chinese department of WHO describes it, the first element involves “promoting the cooperation and collaboration amongst intergovernmental departments” and the second involves “identifying a clear division of responsibility among involved departments.”

While the objectives are admirable, their implementation seems questionable due to the ultimate priorities of the government. The Chinese government will always follow policy that allows it to retain absolute power within China and economic power outside of China. Among countless examples of this lies the fact that the Chinese government spends a far greater share of its budget on internal security than on national defence. Long-term dominance in environmental health policy will prove substantially beneficial for China, as it will not only make it a leader in the field of environmental sustainability, but will also legitimize its rapid industrialization by fostering moral gravitas. Yet at what point will that policy become beneficial for the Chinese government? Until this time comes, the lofty goals of the WHO will not come to fruition.

It is important to note that some components of environmental health policy progression in China are definitely more beneficial to the government now, and therefore will become realized sooner. For example, effective use of information and sustainable development are two environmental health objectives that the Chinese government has focused on improving for the sake of honing in on equity and environmental justice. The country quite obviously has an extensive record of human rights violations. How can there be social justice in a country of malleable civil liberties, dictated by the government on a whim? Justice seems especially foreign when considering the fact that anyone who attempts to challenge the Chinese government mysteriously enters a veil of inexistence. The case and point being jailed Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Liu Xiaobo.

A prime example of China's effective use and transfer of information is the China Climate Change Partnership Framework of 2008, which has just recently been finalized, and is entering stages of implementation. This framework is a joint programme with the Spanish government, which is committed to funding global efforts to combat climate change. China has been one of the first nations to benefit from the Spanish commitment. Mao Jixiang, the Environmental Health WHO Programme Officer, commented on the progress of this framework with great enthusiasm, and was excited by the fact that that this soon three-year joint venture is finally moving past the technicalities which previously hindered its execution.

The point of this venture is mainly to transfer the knowledge and skills necessary for environmental risk management among Chinese agencies, with a focus on the health sector. Of note is that nowhere in the joint venture are there specific datelines or targets. There are essentially only suggested deadlines which means the Chinese government can make policies as it sees fit. Meanwhile, the rest of the world must watch and hope for some kind of evolution in the Chinese environmental health policy.

The People's Republic of China is certainly a powerhouse nation. China will not easily bend to international pressure of any kind. Ultimately, the best way to make China enact environmental health policy, or any other type of policy that is beneficial to nations outside of China, is to convince the Chinese government that such a policy is also the best option for China. The WHO has been greatly instrumental in establishing and presenting such strategies, which have the capacity to strengthen China's economy and global clout while modifying the environment in the country to encourage better health for its citizens.

Beijing, China

Photos: Pedronet, fung.leo