Headquarters In Geneva Research Articles

Not idle: The gymnastics of refugee activism in—and out of—the aid apparatus

Abstract ‘Are refugees idle?’ This was a common question I received from UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) representatives when I was conducting research at their global headquarters in Geneva. Refugees are not idle, even in camps with a heavy aid presence like Nyarugusu camp in Tanzania. Refugees engage in various kinds of labour, including activism. Based on more than two years of ethnographic research in Nyarugusu camp, in aid and government offices across Tanzania, and at regional and global hubs of the UNHCR in Kenya and Switzerland, this article outlines three forms of activism refugees engage in despite the many obstacles the aid apparatus presents for such activism. I argue that refugees must perform metaphorical gymnastics in order to advocate for themselves, for their communities, and for their country of origin. The refugee view of the aid apparatus provides valuable critiques for changes that could be made to improve humanitarian services.

"The Greatest and Most Important Human Right": Citizenship and Bureaucratic Indifference in Refugee-UNHCR Correspondence

This article examines how refugees advocate for themselves with the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), and what responses their communications engender. It analyzes letters sent by refugees in Kenya to UNHCR headquarters in Geneva between 1983 and 1994. The findings underline a disjuncture between refugees’ efforts to constitute themselves as political agents, and UNHCR’s insistence on viewing them as depoliticized subjects. The refugees perform citizenship vis-à-vis UNHCR, using their shared identity as a basis for collective claims-making and trying to renegotiate their unequal relationship with the international organization. To empower themselves, they adopt the international organization’s own refugee rights vocabulary and play off different organizations and layers of UNHCR against each other. UNHCR’s responses (or lack thereof) demonstrate the consequences of its insulation and bureaucratization. These insights are especially noteworthy in light of recent progress on meaningful refugee participation in the refugee regime.

Editorial introductions.

Editorial introductions.

Editorial introductions.

Editorial introductions.

Dévora Kestel: global leader in mental health policy

“I never had any ambitions to become director within a large international agency”, says Dévora Kestel, Director of Mental Health and Substance Use at WHO. Yet her formative experiences as a mental health adviser at country level and her commitment to advancing the rights of people with mental illness have equipped her well for this global leadership position. At WHO's Geneva headquarters, Kestel directs teams of technical and policy experts across a range of mental health and related specialties, including child and adolescent mental health, suicide prevention, mental health policy relating to humanitarian crises, brain health, and substance use.

Editorial introductions.

Editorial introductions.

Participation, Preparedness, and Pandemic: An Interview with Blast Theory

In 2018, Blast Theory became the first ever artists-in-residence at the World Health Organization (WHO) headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. The UK-based artists’ group was responding to a commissi...

After Coronavirus Crisis - Food Crisis?

As the novel coronavirus first emerged in China late last year, more than a dozen U.S. researchers, doctors, and public health officials were working at the World Health Organization’s Geneva headquarters. President Trump has accused the United Nations’ health agency of not clearly communicating early on how big a threat the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic was, in an attempt to protect China. Last week, he said the U.S. will halt funding to the WHO and conduct a review “to assess the WHO’s role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus.

Editorial introductions

Editorial introductions

Re-assessing the Foundations: Worldwide Smallpox Eradication, 1957-67.

An expansive, worldwide smallpox eradication programme (SEP) was announced by the World Health Assembly in 1958, leading this decision-making body to instruct the World Health Organization Headquarters in Geneva to work with WHO regional offices to engage and draw in national governments to ensure success. Tabled by the Soviet Union's representative and passed by a majority vote by member states, the announcement was subject to intense diplomatic negotiations. This led to the formation, expansion and reshaping of an ambitious and complex campaign that cut across continents and countries. This article examines these inter-twining international, regional and national processes, and challenges long-standing historiographical assumptions about the fight against smallpox only gathering strength from the mid-1960s onwards, after the start of a US-supported programme in western Africa. The evidence presented here suggests a far more complex picture. It shows that although the SEP's structures grew slowly between 1958 and 1967, a worldwide eradication programme resulted from international negotiations made possible through gains during this period. Significant progress in limiting the incidence of smallpox sustained international collaboration, and justified the prolongation and expansion of activities. Indeed, all of this bore diplomatic and legal processes within the World Health Assembly and WHO that acted as the foundation of the so-called intensified phase of the SEP and the multi-faceted activities that led to the certification of smallpox eradication in 1980.

III.1. Savoir et se taire ? Le Comité international de la Croix-Rouge et la Shoah

As early as the end of WWII, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was condemned for its response to the Holocaust. The world’s oldest humanitarian institution was primarily criticised for its silence. The ICRC did not publicly denounce the deportation of Jewish civilians to concentration and extermination camps. Because the organisation appeared to know what was happening in these places, its silence was all the more condemnable. Knowing and yet remaining silent was considered a sign of cowardice and passivity—and even of willing complicity with the perpetrators. A series of events, including the visit of the ICRC to the Theresienstadt Ghetto and the issuance of travel documents to war criminals, only served to underscore the criticisms against the Genovese organisation.This article seeks to examine both sides of the issue. It begins with an explanation of how the ICRC functioned during WWII and a discussion of the differences between the headquarters in Geneva and operations in the field. It then lists the criticisms, both justified and unfounded, that have been leveled against the ICRC for its silence before examining the relevance of each accusation. The article’s preliminary conclusion points to reasons as to why the term “silence” became so closely associated with the ICRC.

From the Editor.

Greetings. As Editor-in-Chief of JCRP, I was invited to participate in the Second Global Rehabilitation 2030 Meeting, hosted by the World Health Organization (WHO) that took place in the Executive Board Room of the WHO Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. I was also invited to stay for a follow-up meeting to initiate “a process of developing a health policy and systems research agenda for rehabilitation.” Larry Hamm attended the launch meeting of WHO's Rehabilitation 2030 initiative in 2017 and provided an excellent summary in JCRP.1 I have agreed to co-author a summary of this year's meeting with other journal editors who attended, which will be co-published in an upcoming issue. However, I think it is worthwhile to share a few key points from the meeting now. One is the need for action related to the growing worldwide burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), which are responsible for 71% of all deaths globally.2 The need for rehabilitation is clear and thus is a major point of emphasis, which is especially important for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases as they are the 1st and 3rd leading causes of death, respectively. Since these are 2 of the key focus areas of JCRP and prevention of NCDs is also critical, JCRP can serve as a major vehicle to disseminate research findings on these topics. The second point to mention is that WHO recommends that rehabilitation professionals from different disciplines should unify with a common identity, that being to promote rehabilitation as a health strategy with the objective of optimizing functioning.3 This aligns well with the work of AACVPR professionals as improved function is clearly a major objective of both cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation programs. September brings the AACVPR annual meeting, to be held this year on the 18th-21st in Portland, Oregon. Our annual JCRP Editors and Editorial Board meetings take place there. I welcome your comments about JCRP and any feedback or recommendations you have related to the Journal. You can communicate those directly to us at [email protected] or by contacting any of the Editors or Editorial Board members (https://journals.lww.com/jcrjournal/Pages/editorialboard.aspx). Or, if you are attending the annual meeting, it would be great to have a conversation there. One of the highlights you will find in the 5th issue of Volume 39 is the Invited Commentary by Arena et al. The authors provide an overview of the TotalCardiology Research Network (TCRN) which is an initiative to provide high-quality clinical research from an outpatient-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) program. The Commentary overviews the evolvement of their efforts, a summary of their research publications and abstracts, and their inaugural research retreat. This model, with some variations, could be replicated by other CR programs which would allow for meaningful advances in the CR evidence-base and improvements in CR patient outcomes. Also in this issue are three reviews: one by Dal Lago et al on exercise training of patients with heart failure; another by Du et al on exercise training of patients with congenital heart disease; and the third by Steinhaus et al, which focuses on exercise interventions of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. This issue also contains a number of excellent Original Investigations and Brief Reports related to both cardiac rehabilitation and pulmonary rehabilitation. I continue to ask for your assistance in sharing the information from this issue with your colleagues and collaborators, particularly via your social media outlets. I know the authors of these reviews and studies would be most grateful for your assistance in helping disseminate their research. Also, patients can benefit from these contributions which are advancing the evidence base of both cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation programs. I hope you find the information provided in this issue to be useful in your work with patients in your rehabilitative programs, your research, or both. Lenny Kaminsky, PhD, FAACVPR, FACSM, FAHA Editor-in-Chief Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention

International Labor Organization & its Contribution in Different Periods

The International Labor Organization (ILO) is a United Nations agency that sets international labor standards and promotes social protection and work opportunities for all. The ILO has 187 member states: 186 of the 193 UN member states plus the Cook Islands are members of the ILO. The tripartite structure is unique to the ILO where representatives from the government, employers and employees openly debate and create labor standards. The International Labor Office is the permanent secretariat of the International Labor Organization. It is the focal point for International Labor Organization's overall activities, which it prepares under the scrutiny of the Governing Body and under the leadership of the Director-General. The Office employs some 2,700 officials from over 150 nations at its headquarters in Geneva, and in around 40 field offices around the world. Among these officials, 900 work in technical cooperation programs and projects. In 1969, the organization received the Nobel Peace Prize for improving fraternity and peace among nations, pursuing decent work and justice for workers, and providing technical assistance to other developing nations.

Reflexive subjects: Exploring the narrative habitus of self-aware interviewees

AbstractThe notion of ‘self-aware interviewees' contains two features that emerged when studying early career professionals in the United Nations headquarters in Geneva and Vienna. First, it entails considerations on the researcher's positionality vis-à-vis the ‘reflexive subjects' encountered in the field. It also considers the benefit of ‘para-ethnographic sensibilities' and the related re-negotiation of the relationship informant-ethnographer. Second, it addresses the narrative habitus encountered among UN neophytes. This paper ultimately states that analyzing the self-aware interviewees' (auto-)narrations implies reflections on power relations in a particular research setting.

Abstract SY03-01: Government and civil society efforts in global cancer control

Abstract SY03-01: Government and civil society efforts in global cancer control

Population estimates on HIV in Chile 2017. SPECTRUM, UNAIDS

The Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) promotes the development of population estimates related to this epidemic, based on the use of the SPECTRUM software. In Chile, the estimates are updated annually, the last one corresponding to the year 2017, a process that included the participation of representatives of the Ministry of Health with the advice of experts from the UNAIDS headquarters in Geneva. The development of the 2017 estimation process yielded a number of 67,000 people living with HIV in 2017 (lower limit of 58,000 - upper limit of 76,000), with a prevalence in the group of 15 to 49 years of 0.6% (0.5-0.6%) and an incidence of 0.33 per thousand inhabitants. This document synthesizes the 2017 estimation process carried out in Chile, as well as the main results generated through this methodology.

Editorial introductions

Current Opinion in Psychiatry was launched in 1988. It is one of a successful series of review journals whose unique format is designed to provide a systematic and critical assessment of the literature as presented in the many primary journals. The field of psychiatry is divided into 13 sections that are reviewed once a year. Each section is assigned a Section Editor, a leading authority in the area, who identifies the most important topics at that time. Here we are pleased to introduce the Journal's Section Editors for this issue. SECTION EDITORS Winfried RiefWinfried RiefWinfried Rief, PhD, is currently Chair of the Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Head of the Outpatient Clinic of Psychotherapy at the Philipps University, and Head of the Postgraduate PhD-Program for Cognitive Behavioral Therapies, Marburg, Germany. After completing his training in psychology at the University of Trier (Germany) he passed his postgraduate training and PhD program at the University of Konstanz, the Psychiatric Hospital Reichenau, and the Psychiatric Hospital Rottenmünster (Rottweil, Germany). Afterwards, he was Head of the Psychology Department of the Psychosomatic Hospital Roseneck, Prien am Chiemsee, Germany. From 1991 to 2000, he was a lecturer at the University of Salzburg, Austria. He is a licensed psychotherapist (cognitive behavior therapy) and supervisor. In 2001, Dr Rief moved to the University of Marburg. Dr Rief has contributed significantly to the field of medically unexplained symptoms. His publications address aspects of classification of somatoform disorders, psychobiological and psychological features of medically unexplained syndromes, training of general practitioners, how to manage this patient group, and cognitive behavioral intervention trials. Just recently he also published in the field of placebo and nocebo mechanisms, and he chairs a nationwide research group funded by the German Research Foundation DFG since 2010. His studies were supported by the German Research Foundation DFG as well as the German Ministry of Education and Research BMBF. Dr Rief was invited guest professor at Harvard Medical School/Harvard University in Boston, USA from September 2004 to January 2005. He was also visiting professor of the Medical School of the University of Auckland, New Zealand from September to October 2002 and at UCSD San Diego from September 2009 until January 2010. He received the Award of Excellent Scientific Contribution from the Biofeedback Foundation of Europe (Winterthur 2004) and as Outstanding Scientist in the field of behavioral medicine from ISBM in 2014. Dr Rief has also been active as a member of the editorial board or reviewer of more than 30 scientific journals. He was Head of the German Society of Behavioral Medicine from 2001 to 2005. In 2006, he was nominated as Invited Expert for the conference on “somatic presentations of mental disorders” under the auspices of the American Psychiatric Association APA, the National Institute of Health NIH, and the World Health Organization. He also co-chairs the ICD-11 working group “Chronic Pain Diagnoses” since 2013. Mohan IsaacMohan IsaacMohan Isaac, FRCPsych, FRANZCP, is Professor of Psychiatry and Graduate Research Coordinator at the School of Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth and Consultant Psychiatrist, Fremantle Hospital and Health Services, Fremantle, Australia. After completing his medical training at the Bangalore Medical College, Bangalore, India, Mohan obtained postgraduate training and qualifications in psychiatry (Diploma in Psychological Medicine and Doctorate in Medicine –Psychiatry) from the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) in Bangalore. He joined the teaching faculty of NIMHANS in 1979 as a lecturer and subsequently worked there for over 25 years in various capacities and chaired the Department of Psychiatry for numerous years. He is currently a Visiting Professor of Psychiatry at NIMHANS. Mohan has contributed significantly to the development and implementation of the ‘National Mental Health Programme’ in India. Mohan has assisted the World Health Organization (WHO) as a temporary adviser and consultant in mental health on numerous occasions and in different parts of the world including Afghanistan and Jordan. He has also worked as a staff member at WHO's headquarters in Geneva. He has assisted numerous other international organizations such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA), Asian Development Bank (ADB), Manila, United Mission to Nepal, Kathmandu, Royal Netherlands Embassy in India, New Delhi, etc., on matters related to mental health. Mohan supports the work of various non-governmental organizations in the field of health and mental health, in developing countries. He is the President of the Medico-Pastoral Association (www.medicopastoralassociation.com) and the “Society for Community Health Awareness, Research and Action” (www.sochara.org), in Bangalore, India. He has a special interest in delivery of mental health care in resource poor settings. He is currently involved in a project on “Capacity building for mental health care services, training and research in Asian countries”.

JPEG column: 74th JPEG meeting

The 74th JPEG meeting was held at ITU Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, from 15 to 20 January featuring the following highlights: •A Final Call for Proposals on JPEG Pleno was issued focusing on light field coding; •Creation of a test model for the upcoming JPEG XS standard; •A draft Call for Proposals for JPEG Privacy & Security was issued; •JPEG AIC technical report finalized on Guidelines for image coding system evaluation; •An AHG was created to investigate the evidence of high throughput JPEG 2000; •An AHG on next generation image compression standard was initiated to explore a future image coding format with superior compression efficiency.

Collaborating for Global Action on Hearing Loss

Figure: iStock/vgajicA great challenge faces the ear and hearing community today. Even as we struggle to provide accessible and affordable care to people with ear diseases and hearing loss, the numbers requiring this care are constantly going up. The increasing trend of listening to loud music over prolonged periods is putting the hearing of over a billion young people at risk. At the same time, demographic trends predict an increase in the number of older adults, one-third of whom are likely to have hearing loss. In addition, there are other persisting risk factors, including ear infections, infectious diseases such as rubella and meningitis, birth complications, occupational noise exposure, and injudicious use of ototoxic medicines.Figure: Shelly Chadha, PhDThese predictions underline the fact that we face an imminent, exponential rise in hearing loss. Imagine a world where every fourth person is hearing impaired, which may well become a reality. As a professional community, we must answer these questions: How can this looming epidemic be prevented? And how can access to care be ensured for people with ear and hearing problems across the world?Figure: Alarcos Cieza, PhDThese questions cannot be answered by any single entity acting in isolation even with the best of intentions. Concerted public health action at a global level is required to combat the emerging risks and to prepare for those that we can't. Such global action has to be carried out with a single vision and the participation of all stakeholders in the field of ear and hearing care. Everyone—clinicians, researchers, academicians, members of professional groups, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), governmental agencies, health organizations, civil society, or industry representatives—has to contribute toward this effort. If we are to meet this challenge effectively, we must move out of our “individual zones” and work together. STAKEHOLDERS’ CONSULTATION To identify the multiple aspects of such global action through a collaborative approach, the World Health Organization (WHO) organized the first Stakeholders’ Consultation in July 2016 (WHO, 2016 http://bit.ly/2qTtcuz). This was done with the aim to develop a shared vision and identify synergies among different stakeholders. Different sectors involved in hearing care were represented at this meeting, which reviewed trends in hearing loss and identified mechanisms to raise awareness of hearing loss through World Hearing Day (March 3). Key developments have taken place in the year that followed. The World Health Assembly (WHA), which is the supreme decision-making body in global health, is in the process of discussing a proposed resolution to draw the attention of its member states towards hearing loss. The WHO has advanced its initiative, “Make Listening Safe,” which aims to reduce the risk of hearing loss due to recreational exposure. World Hearing Day has been established as an annual advocacy event, and was observed across the globe in 2017 with the theme “Action for hearing loss: Make a sound investment.” MOVING FORWARD Carrying forward the work initiated last year, WHO is inviting stakeholders for another consultation. These include experts in ear and hearing care and in public health from across the six WHO regions, international NGOs and civil society groups, WHO collaborating centres and partner academic institutions, manufacturers of hearing devices, and researchers in the field. Following on the heels of the WHA, this consultation at the WHO headquarters in Geneva is expected to define a roadmap for global action on hearing loss and outline the roles various stakeholders can play in this action. This global action must be promoted through evidence-based, holistic, and collaborative strategies. Most importantly, all stakeholders must be committed to driving this agenda to face and overcome the looming threat of a hearing loss epidemic.

The World Health Organization "Rehabilitation 2030: a call for action".

February 6th-7th, 2017 might become a memorable date in the future of rehabilitation. On these two days, the World Health Organization (WHO) has summoned over 200 stakeholders in the Executive Board Room of the WHO Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. Their common aim was to a launch the "Rehabilitation 2030" call to action and to present the WHO Recommendations on rehabilitation in health systems. These initiatives are meant to draw attention to the increasing unmet need for rehabilitation in the world; to highlight the role of rehabilitation in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals proposed by the United Nations; to call for coordinated and concerted global action towards strengthening rehabilitation in health systems. The aim of this paper is to report on the scientific events of these 2 days, which will most likely mark the history of rehabilitation.