Words by Rose Beale, Photos by Elizabeth Wagemann

(c)Elizabeth Wagemann

Chris Austin MP -Head of Conflict, Humanitarian and Security Department – began by emphasising the deep roots of the UK’s approach to humanitarian relief: built on our ‘collective humanity’. In response to the Portuguese earthquake and tsunami of 1755 parliament voted £100,000 and despatched ships ‘forthwith’. As Vattel – the author of the Law of Nations – wrote: this ‘convinced the Portuguese that an opposition…does not restrain the beneficence of those who understand the claims of humanity.’

Today the implementation of this deep-rooted principle needs careful consideration. All trends suggest that more people – particularly in developing countries – will be affected by humanitarian emergencies in the coming decades. Global economic stresses, protracted conflicts, political uncertainty, population growth, urbanisation, and climate change are the backdrop to increasing humanitarian challenges. The trends for natural disasters alone are alarming. In 2010, these affected 263 million people. This figure is over 100 million more than in 2004 – the year of the Asian tsunami – but over 100 million less than that predicted for 2015.

(c)Elizabeth Wagemann

In light of the scale of these challenges, Mr Austin emphasized embedding resilience as the key focus of the UK’s humanitarian policy. Disaster resilience was defined in terms of sustainability and sensitivity : the ability of countries, communities and households to manage change, by maintaining or transforming living standards in the face of shocks or stresses – such as earthquakes, drought or violent conflict – without compromising their long-term prospects.

(c)Elizabeth Wagemann

DIFD’s new strategic plan BSOS (Building Stability Overseas Strategy) – takes resilience as its crux. The aim is to embed resilience in all country programmes by 2015, beginning with six priority countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nepal and Bangladesh. BSOS’ Resilience Framework identifies four key areas which need to be accessed: context (resilience of what), disturbance (resilience to what), capacity to deal with disturbance and reaction to disturbance. This strategy is underpinned by a commitment to appropriate use and application of knowledge: including statistical analysis, scientific research and technological solutions. But measures need not be ‘high-tech’. Mr Austin highlighted the effectiveness of introducing ducks in flood-prone areas of Bangladesh : ‘ducks float, chickens drown’. The approach aims to be holistic – recognising the importance of developing international and bilateral relationships – but also focuses on responding to the needs of communities and individuals. The particular vulnerability of women was highlighted: in the 2004Tsunami women accounted for 80% of deaths .

(c)Elizabeth Wagemann

Mr Austin concluded by asking what ‘success’ ultimately meant, drawing on his own experiences in northern Bangladesh. Through attending a wedding in Rangpur, he met Bobita who had received a cow via a local NGO, being just too well off to qualify for British Government aid. This source of economic stability and social prestige had made a large impact on her livelihood. Ultimately the UK’s definition of success in humanitarian policy- whether achieved through the work of DIFD or not- is to see ‘lives changed’.

The Winning Team from the CUTEC & Medimmune 2011 Open Innovation Challenge proudly display their certificates

The Cambridge Science Festival has a unique offering this year for anyone interested in exploring the relationship between science and entrepreneurship.  The Global Health Hack Day is an “open innovation” event being run by the Humanitarian Centre, in partnerhsip with the Cambridge University Technology and Entreprise Club (CUTEC).

The Global Health Hack Day is based on a pioneering open innovation event run by CUTEC and Cambridge-based company Medimmune in 2011.  This year, the Humanitarian Centre & CUTEC have drawn their challenges from the field of Global Health (the Humanitarian Centre’s theme for 2011-12).  On 24 March 2012, eight teams of bright and enterprising students will present approaches to real global health challenges they have worked on over the course of a week, to an audience of Science Festival enthusiats, entrepreneurs, professionals, and other students who want to “break down some barriers between academia and industry”.  The winning team will be awarded a prize by a panel of expert judges.

To register to participate in the Global Health Hack Day on 17 March (for university students and post-doctoral researchers) or to come to the Prize Reception on 24 March, where the student teams will present their work, please visit the eventbrite site at: globalhealthhackday.eventbrite.co.uk.

To find out more about the participating organisations and the challenges they will present: click here.

ADDENBROOKE’S ABROAD: http://www.act4addenbrookes.org.uk

Addenbrooke’s Abroad supports staff and students from Cambridge University Hospitals and the surrounding health community to share their expertise with resource poor communities abroad in the knowledge that engaging in global health also has benefits for patients and healthcare workers here in the UK.  Read more . . 

COSTELLO MEDICAL CONSULTING: www.costellomedical.com

Costello Medical Consulting (http://www.costellomedical.com/) is a young and dynamic medical consultancy working with the pharmaceutical industry on medical writing and market access projects, with the broad aim of helping companies to launch and establish new drugs on the market.  Read more . . .

HEALTH PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL: http://www.healthpartners-int.co.uk/
HPI deals in health system strengthening in developing countries. One of our specialisms is the management of healthcare technology, which means anything from stethoscopes to MRI scanners. If technology is properly managed, its lifetime lengthens considerably, costs are lowered and more lives are saved.  Read more . . .

HOVERAID: www.hoveraid.co.uk
HoverAid is a small charity with one big idea – that hovercraft can be used to overcome the very basic problem of travel to and from remote rural communities in the developing world. There are very few areas of the world where hovercraft are the right vehicle to use. If you can use a truck or boat then do, but If you can’t get there by normal means that’s when a hovercraft might be the solution. Hovercraft can get to places no other vehicle can get to, shallow, twisting rivers that stump boats, cars, bikes, quads and the like are hovercraft highways!  Read more . . .

THE HUMANITARIAN CENTRE: www.humanitariancentre.org
The Humanitarian Centre is a Cambridge-based network for international relief and development. We bring together people and organisations working to reduce global poverty and inequality. By connecting local, national and international expertise, across disciplines and sectors, we maximise our contribution to global change.  Read more . . .

MEDIC MOBILE: http://medicmobile.org/
Medic Mobile uses communication technologies to improve the health of underserved and disconnected communities. Our efforts enable more people to access health services (such as antenatal care), help people stay in care, and improve the quality of services by supporting and monitoring supply chain management.  Partnering with more than 30 nongovernmental organizations, ministries of health and grassroots clinics in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, we have supported more than 5,000 health workers serving hundreds of thousands of patients.  Read more . . .

PATIENTS KNOW BEST: http://www.patientsknowbest.com/

Patients Know Best (PKB) is founded on the principle that everyone in health care benefits when you put the patient in control of the records. Integration of records is possible across hospitals and communities, reducing cost of care, raising quality of outcomes, and increasing patients’ happiness. Public discourse often paints the patient as a liability, but we see the patient as an asset.  Read more . . .

PHG FOUNDATION: http://www.phgfoundation.org/
The PHG Foundation is committed to bringing biomedical innovations to benefit public health. We have recently developed an innovative and free Health Needs Assessment Toolkit (HNA Toolkit) to help countries make robust evidenced based cases for the development of services to prevent, treat and care for birth defects in their populations.  Read more . . .

The 2011 UN Summit on NCDs highlighted the pressing need to address NCDs globally, particularly in developing countries which are the hardest hit but have the least resources.

The Cambridge Post-UN Summit Conference on 20th January 2012 explored next steps for the UK by gathering experts from academia and civil society with representatives from the private sector, the media, and government departments.

On the 31/01/2012 The Humanitarian Centre held a Parliamentary reception which aimed to raise awareness of noncommunicable diseases and mental health and make recommendations, following the above conference, to address the question:  ‘How can the UK appropriately contribute to the prevention and treatment of noncommunicable diseases and mental health in the developing world?’

The outcomes from the Cambridge Conference were translated into key messages and policy recommendations (see below) and brought to the attention of MPs, Parliamentarians, civil servants, and policy-makers at a reception in the House of Commons.

This conference raised many more ideas that we were able to capture in these policy recommendations – please add any of your opinions/ideas/comments below. We’d love to hear more and continue the discussion.

Click here (or on the image above) to download your copy of the policy recommendations:

Noncommunicable Diseases and Mental Health in Developing Countries: What role does the UK have to play?

Part 3. Debates and Reflections

By Alexa Zeitz

Photographs by Elizabeth Wagemann

The conference threw up many questions, as is to be expected at this early phase in the NCD movement. Among these was the role of the private sector and conflicts of interest. While the tobacco industry has been roundly rejected from debates about NCDs because of its vested interest in perpetuating one of the behavioural causes of NCDs, the alcohol, food and drug industries still have conflicted positions. Many corporations from these sectors lobbied effectively to influence the Political Declaration of the UN Summit. Inviting a group discussion on this subject, the conference chair Dr. Smith argued that while alcohol corporations were part of the problem (since the chief means of increasing profit is to sell more alcohol), food corporations could be part of the solution (as they could increase profits by providing healthier, improved foods). Other speakers showed themselves more sceptical, pointing to conflicts of interest in food companies participating in documents that ought to recommend reduced salt and fat intake. A straw poll of the audience showed the participants divided on the question whether food corporations could be considered ‘part of the problem of the solution’.

Another debate centred on the point at which to intervene to address NCDs. A common characterization of the risk factors for NCDs shows a pyramid with social determinants, such as poverty, at the bottom followed by behavioural risk factors, including smoking, harmful use of alcohol, physical inactivity and unhealthy diet, topped by biological risk factors, such as raised lipids or hypertension, ultimately resulting in NCDs. Dr. Smith suggested that the ‘medicalized,’ doctor-focused approach of the West emphasizes intervention at the level of biological risk factors. It would be more effective, he argued, to intervene at the level of behavioural risk factors, using tools such as taxation and regulation to limit smoking, excessive drinking or unhealthy eating. Social determinants, while at the base of the pyramid, could be too difficult to address because of their unpredictable links to NCDs, Dr. Smith claimed. Nicola Watt, giving her personal reflections on the UN NCD Summit, argued that addressing NCDs required a serious debate on the question ‘What kind of society do we want to live in?,’ thereby invoking the continued importance of addressing social determinants in combating NCDs.

The healthy debate on the key themes of the conference continued on Twitter, where participants commented live on the events using the #camglobalhealth hashtag. Peter Singer, who had given the keynote address at the opening event of the Humanitarian Centre’s global health year, joined the discussion from Canada, tweeting:

#FF grt #globalhealth conf at #cambridge on #NCDS & #mentalhealth now.  Hashtag #camglobalhealth. Paging @abdallahdaar @pamela_kanellis

For those unfamiliar with twitter speak, Dr. Singer was alerting his more than 2000 followers to the great global health conference on NCDs and Mental Health at Cambridge, inviting his Grand Challenges colleagues Abdallah Daar and Pamella Kanellis to join the discussion. In reaching such a global audience, the Humanitarian Centre’s Post-UN Summit was an important contribution to advancing NCDs and mental health on the global health agenda.

Click Here to read PART 2

Click Here to read PART 1

By Alexa Zeitz

Photographs by Elizabeth Wagemann

The topic of mental health had been largely off the agenda at the UN Summit, the Humanitarian Centre conference recognized the importance of addressing this most neglected chronic disease. Carol Brayne, Director of the Cambridge Institute of Public Health, explained that mental health goes unaddressed because of a big lack of data, low numbers of health workers and, most importantly, stigma and discrimination. Brayne argued forcefully that conceptions of mental health, including measurements and treatments, are very Western, and may often not be appropriate to developing country contexts. Dr. Andrew Mohanraj, who joined the conference via video-link from Indonesia, illustrated the importance of country-appropriate interventions with his experience establishing a mental health system in Aceh, Indonesia after the tsunami. Emergencies can be an opportunity and the influx of funds following emergencies must be used not only to deliver short-term relief and support but also to strengthen health systems for mental health. Mike Davies OBE, Head of Programme Development for CBM-UK, confirmed the need for appropriate mental health interventions in the case study of CBM’s successful community-based rehabilitation programmes.

Without data, global health interventions are often ineffective. The difficulty, yet importance of collecting this data on NCDs in developing countries was made evident in a session in which researchers presented their work on health systems. Ahmed Aboulghate, PhD candidate at the Cambridge Institute of Public Health, is hoping that his research on quality indicators in the Egyptian health care system will allow for better quality control of health care. Dr. Amos Deogratius Mwaka, joining the conference via video-link from Uganda, is examining cultural barriers preventing early diagnosis and treatment of cervical cancer in Northern Uganda. Professor Nick Wareham, who presented his research on diabetes and the work of a Cambridge seminar that trains students from developing countries in epidemiological research, argued that holistic public health research needed to be supported.

The implementation of different global health interventions is increasingly occurring under the heading of ‘partnership’. Is this just a fad or a more sustainable means of delivering development assistance for health?  Dr. Jenny Amery OBE, Chief Professional Officer for Health and Education at DFID, gave evidence of successful partnerships with developing countries researching and evaluating programmes as they are applied, revealing that health interventions rarely follow a neat trajectory from controlled experiment to monitored programme. Maya Morris, Head of Global Community Support at AstraZeneca, offered another example of a successful partnership: the AstraZeneca Young Health Program, in which AstraZeneca, Plan and the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health have partnered to investigate adolescent health.  Both Dr. Amery and Ms. Morris argued that partnerships, while struggling with inevitable asymmetries of power, were successful means of building sustainable programmes.

Click Here to read PART 3

Click Here to read PART 1

By Alexa Zeitz

Photographs by Alice Robinson

“Shocking”. This is what Richard Howitt, MEP for East of England, called the global incidence of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). Howitt, who gave the welcome address that opened the Humanitarian Centre’s Post-UN Summit Conference on NCDs and Mental Health in Developing Countries on January 20^th, said he saw the U.N. Summit in September 2011 as a “trigger” for global action. He attributed the lack of mainstream attention to NCDs as a development issue to the tendency by non-specialists to see so-called “life-style diseases” as the “problem of the developed world”. What exactly the U.N. summit had triggered and how perspectives could be shifted to the developing world were the subjects of the sessions that followed Howitt’s welcoming address.

The sessions were chaired enthusiastically and energetically by Dr. Richard Smith CBE, who as Director of the UnitedHealth Chronic Disease initiative has been described as a ‘one-man NGO’. Throughout the day, introducing speakers, engaging participants and guiding the proceedings, Dr. Smith drew out reoccurring themes for further discussion.

The first session, reflecting on the UN Summit and the Global NCD Agenda, set the tone for the day-long conference, revealing the tensions between optimism and frustration that pervade current thinking about NCDs. David Stuckler, Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Cambridge, illustrated this when he compared the Political Declaration that was the outcome of the UN Summit on NCDs to the momentous 2001 UN Declaration of Commitment on AIDS. Stuckler’s comparison revealed the Political Declaration on NCDs to come slightly short: there was no new money committed, no targets declared and no initiatives begun. However, there is some hope in the declaration, which acknowledges the social determinants of NCDs, the importance of a whole-of-government response and the appropriateness of fiscal, regulatory and legislative measures. Stuckler argued that a social movement is now urgently needed to continue the effort.

Modi Mwatswama, International Programme Manager for the National Heart Forum, offered examples of such a social movement, including coordinating with the medical journal The Lancet on an NCD Action Group, a Young Professionals Chronic Disease Network and the Conflict of Interest Coalition. Judith Watt, Interim Director of the NCD Alliance, gave an update from the frontlines of the social movement on NCDs, including sharing a World Health Assembly resolution on targets for NCDs, agreed just that morning and conveyed to Watt by camera phone. The NCD Alliance is regrouping after the UN Summit and now focusing on the targets and indicators currently being developed at the WHO. Watt urged those attending to contact their lawmakers to pressure them to include targets on physical activity, which are currently absent.

Click Here to read PART 2

Prof Barry Popkin, author of "The World Is Fat," will speak at CEDAR on 23 January, on "The Nutrition Transition." The event is one of 3 high-profule events on Noncommunicable Diseases and Mental Health taking place in Cambridge in January.

As unwieldy as they are, the words “noncommunicable diseases” are on the tip of everyone’s tongues—at least, everyone in health care—and rightly so. The “four main” noncommunicable diseases (cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic lung diseases and diabetes) kill three in five people worldwide, and cause serious socioeconomic harm within all countries, particularly developing nations.

This past September, the biggest names in health gathered in New York for the UN Summit on Noncommunicable Diseases (NCDs). The achievements and disappointments of this meeting have triggered a tidal wave of interest and opinions on the future of a global NCD agenda.

Cambridge, drawing on its long-term strengths in NCD r

esearch and practice (because isn’t Cambridge always at the forefront of these international trends?), is riding the wave with 3 high-profile events, within just 6 days of one another this January, 2012. Such a concentrated burst of NCD activity presents a unique opportunity to inspire the Cambridge health care community to take the NCD epidemic seriously, and take action to direct future research, development, policy and practice.

Friday 20 January: ‘The Cambridge Post-UN Summit Conference on NCDs and Mental Health in Developing Countries’ will be held at Clare College, University of Cambridge.  It will capitalise on the energy the UN Summit created around noncommunicable diseases, and focus it on the UK’s potential to alleviate the harm these diseases cause in developing countries.  The Conference includes presentations from world-renowned experts in NCD research, policy and practice –including Richard Smith and Ann Keeling.  The outcomes from the Conference will be translated into key messages and brought to the attention of MPs, Parliamentarians, civil servants, and policy-makers at a reception in the House of Commons on the 31st of January, 2012. This event is hosted by The Humanitarian Centre, a Cambridge-based NGO, in partnership with the Cambridge Institute of Public Health and the Centre for Science and Policy.

Monday 23 January:  ‘The Nutrition Transition’ will focus on under-reported issues in nutrition. Big changes in eating behaviours are occurring: our food supply is seeing the emergence of hundreds of thousands of new processed foods, at the same time that there is a marked change in how and when we eat. Professor Barry Popkin, Distinguished Professor of Nutrition, founder of the Division of Nutrition Epidemiology from the University of North Carolina—and author of The World is Fat—will be flying in to Cambridge, to give his insights into some of the options we face as we attempt to reconcile our biology with modern food systems, and create an overall healthier diet. This event is hosted by CEDAR (centre for diet and activity research), part of the Cambridge Institute of Public Health in Cambridge, and will take place at the Cambridge Research Institute.

Thursday 26 January : ‘CNS and Ageing’ will bring neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, motor neurone diseases and multiple sclerosis, to the fore.  The event is hosted by One Nucleus, a membership organisation for international life science and healthcare companies, and is part of their Life Sciences Leadership Series.  The set of outstanding speakers it will bring together should invoke a vibrant, sophisticated discussion around a set of diseases that affects vast numbers of people in the UK and beyond.   This event will also take place at Clare College, University of Cambridge.

In a post-apocalyptic world, who would you trust with your health? Who would you protect? Who is most important? At the 2011 Global Health Life Raft Debate, experts from a variety of disciplines debated why their particular expertise would be most useful in this whimsical scenario. The debate put the experts in the hot seat, as they competed for the one remaining spot on a life raft to safety. Professor Alan Fenwick, Director of the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative, introduced each of the speakers to present their arguments for survival, and left their fate in the hands of the audience.

Dr Jenny Dean, a medical doctor with experience of remote health care provision (polar option!) and founder of the Centre for Health Leadership & Enterprise at the Cambridge Judge Business School, made a clear case for a “no brainer” by emphasing her technical skills–but also her leadership abilities. She promised to train the new community in her craft and to encourage learning.

Simon Szreter, a Professor of History and Public Policy at the University of Cambridge, posed the question “Where would you be without your memory?” He attempted to win over the crowd by explaining that history is our collective memory: in order to grow, we must know it and learn from it. He also touted the additional benefits of his story-telling abilities and extensive knowledge of sex history.

Dr Lawrence King, a political economist and Reader in the Department of Sociology at the University of Cambridge, threw a curve ball into the debate by  encouraging the audience to give the space to Jenny Dean–but to let him tag along behind the raft in a life preserver. He argued that a person with his deep understanding of political economy would be essential to the equitable development of health care later down the line. He also acknowledged that it could be a tough call whether to throw the extra life preserver to him or to Simon Szreter, but suggested that, as Professor Szreter has a couple of years on him, his fellow survivors may want to consider taking along someone “who’s back was not out.”

Dr Belinda Clarke, Entrepreneur and Director of External Relations at ideaSpace Enterprise Accelerator, spoke on the importance of free trade and business. She argued that health and wealth go hand in hand, and entrepreneurship is the foundation for this model.  In case her fellow survivors didn’t buy into her argument on the benefits of entrepreneurship, she also mentioned that, as a trained plant biologist, she would be most helpful in setting up the fermentation of the flora in the new land, to make something intoxicating. This  gesture was well received by the audience.

Professor Steve Gilliam, Director of Public Health Education at University of Cambridge and Professor of Primary Care at the University of Bedfordshire, argued that the medical doctor was less of an obvious choice than it seemed. Attempting to convince the crowd of the overall benefits of preventative medicine, he argued for the importance of sanitation and vaccination. His previous experience, working at various NGOs in Africa would also be useful in a new society, for teaching the essentials of a typical 5 year medical course in the UK in just 5 weeks.

Each was then given a chance to refute the arguments of the others:

Finally, Mara-Tafadzwa Makoni, the “Devil’s Advocate,” took the floor, to say that there was no need to take any of the specialists. She argued that any room available on the raft should be used for extra food and supplies. After a heartfelt and humorous argument directed at each of the experts in turn, she described the group as “dead weight,” and refused to acknowledge any as necessary to the health of a future society. A difficult task at the best of times– let alone against the persuasiveness of the experts in question.

After an impressive evening of arguments, the crowd was asked to vote for who was coming along with them. This writer was surprised to see how few votes the medical doctor managed to sway. In the end, the combination of  preventive medicine and accessible training won over the crowd. Public Health Specialist Steve Gilliam was awarded the last spot on the life raft by a landslide, and presented with a paddle to commemorate his survival of the “2011 Global Health Life Raft Debate.”

We would like to extend a big thank you to all speakers and attendees!

Please click here to find out more about the Global Health Year and for upcoming events

Professor Al-Rasheed, professor of anthropology at King’s College, London, on Human and Women’s Rights in Saudi Arabia and native of Saudi Arabia, began a wide-ranging talk by arguing that although Saudi Arabia was rarely reported on in the Western media, compared to the “hotspots of the Arab  world” such as Egypt and Syria, where the events of the Arab Spring have dominated news headlines for months, it would be wrong to think that nothing was happening.

She drew attention in particular to two events in the country during the last week, both significant in terms of human rights and people’s desire for change, but neither of which has been reported in the Western news. The first was a court hearing on Tuesday in which seventeen people, imprisoned and awaiting trial since 2007 on suspicion of being a “secret cell”, were finally given sentences ranging from five to thirty years, without the benefit of a defence lawyer. Their crime had been to organise a petition calling for human and political rights, for which they were branded terrorists and accused of “creating chaos” and rebelling against the ruler of Saudi Arabia. The second event was the shooting of four Shi’ite Muslim demonstrators. Shia Muslims are minority in Saudi Arabia and suffer religious and secular discrimination. Professor Al-Rasheed pointed out that the Arab Spring has encouraged this minority to demonstrate for better rights and the release of their political prisoners.

By citing messages of sectarian hatred posted on social media sites, Professor Al-Rasheed also drew attention to what she called the “dark side of Facebook and Twitter”, which are often glorified for making communication between Arab rebels possible.

The unique pressure on human rights in Saudi Arabia was explained by a brief history of the country and description of its present government.

Saudi Arabia was formed in 1932 by proponents of the Wahadi reformist religious tradition, whose mission was to purify Islam, making the unification of the geographical region inseparable from religious unification.  This was in contrast to other post-colonial Arab states, which were founded on secular rather than religious principles and are thus more inclined to tolerate difference, both in terms of other religions and of varying interpretations of Islam. Moreover, as the Saudi Arabian state claims that its law is derived from the Koran, and that it is therefore the only true Islamic state, any criticism of the government is treated as a criticism of God.

In contrast again to some other Arab countries, such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia has no elected parliamentary body. Laws are made by the 20-strong council of religious scholars, appointed by the government, using a very repressive interpretation of Sharia law to mask human rights abuses such as the non-existence of a legal personality for women, the enforced segregation of the sexes and bans on the forming of political parties and public worship by religious groups other than Sunni Muslims.

In a legal context, it was interesting to hear Professor Al-Rasheed’s argument that far from being truly Islamic, the Saudi Arabian state is actually betraying certain principles of the Islamic tradition such as equality, the need for a just leader, and the right to representation, and can even be said not to respect Sharia law, which is designed to protect people’s life, wealth, religion, honour and reason.

Professor Al-Rasheed summed up by saying that Saudi Arabia’s human rights issues were political rather religious, and that there can be no progress on human rights without political reform.

The  talk was followed by a question and answer session which included the following:

Q Can change come from within the system in Saudi Arabia or will there need to be a revolution?

A Peaceful methods are being blocked and with hight numbers of young and unemployed people the threat of violence is ever- present. The jihadist movement actually emerged in Saudi Arabia to challenge the state. However, people in Saudi Arabia are finding ways of engaging with human rights issues, for example forming “associations” instead of political parties.

Q why has the Arab Spring not affected Saudi Arabia as much as other countries?

A- The state buys loyalty with oil wealth, redistributing it just enough to keep people under control. Moreover, because of Saudi Arabia’s wealth the stakes are very high, and if there were a revolution the West would side with the royal family, not with the rebels as in Libya.

Q- How can legal pressure be exerted on Saudi Arabia?

A – This is difficult because the West is unwilling to antagonise Saudi Arabia, an open market for Western investment and and a buyer of Western technology, especially arms.

This talk was arranged by Cambridge University Lawyers Without Borders and Trinity Law Society, for further information about Lawyers Without Borders, please email srl44@cam.ac.uk