Dear All,
I had the pleasure to attend a panel at USIP on The Nigerian Predicament: Strategies for Advancing Growth, Governance and Security.
One of the panelists, Dr. Richard Joseph, is co-author of a piece at the Brookings Institute called "Nigeria's Season of Uncertainty." I recommend reading it, it has some excellent points about the factors that lead to Nigeria in the present. The comments at AllAfrica.com are excellent, although I'd like to point out that Professor Joseph is a Nigerian, not a foreigner.
I think that he does a decent summary of the last year or so of Nigerian political history, and gives Nigeria proper kudos for surviving a tough period without a leader and with much uncertainty. Now, the question is, will President Jonathan move Nigeria forward? Or will he forsake his people by giving into temptation, corruption and egoism?
So, my question to those who pay attention to Nigeria--how is President Jonathan doing? What are you worried about? What are you hopeful about?
Thanks for your time!
Alena
Showing posts with label conflict. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conflict. Show all posts
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Counterterrorism: Communities and Terror
Dear readers,
There are many ways to approach counter-terrorism. The challenge is like that of David and Golliath--or Odysseus and the Cyclops. The terrorists are small, careful, smart, desperate and creative. Governments are large, lumbering, filled with internal bureaucratic issues. And, you might note, Golliath and Odysseus did not fare well--mostly due to my lack of good imagination to come up with a better parallel. :)
Two striking stories about extremist terrorist groups with ties to Islam.
Technology versus good old-fashioned spying: Europe's antiterrorism agencies favor human intelligence over technology
My favorite paragraph from this article is this one:
"You have to have people who go into a specific community, an ethnic group, religious group, a sectarian group, get acquainted with their people, their leaders, and get to know their community," Hamilton said in an interview. "Those communities know, usually, the people within the community that are disaffected, mad, angry, maybe even threatening."
Partially, because it deals with an understanding that terrorists, or people who become terrorists are an anomaly, not the mainstream. Also, if you build networks within a group, you can quickly find those anomalies...everyone knows the local weirdo, right?
The other story deals with the trickier aspect of the causes of terrorism--anger, frustration, the fact that the US is still killing people in 'Muslim lands' and how disconnected I think most Americans are from the reality of other people's fear--not just ours.
Just how deeply unpopular the United States is in the Muslim world?
My favorite paragraphs in this one are those that quote George Orwell:
Their violence, our violence
The palatable and politically safe answers – for conservatives, that Muslims are inherently violent, and for left-liberals, that only a small minority is violent – have always skirted around one important detail: our own violence.
This is no surprise. The notion that our violence motivates terrorism has always lost out to the notion that terror is absent from our violence. It was George Orwell who observed in 1945 that “the nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them”.
But this “remarkable capacity” is not shared by everyone. Civilian deaths and accounts of torture from Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine have fueled the radicalization of a minority of Muslims abroad, and it was only a matter of time before it produced the same effect on a minority of Muslims here, too.
It is only now, amid this growing domestic radicalization, that we are seeing some willingness to cure the deafness Orwell once wrote about.
Hope you enjoyed these stories.
Best,
Alena
There are many ways to approach counter-terrorism. The challenge is like that of David and Golliath--or Odysseus and the Cyclops. The terrorists are small, careful, smart, desperate and creative. Governments are large, lumbering, filled with internal bureaucratic issues. And, you might note, Golliath and Odysseus did not fare well--mostly due to my lack of good imagination to come up with a better parallel. :)
Two striking stories about extremist terrorist groups with ties to Islam.
Technology versus good old-fashioned spying: Europe's antiterrorism agencies favor human intelligence over technology
My favorite paragraph from this article is this one:
"You have to have people who go into a specific community, an ethnic group, religious group, a sectarian group, get acquainted with their people, their leaders, and get to know their community," Hamilton said in an interview. "Those communities know, usually, the people within the community that are disaffected, mad, angry, maybe even threatening."
Partially, because it deals with an understanding that terrorists, or people who become terrorists are an anomaly, not the mainstream. Also, if you build networks within a group, you can quickly find those anomalies...everyone knows the local weirdo, right?
The other story deals with the trickier aspect of the causes of terrorism--anger, frustration, the fact that the US is still killing people in 'Muslim lands' and how disconnected I think most Americans are from the reality of other people's fear--not just ours.
Just how deeply unpopular the United States is in the Muslim world?
My favorite paragraphs in this one are those that quote George Orwell:
Their violence, our violence
The palatable and politically safe answers – for conservatives, that Muslims are inherently violent, and for left-liberals, that only a small minority is violent – have always skirted around one important detail: our own violence.
This is no surprise. The notion that our violence motivates terrorism has always lost out to the notion that terror is absent from our violence. It was George Orwell who observed in 1945 that “the nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them”.
But this “remarkable capacity” is not shared by everyone. Civilian deaths and accounts of torture from Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine have fueled the radicalization of a minority of Muslims abroad, and it was only a matter of time before it produced the same effect on a minority of Muslims here, too.
It is only now, amid this growing domestic radicalization, that we are seeing some willingness to cure the deafness Orwell once wrote about.
Hope you enjoyed these stories.
Best,
Alena
Saturday, May 1, 2010
How do you divide up Africa?
Hey all,
I went to an event at the World Bank, called Yes! Africa Can!, an event attempting to address the dearth of positive events in DC that discuss the continent of Africa.
It was a bit of a mixed event--some of it good, some of it interesting, some of it atrocious. I don't want to make any enemies, so I won't name panelists, but the first group mostly named 1 small success story (without telling us what made it a success), and then complained about how difficult 'Africa' is. There was even the suggestion that, since African countries can't run their own economies (these were their words, not mine), that African countries should rent coast lines or areas with minerals to other 'more productive' countries to take over and manage.
I don't see how this would address governance issues, empower countries to have control over their own wealth (or lack of it). In fact, the first panel left me somewhat horrified...at the idea that neo-colonialism is the answer and we're all going to he** in a hand basket. The interesting part of being at a World Bank event, as opposed to a US government organization, no mention was made of AFRICOM.
The second panel was a relief from the first. The first speaker brought up the fact that discussing Africa as a whole was difficult and often not very productive.
So, he divided Africa into 3 groups: Oil/Resource rich countries (ex: Nigeria, Angola, DRC), High Performers (almost all democracies and sources of fairly dynamic growth) and Low-Performers (almost all dictatorships, where quality of life and other norms have been steadily declining). I really would like to see this list.
What do you think of this as an approach? How do you tend to think of the continent?
As of yet, I've only been to two African countries, both Anglophone, both in West Africa, and both like night and day to each other. So I will reserve judgement until I've got more to go on.
The speaker also brought up an interesting point. Many people see various life-quality indicators on Africa remaining about the same for the last decade. The speaker maintained that it is really that Group 2 (see above) were steadily improving and Group 3 (also see above) were steadily declining, effectively cancelling each other on any graphical representation of change of the whole continent. I think this speaks to not grouping the continent as a whole, in general, unless you are, say the African Union.
What do you think?
Best,
Alena
I went to an event at the World Bank, called Yes! Africa Can!, an event attempting to address the dearth of positive events in DC that discuss the continent of Africa.
It was a bit of a mixed event--some of it good, some of it interesting, some of it atrocious. I don't want to make any enemies, so I won't name panelists, but the first group mostly named 1 small success story (without telling us what made it a success), and then complained about how difficult 'Africa' is. There was even the suggestion that, since African countries can't run their own economies (these were their words, not mine), that African countries should rent coast lines or areas with minerals to other 'more productive' countries to take over and manage.
I don't see how this would address governance issues, empower countries to have control over their own wealth (or lack of it). In fact, the first panel left me somewhat horrified...at the idea that neo-colonialism is the answer and we're all going to he** in a hand basket. The interesting part of being at a World Bank event, as opposed to a US government organization, no mention was made of AFRICOM.
The second panel was a relief from the first. The first speaker brought up the fact that discussing Africa as a whole was difficult and often not very productive.
So, he divided Africa into 3 groups: Oil/Resource rich countries (ex: Nigeria, Angola, DRC), High Performers (almost all democracies and sources of fairly dynamic growth) and Low-Performers (almost all dictatorships, where quality of life and other norms have been steadily declining). I really would like to see this list.
What do you think of this as an approach? How do you tend to think of the continent?
As of yet, I've only been to two African countries, both Anglophone, both in West Africa, and both like night and day to each other. So I will reserve judgement until I've got more to go on.
The speaker also brought up an interesting point. Many people see various life-quality indicators on Africa remaining about the same for the last decade. The speaker maintained that it is really that Group 2 (see above) were steadily improving and Group 3 (also see above) were steadily declining, effectively cancelling each other on any graphical representation of change of the whole continent. I think this speaks to not grouping the continent as a whole, in general, unless you are, say the African Union.
What do you think?
Best,
Alena
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Africa Reboots: Forces rally against poor governance
Dearest readers,
I ran across a great article: Africa Reboots, by, of all people BONO.
It stresses the idea that two forces, normally opposing, are rallying around poor governance and weak institutions. Both feel that they suffer from corruption and that weak states negatively effect their respective flocks.
I think this is an interesting and valid point of view. I do, however, think that at least the corporate interests have created much of this problem. Bribing from the low to the high becomes the norm, when all parties allow it to occur. Cops don't become corrupt by themselves. Neither do presidents, ministers or anyone else.
"Entrepreneurs know that even a good relationship with a bad government stymies foreign investment; civil society knows a resource-rich country can have more rather than fewer problems, unless corruption is tackled." This is a pretty accurate description.
So, can civil society and business unite? Can these two forces push governments to be more accountable, less corrupt and to think of the bigger picture?
Some interesting figures were introduced in the article, described by Bono:
John Githongo, Kenya’s famous whistleblower, started a group called Inuka.
DJ Rowbow: His station, Ghetto Radio, was a voice of reason when the volcano of ethnic tension was exploding in Kenya in 2008.
Youssou N’Dour — musician in Senegal who best exemplified the new rules. Maybe the greatest singer on earth — owns a newspaper and is in the middle of a complicated deal to buy a TV station.
Luisa Diogo, the country’s former prime minister, who is now the matriarch in this mesmerizing stretch of eastern Africa, leads Activa, a women’s group that, among other things, helps entrepreneurs get seed capital.
Mo Ibrahim, a Sudanese entrepreneur who made a fortune in mobile phones.
On another note, President Goodluck Jonathan seems to have his thoughts together on his interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour this past week. I think his statements about political opponents 'let them come! anyone who wants to, can come!' is an excellent attempt to undermine opposition--if you seem like they can't ruffle your feathers, that President Jonathan has nothing to fear--is more effective than just bluster and criticism.
I read a few articles analyzing the interview, but I think it's worth watching in its own right.
Hope all is well with you.
Alena
I ran across a great article: Africa Reboots, by, of all people BONO.
It stresses the idea that two forces, normally opposing, are rallying around poor governance and weak institutions. Both feel that they suffer from corruption and that weak states negatively effect their respective flocks.
I think this is an interesting and valid point of view. I do, however, think that at least the corporate interests have created much of this problem. Bribing from the low to the high becomes the norm, when all parties allow it to occur. Cops don't become corrupt by themselves. Neither do presidents, ministers or anyone else.
"Entrepreneurs know that even a good relationship with a bad government stymies foreign investment; civil society knows a resource-rich country can have more rather than fewer problems, unless corruption is tackled." This is a pretty accurate description.
So, can civil society and business unite? Can these two forces push governments to be more accountable, less corrupt and to think of the bigger picture?
Some interesting figures were introduced in the article, described by Bono:
John Githongo, Kenya’s famous whistleblower, started a group called Inuka.
DJ Rowbow: His station, Ghetto Radio, was a voice of reason when the volcano of ethnic tension was exploding in Kenya in 2008.
Youssou N’Dour — musician in Senegal who best exemplified the new rules. Maybe the greatest singer on earth — owns a newspaper and is in the middle of a complicated deal to buy a TV station.
Luisa Diogo, the country’s former prime minister, who is now the matriarch in this mesmerizing stretch of eastern Africa, leads Activa, a women’s group that, among other things, helps entrepreneurs get seed capital.
Mo Ibrahim, a Sudanese entrepreneur who made a fortune in mobile phones.
On another note, President Goodluck Jonathan seems to have his thoughts together on his interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour this past week. I think his statements about political opponents 'let them come! anyone who wants to, can come!' is an excellent attempt to undermine opposition--if you seem like they can't ruffle your feathers, that President Jonathan has nothing to fear--is more effective than just bluster and criticism.
I read a few articles analyzing the interview, but I think it's worth watching in its own right.
Hope all is well with you.
Alena
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
In honor of the Nuclear Summit, part II
Dear all,
Here is the second installment of President Ikeda's Peace Proposal, the part that focuses on nuclear abolition.
2010 Peace Proposal
Toward a New Era of Value Creation
Daisaku Ikeda
President, Soka Gakkai International
When the Soka Gakkai was founded in 1930, Japan and the world were shuddering under the impact of the financial panic of the previous year. People were afflicted by a deepening sense of dread and unease. Writing at that time, the founder of the organization, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871-1944), called for a transition from a dependent or even an independent way of life to what he called a contributive way of life. He rejected a passive, dependent way of life in which one is swayed by and at the mercy of one’s surroundings and the conditions of the times. He likewise rejected a way of life in which we are capable of looking out for our own needs but remain indifferent to the sufferings of others.
He urged, instead, a contributive way of life as described by the Buddhist maxim that when we light a lantern for others, our own way forward is lit. The source of illumination needed to dispel the chaos and darkness of the age is to be found in actions that bring forth our own inner light through committed action on behalf of others.
The second president of the Soka Gakkai, Josei Toda (1900-58), as heir to Makiguchi’s spirit, declared: “I wish to see the word ‘misery’ no longer used to describe the world, any country, any individual.” He put this conviction into practice through his efforts dedicated 4 to peace and people’s happiness and to the construction of popular solidarity rooted in a philosophy of respect for the sanctity of life and the dignity of the human person.
Surveying the challenges that confront contemporary global society, I am convinced that nothing is more crucial than an essential reorientation of our way of life based on a commitment to the welfare of all of humankind and the entire planet, such as Makiguchi and Toda called for. Rather than stand to one side and ponder how the future might develop, we must focus on what each of us can do at this critical moment, the role each of us can choose to play in changing the direction of history. We must strive to make a proactive, contributive way of life the prevailing spirit of the new era.
On the basis of this recognition, I would like to offer several concrete policy proposals focused on two main challenges. The first challenge is nuclear weapons, which continue to threaten humankind as the ultimate embodiment of a cruel and blatant dismissal of the needs and welfare of others. The second is the structural distortions of global society where poverty and other threats continue to undermine the human dignity of vast numbers of people.
What do you think so far? What are your thoughts on nuclear weapons? Where does the average person stand on this issue?
Best,
Alena
Here is the second installment of President Ikeda's Peace Proposal, the part that focuses on nuclear abolition.
2010 Peace Proposal
Toward a New Era of Value Creation
Daisaku Ikeda
President, Soka Gakkai International
When the Soka Gakkai was founded in 1930, Japan and the world were shuddering under the impact of the financial panic of the previous year. People were afflicted by a deepening sense of dread and unease. Writing at that time, the founder of the organization, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871-1944), called for a transition from a dependent or even an independent way of life to what he called a contributive way of life. He rejected a passive, dependent way of life in which one is swayed by and at the mercy of one’s surroundings and the conditions of the times. He likewise rejected a way of life in which we are capable of looking out for our own needs but remain indifferent to the sufferings of others.
He urged, instead, a contributive way of life as described by the Buddhist maxim that when we light a lantern for others, our own way forward is lit. The source of illumination needed to dispel the chaos and darkness of the age is to be found in actions that bring forth our own inner light through committed action on behalf of others.
The second president of the Soka Gakkai, Josei Toda (1900-58), as heir to Makiguchi’s spirit, declared: “I wish to see the word ‘misery’ no longer used to describe the world, any country, any individual.” He put this conviction into practice through his efforts dedicated 4 to peace and people’s happiness and to the construction of popular solidarity rooted in a philosophy of respect for the sanctity of life and the dignity of the human person.
Surveying the challenges that confront contemporary global society, I am convinced that nothing is more crucial than an essential reorientation of our way of life based on a commitment to the welfare of all of humankind and the entire planet, such as Makiguchi and Toda called for. Rather than stand to one side and ponder how the future might develop, we must focus on what each of us can do at this critical moment, the role each of us can choose to play in changing the direction of history. We must strive to make a proactive, contributive way of life the prevailing spirit of the new era.
On the basis of this recognition, I would like to offer several concrete policy proposals focused on two main challenges. The first challenge is nuclear weapons, which continue to threaten humankind as the ultimate embodiment of a cruel and blatant dismissal of the needs and welfare of others. The second is the structural distortions of global society where poverty and other threats continue to undermine the human dignity of vast numbers of people.
What do you think so far? What are your thoughts on nuclear weapons? Where does the average person stand on this issue?
Best,
Alena
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Two Important Events: Niger and Myanmar (Burma)
These stories were just posted by a friend of mine, but I want to make sure they get more exposure.
A coup/coup attempt is underway in Niger. "The country has gone through five constitutions and periods of military rule since it gained independence from France in 1960."
What will ECOWAS say/do? They've been pretty vocal that no coup-leadership/forced change of power will be recognized...
"The opposition also boycotted October 20 legislative elections, after which the Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) suspended Niger as a member and the European Union put a freeze on its development aid."
Also,Burmese/Myanmar refugees are the victims of violence in Bangladesh.
"Described by the UN as one of the most persecuted minorities on earth, thousands of Rohingyas from Myanmar's northern Rakhaine state stream across the border into Bangladesh every year."
"Bangladesh recognises 28,000 Rohingya as official refugees, who live in official camps under the supervision of the UN.
This figure is a fraction of the estimated 220,000 unofficial refugees, MSF says.
There are an estimated 700,000 Rohingya in Myanmar, where they are not recognised as citizens and have no right to own land."
Thanks for reading. Please let me know if you have updates.
Best,
Alena
A coup/coup attempt is underway in Niger. "The country has gone through five constitutions and periods of military rule since it gained independence from France in 1960."
What will ECOWAS say/do? They've been pretty vocal that no coup-leadership/forced change of power will be recognized...
"The opposition also boycotted October 20 legislative elections, after which the Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) suspended Niger as a member and the European Union put a freeze on its development aid."
Also,Burmese/Myanmar refugees are the victims of violence in Bangladesh.
"Described by the UN as one of the most persecuted minorities on earth, thousands of Rohingyas from Myanmar's northern Rakhaine state stream across the border into Bangladesh every year."
"Bangladesh recognises 28,000 Rohingya as official refugees, who live in official camps under the supervision of the UN.
This figure is a fraction of the estimated 220,000 unofficial refugees, MSF says.
There are an estimated 700,000 Rohingya in Myanmar, where they are not recognised as citizens and have no right to own land."
Thanks for reading. Please let me know if you have updates.
Best,
Alena
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
The Problem in Pakistan
Pakistan is in the news a lot today. The voices and advice are wide-ranging. From VP Biden saying early on that Afghanistan depends on what happens in India and Pakistan, to cries that 'Pakistan is not doing enough for us.'
I agree that, as one article from the Brookings Institute states Lashkar-e-Taiba is an important threat, and that the prevented attack in Dhaka, Bangladesh would have unleashed many negative repercussions on the already strained South Asian security situation. It would make U.S. calls on Pakistan to 'crack down' even more strident--which I think would be the wrong reaction.
I agree much more with another Brookings Institute article, which I referenced in my last post about how China and the US can work together with Pakistan.
The part I really want people to think on, is not so much how much pressure the US or China should put on Pakistan (I think Pakistan gets plenty of pressure, in the midst of troubled government, corruption, regular suicide bomb attacks of the Pakistani military itself, and its ongoing conflict with both India AND Afghanistan), but what can be done to help Pakistan move forward. In fact, I'd say taking a step back and letting Pakistan run its country might be a start. They're probably freaking out more than we (the US), and have plenty of problems to deal with. Considering that the US can't stop a terrorist attack when the father of the terrorist tries to turn him in and tells us directly about him, I don't think we should be casting the Pakistanis in such an ill light.
The first paragraph of the second Brookings article summarizes the problem.
Sorry I didn't copy/paste--the blog tool gave an error, I'm going to try and copy/paste the quote in a reply comment. It is important to realize that things aren't as simple as 'pressuring' or 'not pressuring.' Especially with our complicated history of funding islamic extremism (to counter Arab nationalism and Communism, respectively), we have to find ways to help without making things worse.
I look forward to your thoughts. Unfortunately, I only outlined a problem and didn't give you solutions.
Best,
Alena
I agree that, as one article from the Brookings Institute states Lashkar-e-Taiba is an important threat, and that the prevented attack in Dhaka, Bangladesh would have unleashed many negative repercussions on the already strained South Asian security situation. It would make U.S. calls on Pakistan to 'crack down' even more strident--which I think would be the wrong reaction.
I agree much more with another Brookings Institute article, which I referenced in my last post about how China and the US can work together with Pakistan.
The part I really want people to think on, is not so much how much pressure the US or China should put on Pakistan (I think Pakistan gets plenty of pressure, in the midst of troubled government, corruption, regular suicide bomb attacks of the Pakistani military itself, and its ongoing conflict with both India AND Afghanistan), but what can be done to help Pakistan move forward. In fact, I'd say taking a step back and letting Pakistan run its country might be a start. They're probably freaking out more than we (the US), and have plenty of problems to deal with. Considering that the US can't stop a terrorist attack when the father of the terrorist tries to turn him in and tells us directly about him, I don't think we should be casting the Pakistanis in such an ill light.
The first paragraph of the second Brookings article summarizes the problem.
Sorry I didn't copy/paste--the blog tool gave an error, I'm going to try and copy/paste the quote in a reply comment. It is important to realize that things aren't as simple as 'pressuring' or 'not pressuring.' Especially with our complicated history of funding islamic extremism (to counter Arab nationalism and Communism, respectively), we have to find ways to help without making things worse.
I look forward to your thoughts. Unfortunately, I only outlined a problem and didn't give you solutions.
Best,
Alena
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Send in the drones! Happy 2010!
Well, I was advised to write a new years blog, and here it is:
First, some issues I've been wanting to tackle, at least initially. I'm assuming most of you read the articles showing that AQ and insurgents in both Iraq and Afghanistan have tapped our unmanned spy drones that we use to spy on them. DoD has known about this weakness for a decade, but did nothing about it because they 'assumed adversaries would not be able to exploit it.' Wrong, obviously. But what is worse, is the assumption.
The 'enemy' is smart. Terrorists are smart. Criminals are smart. Sure, one side of terrorist groups and criminal organizations is just the 'grunts' and may not have a lot of sophisticated training, but assuming your enemy is not as smart as yourself is...less than smart. Terrorists have proven over and over that they are adaptive and proactive. In fact, we're almost always at a disadvantage, because the government is big, slow, bad at sharing information and so we are always reactive.
I'm going to continue in another blog post, just to keep things simple.
Best,
Alena
First, some issues I've been wanting to tackle, at least initially. I'm assuming most of you read the articles showing that AQ and insurgents in both Iraq and Afghanistan have tapped our unmanned spy drones that we use to spy on them. DoD has known about this weakness for a decade, but did nothing about it because they 'assumed adversaries would not be able to exploit it.' Wrong, obviously. But what is worse, is the assumption.
The 'enemy' is smart. Terrorists are smart. Criminals are smart. Sure, one side of terrorist groups and criminal organizations is just the 'grunts' and may not have a lot of sophisticated training, but assuming your enemy is not as smart as yourself is...less than smart. Terrorists have proven over and over that they are adaptive and proactive. In fact, we're almost always at a disadvantage, because the government is big, slow, bad at sharing information and so we are always reactive.
I'm going to continue in another blog post, just to keep things simple.
Best,
Alena
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Searching for ‘Disaster’
When I look for jobs on the internet, whether through Devex, USAJOBS.gov or FPA’s nice job list, I search for important words that describe what I want to do:
Conflict (prevention)
Disaster (management)
Genocide (prevention)
Conflict (early warning)
Conflict (management)
War
Peace (creating, keeping, etc)
(counter) terrorism
(anti) narco-trafficking, human trafficking, small arms trafficking
(anti) black markets
(helping) refugees, internally displaced persons
(trying to resolve) entrenched conflicts
(preventing, healing and resolving) gender based violence…etc
Strangely, the second part is always implied and I’m startled when people ask if I study genocide to commit genocide…I always forget to say ‘prevention.’ Funny how I forget also that it’s a bit weird to google ‘genocide’ and ‘conflict’ all the time.
What are your key words in your job search?
what happens when i search for conflict and then get it? :/
Conflict (prevention)
Disaster (management)
Genocide (prevention)
Conflict (early warning)
Conflict (management)
War
Peace (creating, keeping, etc)
(counter) terrorism
(anti) narco-trafficking, human trafficking, small arms trafficking
(anti) black markets
(helping) refugees, internally displaced persons
(trying to resolve) entrenched conflicts
(preventing, healing and resolving) gender based violence…etc
Strangely, the second part is always implied and I’m startled when people ask if I study genocide to commit genocide…I always forget to say ‘prevention.’ Funny how I forget also that it’s a bit weird to google ‘genocide’ and ‘conflict’ all the time.
What are your key words in your job search?
what happens when i search for conflict and then get it? :/
Monday, December 14, 2009
Women in the Military
Hey,
Just a quick link to a story that caught my eye:
Back from combat, women struggle for acceptance
Anyone have thoughts on this? I'm also a member of Women in International Security, which has a network, a Ning site and is a good place to discuss the challenges of women in conflict, security and this field in general.
Hope all is well,
Alena
Just a quick link to a story that caught my eye:
Back from combat, women struggle for acceptance
Anyone have thoughts on this? I'm also a member of Women in International Security, which has a network, a Ning site and is a good place to discuss the challenges of women in conflict, security and this field in general.
Hope all is well,
Alena
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)