Dear Readers,
I didn't really like this article, "Why foreign aid and Africa don't mix
By Robert Calderisi" partially because of its vast over-simplication of the aid industry and its write off of the African continent. It is not all doom and gloom.
The most interesting paragraph was this:
"The Blair Commission Report on Africa in 2005 reported that 70,000 trained professionals leave Africa every year, and until they -- and the 40 percent of the continent's savings that are held abroad -- start coming home, we need to use aid more restrictively."
I'm a big fan of Africans investing Africa. Also, in some African countries, there is plenty of money to use for their own national development. It's a question of what those elites do with their money and privilege.
Or this set of paragraphs:
"Uganda has recently discovered oil and gas deposits but has gone on a spending spree, reportedly ordering fighter planes worth $300 million from Russia, according to a recent report in the New York Times. Does a government that shows such wanton disregard for common sense or even good taste really have the moral basis for insisting on more help with AIDS?"
Now, there are two problems with this thought. One, is it the responsibility of a state/country to take care of its people? I'd say yes, but not everyone would. Two, the US spends 15 times more money on defense than education. Who are we to talk about spending wisely?
Would love to hear your thoughts!
Alena
Showing posts with label Defense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Defense. Show all posts
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
In Honor of the Nuclear Summit, Part III
Dear all,
Here is the third 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
Toward a world without nuclear weapons
In a proposal I wrote last year (September 2009), I offered a five-part plan for laying the foundation for a world free from nuclear weapons, including the promotion of various disarmament efforts and making the transition to security arrangements that are not reliant on nuclear weapons. At the same time, I reaffirmed my longstanding conviction that if we are to put the era of nuclear terror behind us, we must struggle against the real “enemy.”
That enemy is not nuclear weapons per se, nor is it the states that possess or develop them.
The real enemy that we must confront is the ways of thinking that justify nuclear weapons; the readiness to annihilate others when they are seen as a threat or as a hindrance to the realization of our objectives. (this is my favorite quote)
My proposals should be considered as a series of steps to overcome and transform the thinking that justifies nuclear weapons and to strengthen the momentum toward their abolition.
The first of these is to work, based on the existing NPT system, to expand the frameworks defining a clear legal obligation not to use nuclear weapons, in this way laying the institutional foundations for reducing their role in national security.
The second is to include the threat or use of nuclear weapons among the war crimes falling under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC), further clarifying the norm that nuclear weapons are indeed weapons that must never be used.
The third is to create a system, based on the United Nations Charter, for the General Assembly and the Security Council to work together for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.
None of these proposals will be easy to implement, but all of them build on existing
institutional foundations. They are by no means unreachable goals. It is my earnest wish
that the NPT Review Conference to be held in May will initiate movement toward these
goals and that they can be implemented within five years. Such efforts should culminate in
a nuclear abolition summit in 2015—to be held in Hiroshima and Nagasaki seventy years
after the nuclear attacks that devastated these two cities—which would effectively signal
the end of the era of nuclear weapons.
There are many more pages to go--what do you think so far?
Best,
Alena
Here is the third 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
Toward a world without nuclear weapons
In a proposal I wrote last year (September 2009), I offered a five-part plan for laying the foundation for a world free from nuclear weapons, including the promotion of various disarmament efforts and making the transition to security arrangements that are not reliant on nuclear weapons. At the same time, I reaffirmed my longstanding conviction that if we are to put the era of nuclear terror behind us, we must struggle against the real “enemy.”
That enemy is not nuclear weapons per se, nor is it the states that possess or develop them.
The real enemy that we must confront is the ways of thinking that justify nuclear weapons; the readiness to annihilate others when they are seen as a threat or as a hindrance to the realization of our objectives. (this is my favorite quote)
My proposals should be considered as a series of steps to overcome and transform the thinking that justifies nuclear weapons and to strengthen the momentum toward their abolition.
The first of these is to work, based on the existing NPT system, to expand the frameworks defining a clear legal obligation not to use nuclear weapons, in this way laying the institutional foundations for reducing their role in national security.
The second is to include the threat or use of nuclear weapons among the war crimes falling under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC), further clarifying the norm that nuclear weapons are indeed weapons that must never be used.
The third is to create a system, based on the United Nations Charter, for the General Assembly and the Security Council to work together for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.
None of these proposals will be easy to implement, but all of them build on existing
institutional foundations. They are by no means unreachable goals. It is my earnest wish
that the NPT Review Conference to be held in May will initiate movement toward these
goals and that they can be implemented within five years. Such efforts should culminate in
a nuclear abolition summit in 2015—to be held in Hiroshima and Nagasaki seventy years
after the nuclear attacks that devastated these two cities—which would effectively signal
the end of the era of nuclear weapons.
There are many more pages to go--what do you think so far?
Best,
Alena
Saturday, April 10, 2010
The 3Ds, challenges in language and culture
Dear All,
Hope this finds you well, sorry for the delay in posting--its been a busy month or two. I'm headed to the Niger Delta in May to do a six-month consultancy and I've been accepted in the 'pre-employment phase' at USAID to be a 'crisis, stabilization and governance officer', which means i don't have a job, but I do have paperwork. :) More on that later.
The 3 Ds (Diplomacy, Defense and Development)
At first, i thought it was just my mother. That my mother and I couldn't communicate about my newfound understanding of war and how that impacted my wish to work and create value within the security world. After 2+ years of back and forth, we've managed to communicate with each other and she is supportive of my goals and context (she always was, in a sense, but associated security with guns and death, not the ability to protect and transform).
Now, what about with everyone else?
I find myself struggling with a new identity
I am not a classic security person, but i have learned a new language and have trouble going back to who I was before. I need to find new ways to communicate with the people who resemble who I was, while appreciating their perspective.
How should I start? Should I start with an agreement on terms? Perspective?
I've been trying to find a place in the development world that can utilize my new security perspective, my diplomatic upbringing and my desire to create long-term, effective improvements in the lives of humanity.
However, when I found myself in an job interview for a position that I thought epitomized this (a development job in Afghanistan), I found myself repeatedly making a cultural mistake: I assumed we were speaking the same language.
I asked a seemingly innocent question: So, what is your security perspective for your work in Afghanistan?
A: Well, we have a security team that makes sure we stay alive...they're very good.
I tried again...no, no, how does the context the context of war affect your work?
A: Well, we try to stay away from the more volatile areas and conduct risk analysis, etc.
This was not the answer I was looking for--I wanted to know, how does the context affect your work? What about the trauma of the population with whom you are working? What about the trust and legitimacy issues?
Frustrated, I finally tried a direct approach, even though I was beginning to realize that I was just not speaking the same language...
I asked: But you're in a counter-insurgency, you have funding because development work is part of the war effort, how is that not part of your planning?
You could have heard a pin drop, they looked like I had slapped them. THEM, part of the WAR? Never!
One tried to argue with me and it was clear the others were angry..."But, we're doing the hearts and minds stuff...long term goals'...'we don't get funding from DOD'....'We don't deal with guns'
It was clear that one, they didn't realize that 'winning hearts and minds' IS a military strategy, and that COIN is political, more than about guns.
So, what am I to do? How do I use the things I've learned to work with the people who do the work I want to do, without upsetting them (but using the things I've learned to bridge this gap in communication?).
I'm open to your thoughts!
Best,
Alena
Hope this finds you well, sorry for the delay in posting--its been a busy month or two. I'm headed to the Niger Delta in May to do a six-month consultancy and I've been accepted in the 'pre-employment phase' at USAID to be a 'crisis, stabilization and governance officer', which means i don't have a job, but I do have paperwork. :) More on that later.
The 3 Ds (Diplomacy, Defense and Development)
At first, i thought it was just my mother. That my mother and I couldn't communicate about my newfound understanding of war and how that impacted my wish to work and create value within the security world. After 2+ years of back and forth, we've managed to communicate with each other and she is supportive of my goals and context (she always was, in a sense, but associated security with guns and death, not the ability to protect and transform).
Now, what about with everyone else?
I find myself struggling with a new identity
I am not a classic security person, but i have learned a new language and have trouble going back to who I was before. I need to find new ways to communicate with the people who resemble who I was, while appreciating their perspective.
How should I start? Should I start with an agreement on terms? Perspective?
I've been trying to find a place in the development world that can utilize my new security perspective, my diplomatic upbringing and my desire to create long-term, effective improvements in the lives of humanity.
However, when I found myself in an job interview for a position that I thought epitomized this (a development job in Afghanistan), I found myself repeatedly making a cultural mistake: I assumed we were speaking the same language.
I asked a seemingly innocent question: So, what is your security perspective for your work in Afghanistan?
A: Well, we have a security team that makes sure we stay alive...they're very good.
I tried again...no, no, how does the context the context of war affect your work?
A: Well, we try to stay away from the more volatile areas and conduct risk analysis, etc.
This was not the answer I was looking for--I wanted to know, how does the context affect your work? What about the trauma of the population with whom you are working? What about the trust and legitimacy issues?
Frustrated, I finally tried a direct approach, even though I was beginning to realize that I was just not speaking the same language...
I asked: But you're in a counter-insurgency, you have funding because development work is part of the war effort, how is that not part of your planning?
You could have heard a pin drop, they looked like I had slapped them. THEM, part of the WAR? Never!
One tried to argue with me and it was clear the others were angry..."But, we're doing the hearts and minds stuff...long term goals'...'we don't get funding from DOD'....'We don't deal with guns'
It was clear that one, they didn't realize that 'winning hearts and minds' IS a military strategy, and that COIN is political, more than about guns.
So, what am I to do? How do I use the things I've learned to work with the people who do the work I want to do, without upsetting them (but using the things I've learned to bridge this gap in communication?).
I'm open to your thoughts!
Best,
Alena
Friday, February 5, 2010
End of the Week Blog list
Top Blog Posts according to Foreign Policy Blogs!
China might get health care reform before the United States! The plan is not full grown, but it's interesting to see the progress!
IS the IT world trying to scare us, too?
Another China story. Although, the 'selling arms to Taiwan to annoy the Chinese and remind them that we have military bases nearby' has been going back and forth for decades. However, this is unfortunate for the Taiwanese, who have been pretty successful at developing relations with China over the past few years.
In a refreshing turn of events--a story that is not about the US or China. Kenya! Back on the map! +checks and balances. -PM. What effect will this have on the standing 300,000 refugees from the political violence of two years ago, and what does this mean for the future of Kenyan politics?
Send me links to blog posts or news articles that you thought were interesting this past week!
Best,
Alena
China might get health care reform before the United States! The plan is not full grown, but it's interesting to see the progress!
IS the IT world trying to scare us, too?
Another China story. Although, the 'selling arms to Taiwan to annoy the Chinese and remind them that we have military bases nearby' has been going back and forth for decades. However, this is unfortunate for the Taiwanese, who have been pretty successful at developing relations with China over the past few years.
In a refreshing turn of events--a story that is not about the US or China. Kenya! Back on the map! +checks and balances. -PM. What effect will this have on the standing 300,000 refugees from the political violence of two years ago, and what does this mean for the future of Kenyan politics?
Send me links to blog posts or news articles that you thought were interesting this past week!
Best,
Alena
Sunday, January 31, 2010
The Chinese Finger trap
Hi all,
Sorry, went with a sort of cheesy title. I have a few different stories about China that I'd like to share and thought I'd put them together. I often lament my sense that Americans are a little complacent about their place in the world. China is rapidly modernizing, so are several other countries. I don't want this to be taken as a reason to 'attack China' (which, would be almost impossible, since who would pay for it--the Chinese have already lent us trillions of dollars for our two wars, they're not going to lend us any to attack them. By the same token, China is not interested in attacking us, since they really just want us to stay an open market and to pay them back their money some day.)
1. China has declared the economic crisis over as far as they are concerned. What this meant for them was single-digit (8.7%) growth instead of double digit (originally projected at 10+%). It's tough to get jobs in some sectors there, but as we see in following stories, they're creating jobs at an amazing rate.
2. Despite difficulties at Copenhagen, China is moving forward with clean energy technology--soon to eclipse Western countries as the single largest producer. They are also moving aggressively to find ways to finance the expensive conversion, provide incentives, and as a result, solar panels are popping up all over the place. Obviously, they could improve their environmental standards, but I'm glad they're making progress--when will we???
3. This was just an interesting piece by Brookings about where US and Chinese interests meet in Pakistan. A really useful insight into the dynamics of the AF-PAK challenge.
Enjoy your reading!
Best,
Alena
Sorry, went with a sort of cheesy title. I have a few different stories about China that I'd like to share and thought I'd put them together. I often lament my sense that Americans are a little complacent about their place in the world. China is rapidly modernizing, so are several other countries. I don't want this to be taken as a reason to 'attack China' (which, would be almost impossible, since who would pay for it--the Chinese have already lent us trillions of dollars for our two wars, they're not going to lend us any to attack them. By the same token, China is not interested in attacking us, since they really just want us to stay an open market and to pay them back their money some day.)
1. China has declared the economic crisis over as far as they are concerned. What this meant for them was single-digit (8.7%) growth instead of double digit (originally projected at 10+%). It's tough to get jobs in some sectors there, but as we see in following stories, they're creating jobs at an amazing rate.
2. Despite difficulties at Copenhagen, China is moving forward with clean energy technology--soon to eclipse Western countries as the single largest producer. They are also moving aggressively to find ways to finance the expensive conversion, provide incentives, and as a result, solar panels are popping up all over the place. Obviously, they could improve their environmental standards, but I'm glad they're making progress--when will we???
3. This was just an interesting piece by Brookings about where US and Chinese interests meet in Pakistan. A really useful insight into the dynamics of the AF-PAK challenge.
Enjoy your reading!
Best,
Alena
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Cold Warriors say NO to Nukes
Dear readers,
I will be more prolific this week, but just wanted to let you know about a film on nuclear non-proliferation. The key to how important this, is the people involved:
"Nuclear Tipping Point is a conversation with four men intimately involved in American diplomacy and national security over the last four decades. Former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry and former Senator Sam Nunn share the personal experiences that led them to write two Wall Street Journal op-eds, in support of a world free of nuclear weapons and the steps needed to get there. Their efforts have reframed the global debate on nuclear issues and, according to the New York Times, "sent waves through the global policy establishment.""
Nuclear Tipping Point. Go here for information about the film.
The original op-eds in the Wall Street Journal are available on a pdf on the main site (WSJ charges for readership). Scroll to the middle and it'll open up.
Food for thought, hmm?
Best,
Alena
I will be more prolific this week, but just wanted to let you know about a film on nuclear non-proliferation. The key to how important this, is the people involved:
"Nuclear Tipping Point is a conversation with four men intimately involved in American diplomacy and national security over the last four decades. Former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry and former Senator Sam Nunn share the personal experiences that led them to write two Wall Street Journal op-eds, in support of a world free of nuclear weapons and the steps needed to get there. Their efforts have reframed the global debate on nuclear issues and, according to the New York Times, "sent waves through the global policy establishment.""
Nuclear Tipping Point. Go here for information about the film.
The original op-eds in the Wall Street Journal are available on a pdf on the main site (WSJ charges for readership). Scroll to the middle and it'll open up.
Food for thought, hmm?
Best,
Alena
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)