Nigeria's Season of Uncertainty--Will it Continue?

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

How to be a consultant?

Dear readers,

I have to pick up the pace, I know.

However, I've been caught up in figuring out how to be a consultant.

I never realized how much work it is...it seems like everything that involves being 'independent' is for the super talented.

You need to be part lawyer, all businessman, an accountant, figure out insurance, health stuff, make sure no one can sue you, you have a good reputation, they have a good reputation, etc and so on.

You also need to make sure that. you. get. PAID!

I've been spending tons of time, trying to figure out contracts, tax language, legal documentation, figuring layers of relationships and more.

Have you been a consultant? Worked for yourself? Tell me how you pulled it off without losing track of something important!

Would love to hear your thoughts!

Best,
Alena

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

UN CERF Funding

Dear Readers,

I am still just learning about different types of UN and government funding and so, if I make a mistake in this post, please point it out! I want to know more.

Here's an introduction that I received from a DEVEX Development Update email/newsletter.
"The Central Emergency Relief Fund (CERF) was approved by the General Assembly in December 2005, and was created to speed up relief operations for emergencies, make funds available quickly after a disaster and finance under-funded emergencies. Its funds are also made available to address the existing imbalance in global aid distribution which results in millions of people in so-called neglected or forgotten crises remaining in need. Since its inception, the CERF has allocated nearly USD 1.3 billion for humanitarian aid in almost 70 countries. "

Similar funding in the US defense world has received criticism for the very reason it was created--it moves a lot faster than regular funds. It (at least from my understanding of the US version) requires fewer checks and balances...and therefore sometimes gets misused, or in the case of Afghanistan, might cause corruption/conflict.

Here is the UN CERF homepage.

This fast(er)-moving money has been critically important in helping the earthquake victims in Haiti, as pointed out in this Relief Web article.

There are even YouTube videos about it! The second speaker brought up some good points about inefficiencies that need to be resolved.

This second article by IRIN News (I am unfamiliar with this news source) points out where some improvements need to be made.

So, it is great that money can move faster than a snail, but what are the checks and balances needed to keep things clear? If you know something about this, please let me know your thoughts!

Best,
Alena

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

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

Don't go to war unless you can commit.

This is going to be a bit of an opinion piece. I'm sure I can find articles to support my thoughts, but this is one of the things I really learned in my ISP (International Security Policy) concentration at SIPA.

As Dr. Betts would say every year as he met the ISP incoming class: War is a serious business. It's about life and death. If you're not a serious person, get out and don't join ISP. At the time I thought he was just trying to scare off people who might waste his time. Now, I tend to agree with him.

I'm a pacifist, first and foremost. I generally think that violence is the tool of the desperate and unimaginative. Violence is easy to commit, easy to do, easy to justify. Nonviolent solutions to conflicts are difficult, hard to manage, confusing and require a pretty strong belief in the capacity of mankind.

US (and many other countries') leaders seem to approach war in a piecemeal fashion. Let's send 10,000 troops...which will take a year from order to boots-on-the-ground...and haggle over how many copters, what kinds of guns, etc. Bombing campaigns are popular and expensive. Like sanctions, they 'send a message' and don't cost a lot at home in terms of political support.

Fighting a proper war requires sacrifice, commitment, political will, lots of money, lots of imagination, lots of planning (and a clear set of goals!!), a well-trained military, civilian counterparts who understand something about war and clear communication. If you are haggling about troop numbers, I feel like you don't truly realize that you have to commit totally (i.e. fighting a total war to win even a limited war). If you aren't willing to commit, don't go in the first place, because the costs and realities of war will drag you to give more and more than you expected and then you'll be stuck fighting a total war anyway.

So, I'm in a funny place as a pacifist. Don't go to war, don't use violence. Ironically, my study of war reinforced my pacifism, since its clear that the costs of war escalate unless you have a lot of factors and will in your favor. So, don't go unless you're going 100% and are willing to pay the price in deaths, casualties, money, popularity and moral confusion.

(note, this is not an argument for increased violence in war, just better preparation. Fight smarter, not more brutally (brutally is counter-productive and just legitimizes and galvanizes your enemies)

I'll write more later that relates to others' analysis. I look forward to counter-arguments! :)

best,
alena