Moral clarity, persistence, and patience (According to Lehman Gbowee (the now-famous figure from Pray the Devil Back to Hell).
I would add: creativity and courage
Most of this post comes from reading a great blog post "It's Time to End Africa's Mass Rape"
The Liberian story, like many others, really brings home the ability of women within a society to completely transform a war into peace. I highly recommend seeing Pray the Devil Back to Hell.
I know its not necessarily the case that women automatically change the nature of a conflict, but its great to see the impact of these tough, strong, paradigm-changing ladies.
Movements to watch:
Women Peace and Security Network Africa (WIPSEN-Africa)
Women of Zimbabwe Arise
African Women’s Development Fund
The African Feminist Forum
Peace is Loud!
I've always been fascinated by the stereotype of 'quiet' women. Sure, I've met one or two, but I've been fortunate (yay Wellesley!) to have known many warm sisterhoods and some pretty feisty ladies.
Best,
Alena
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Monday, April 26, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
In honor of the Nuclear Summit, part V
Dear all,
Here is part IV in my series of excerpts from President Ikeda's 2010 Peace Proposal.
2010 Peace Proposal
Toward a New Era of Value Creation
Daisaku Ikeda
President, Soka Gakkai International
Regarding pledges of mutual non-use, even an agreement limited to the United States and Russia would be a watershed event that would produce a major reduction in perceived threats, from which alliance partners would equally benefit. It would also provide an opening for reviewing the extraterritorial deployment of warheads and missile defense programs as steps toward the gradual dismantling of the nuclear umbrella.
As demonstrated in the final report of the International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, a joint initiative of the Australian and Japanese
governments, issued in December 2009, there are increasing calls from within countries living under a nuclear umbrella for a review of traditional nuclear doctrine.
Among the benefits of establishing declared nuclear non-use regions would be to encourage progress toward global denuclearization and a comprehensive system to prevent the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction and forestall the dire possibility of nuclear terrorism. The aim would be to transform the confrontational stance prevailing in certain regions—including those where the nuclear-weapon states or their allies are present—of meeting threat with threat. What should be encouraged instead is the approach of mutual threat reduction exemplified by the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program instituted between the United States and the states of the former Soviet Union in the wake of the Cold War.
Regrettably, the NPT in its current form does not include provisions for reducing threats and offering mutual assurances that can enhance confidence. If progress can be made on negotiations toward these goals on a regional basis, it will make even more salient the physical and psychological security offered by participation in disarmament frameworks, as opposed to the further deepening of isolation on the outside. This will in turn reduce motivations to develop or acquire nuclear weapons.
If, through these systems, expanding circles of physical and psychological security can be created to encompass not only countries relying on the nuclear umbrellas of nuclear weapon states, but also North Korea and Iran, as well as countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel that are currently not part of the NPT framework, this would represent a major breakthrough toward the goal of global denuclearization.
There are still many more pages, so thanks to those who've followed so far!
Best,
Alena
Here is part IV in my series of excerpts from President Ikeda's 2010 Peace Proposal.
2010 Peace Proposal
Toward a New Era of Value Creation
Daisaku Ikeda
President, Soka Gakkai International
Regarding pledges of mutual non-use, even an agreement limited to the United States and Russia would be a watershed event that would produce a major reduction in perceived threats, from which alliance partners would equally benefit. It would also provide an opening for reviewing the extraterritorial deployment of warheads and missile defense programs as steps toward the gradual dismantling of the nuclear umbrella.
As demonstrated in the final report of the International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, a joint initiative of the Australian and Japanese
governments, issued in December 2009, there are increasing calls from within countries living under a nuclear umbrella for a review of traditional nuclear doctrine.
Among the benefits of establishing declared nuclear non-use regions would be to encourage progress toward global denuclearization and a comprehensive system to prevent the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction and forestall the dire possibility of nuclear terrorism. The aim would be to transform the confrontational stance prevailing in certain regions—including those where the nuclear-weapon states or their allies are present—of meeting threat with threat. What should be encouraged instead is the approach of mutual threat reduction exemplified by the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program instituted between the United States and the states of the former Soviet Union in the wake of the Cold War.
Regrettably, the NPT in its current form does not include provisions for reducing threats and offering mutual assurances that can enhance confidence. If progress can be made on negotiations toward these goals on a regional basis, it will make even more salient the physical and psychological security offered by participation in disarmament frameworks, as opposed to the further deepening of isolation on the outside. This will in turn reduce motivations to develop or acquire nuclear weapons.
If, through these systems, expanding circles of physical and psychological security can be created to encompass not only countries relying on the nuclear umbrellas of nuclear weapon states, but also North Korea and Iran, as well as countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel that are currently not part of the NPT framework, this would represent a major breakthrough toward the goal of global denuclearization.
There are still many more pages, so thanks to those who've followed so far!
Best,
Alena
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
History of Technology gurus--can you help me figure out this puzzle?
Well, this blog post is more of a series of questions than opinions.
I read: Avoiding a Homeland Security Error That Could Leave the U.S. Flying Blind. This article talks about the pre-GPS system that is called Loran that is still used for geographical information by several US and foreign defense institutions and should be maintained/updated to serve as a back up when/if terrorists or other events interfere with our global positioning systems. Does anyone know anything about this?
What other behind-the-scenes systems should be kept? What systems need backups but don't have them? What is just obsolete? I guess this goes out to all my history of technology gurus out there! Can you help me? :)
Best,
Alena
I read: Avoiding a Homeland Security Error That Could Leave the U.S. Flying Blind. This article talks about the pre-GPS system that is called Loran that is still used for geographical information by several US and foreign defense institutions and should be maintained/updated to serve as a back up when/if terrorists or other events interfere with our global positioning systems. Does anyone know anything about this?
What other behind-the-scenes systems should be kept? What systems need backups but don't have them? What is just obsolete? I guess this goes out to all my history of technology gurus out there! Can you help me? :)
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
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
A Case of Mistaken Identity
Dear Friends,
Sorry for my absence--I was abroad in a country where my blog is blocked (not because of my infamy, but because all blogs with words like 'war' and 'terrorist' in them are blocked in that country).
A friend send this story to me. Apparently a poster showing ways Osama bin Laden 'might look' has the picture of an existing MP from Spain as one of the possibilities. The FBI forensic artist admitted he had used a 'picture he found on the internet', which turned out to be the MP's old campaign picture and just cut-and-pasted it to his poster.
The MP in question is justifiably concerned that he's now on no-fly lists (not that that prevents people from getting on planes). I'm sort of amused that the forensic artist just picked some random picture of a real person for his work. That seems a bit lazy and sounds like something that an unprofessional artist would do (you'd think he'd at least notify the FBI that he's using a real elected official's picture from an allied country that has its own counter terrorism team, who hopefully isn't drawing mock-ups of our politicians...).
Either way, it's another sign of our counter-terrorist strategy needs thorough and serious improvement.
Best of luck to us all,
Alena
Sorry for my absence--I was abroad in a country where my blog is blocked (not because of my infamy, but because all blogs with words like 'war' and 'terrorist' in them are blocked in that country).
A friend send this story to me. Apparently a poster showing ways Osama bin Laden 'might look' has the picture of an existing MP from Spain as one of the possibilities. The FBI forensic artist admitted he had used a 'picture he found on the internet', which turned out to be the MP's old campaign picture and just cut-and-pasted it to his poster.
The MP in question is justifiably concerned that he's now on no-fly lists (not that that prevents people from getting on planes). I'm sort of amused that the forensic artist just picked some random picture of a real person for his work. That seems a bit lazy and sounds like something that an unprofessional artist would do (you'd think he'd at least notify the FBI that he's using a real elected official's picture from an allied country that has its own counter terrorism team, who hopefully isn't drawing mock-ups of our politicians...).
Either way, it's another sign of our counter-terrorist strategy needs thorough and serious improvement.
Best of luck to us all,
Alena
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Leave your trauma at home!
The other thing I've been wanting to discuss is PTSD and war trauma. I was reading a series of articles in the Foreign Service Journal from 2008. Civilians, soldiers, and most directly, regular citizens in situations of war experience shock, trauma and loss.
In conversations with military friends, they admitted to something of a double-standard. Yes, the military encourages those with problems, but as commanders, they'd be nervous about soldiers who have problems and might not be in top shape. The Foreign Service Journal described similar double standards and experiences where they were encouraged to keep a 'stiff upper lip' about their issues.
I'm not a therapist, psychologist or even well read on this subject, but I am very frustrated with US institutional and social treatment of war trauma. Also, this trauma extends to the host population. One of the reasons the Afghan and Iraqi people speak a different language than their American counterparts is that they've lived in three decades of war, sanctions and extremely difficult life-conditions. Counter that with refugees, IDPS, and multiple-tour soldiers and you have many groups of people, whom, if not engaged properly, their issues will spill over into greater problems. A great example of this is the relationship between soldiers, chemical dependency and homelessness.
The only real advice I can give is to ask people about their experiences, help them talk about things--because as we've seen in numerous situations, such as the shooting at Fort Hood, and the recent young Nigerian man in Detroit, mental fears, trauma and instability can be dangerous.
If you have thoughts, I'd love to hear them!
In conversations with military friends, they admitted to something of a double-standard. Yes, the military encourages those with problems, but as commanders, they'd be nervous about soldiers who have problems and might not be in top shape. The Foreign Service Journal described similar double standards and experiences where they were encouraged to keep a 'stiff upper lip' about their issues.
I'm not a therapist, psychologist or even well read on this subject, but I am very frustrated with US institutional and social treatment of war trauma. Also, this trauma extends to the host population. One of the reasons the Afghan and Iraqi people speak a different language than their American counterparts is that they've lived in three decades of war, sanctions and extremely difficult life-conditions. Counter that with refugees, IDPS, and multiple-tour soldiers and you have many groups of people, whom, if not engaged properly, their issues will spill over into greater problems. A great example of this is the relationship between soldiers, chemical dependency and homelessness.
The only real advice I can give is to ask people about their experiences, help them talk about things--because as we've seen in numerous situations, such as the shooting at Fort Hood, and the recent young Nigerian man in Detroit, mental fears, trauma and instability can be dangerous.
If you have thoughts, I'd love to hear them!
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
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
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
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
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? :/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)