Author Archives: Simon Reed

What would happen if we stayed home today?

Posted on by
Reply

What would happen if we stayed home today?

If the armourers stayed home and played with their boys.
If the snipers stayed home and helped the girls with their toys.

If the airmen stayed home and steam-cleaned their cars.
While sailors wrote letters to their Mas and their Pas.

If the soldiers stayed in barracks and polished their boots
And officers sewed medals on their Remembrance Day suits.

If the generals stayed abed with their mistresses
And the admirals spent the day just playing Battleships.

And the politicians stayed home and counted their bribes
And not spreading hate, so everyone survives.

While military planners daydream of their secretaries
There’s no-one needed to cut new graves in cemeteries.

And orphans stayed home and counted lost lives.
And we just stayed home and loved our husbands and wives.

What if we all just stayed home today?
Would the world end?
Or the pain go away?

Security & Safety Challenges in a Globalised World

Posted on by
Reply

I have just completed and passed Leiden University’s Security & Safety Challenges in a Globalied World course on Coursera.  I started it on 17th April 2023.  I got 98.5% 🙂

A simple Mindmap of the content (click to expand):

Mindmap of the course contentComplex security challenges can be global in impact or reach (e.g. nuclear reactor meltdown or refugees from a war) or global in scale (e.g. climate change).  ‘Glocal’ = local and global.  Examples of problems that are local in scale but global in impact or reach are terrorism, war, conflict and cybersecurity risks.

Societal problems, which includes complex security challenges, are often ‘wicked‘ problems. You cannot try lots of things to see what happens. The rules are not clear. Opinions differ on societal issues. Gaining agreement on a solution is difficult.

‘Safety’ and ‘security’ have different meanings around the world and both are ‘contested concepts’.

Safety is related to things of value being harmed by flaws or mistakes.  It can be about protection from accidental harm, such as lightning.  It is protection from undesirable outcomes caused unintentionally.

Security – relates to things of value being harmed intentionally by people. Deliberate actions by a person or group comprise a security threat.  Security is protection from harm by people.

Both safety and security are about potential or actual harms.  The difference lies in the nature of the threat: unintentional versus intentional.

Securitisation: labelling challenges, issues or subjects as security issues.  This politicises them, meaning they get priority and prominence.  It also legitimises measures to address them, which may exceed ordinary measures.  Because they have been politicised and given precedence, they than shape how safety and security are defined through a process called ‘mutual shaping’.

Because what we value changes with time and culture, so what we consider risks, threats and vulnerabilities can change.

That was just the introduction.  It then got into integrative perspectives on security and safety.  Then the multi-level perspective.  Risk management and the risk continuum.  Multi-actor responses, how we live in a risk society and risk management.  Risk identification, assessment and mitigation.  Objectivity and quantifiable risks and risk as a social construct.

The Explore / Understand / Do approach was used to analyse a number of events to determine to what extent they were safety or security issues or both.  This is a very useful tool that encourages one to use a multi-actor perspective and move away from traditional national or single-sector views.

The relevance of this was to (a) prove to myself I can still study and (b) better understand globalisation and its relevance to understanding conflict.

No news is unsatisfactory news

Posted on by
Reply

I have not posted anything for a very long time, which is not good enough. In prt this is because o being too busy, being too time poor, because I did not know what my employer would think and what I should or should not post.

Yet during that time, I have made hundreds of posts on social media about USA gun culture, alternatives to war and the like With hindsight, I should have repeated those posts on here, but there are not enough hours in the day.

I have also done some courses, some academic, in my chosen field.

I need, if not to document my progress, to at least document my reflection.

Two more domain registration scams – fake renewals

Posted on by
Reply

I help look after PeaceTaxSeven.com as it records the journey of seven war tax protestors.  I got a very well constructed email from what appeared to be the hosting company, sent to the right contact address,

Shame they used the brain-dead American date format – we don’t use that in the rest of the world.  Not the Peace Tax Seven, not me, not the hosting company.  But many lazy developers just use American code libraries and not change them appropriately.

Shame they got the VAT rate wrong at 21%.  A few countries in the EU have that rate, but not us.  But, not everyone would notice that, especially the way our tax has been fiddled with this past few weeks.

Shame they said the total payable is £11,097 !  Assuming they used European format numbers and meant £11.097, that would be 11.08% VAT.  WTF?

They do have a (faked) link to the hosting company to pay the bill.  And the incorrect email address ( support@collelli-otterdahl.com ) which is some company with a poorly configured email server.

Perhaps if they were not so incompetent and sloppy, these people might be able to get real jobs in the IT industry.

The other one is for NoNewwWars.com and is utter rubbish as well as totally criminal.  It uses domain domainnav.org to provide a fake re-registration page.  It claims to come from info@newnametech.guru and yet reply to info@ygxbitssites.ltd

They use stripe.com to take payment – I have tried to contact them to tell them they are used by criminals but cannot work out how to do so.

 

 

It’s not all bad, you know

Posted on by
Reply

A comment on a cartoon:

Given the reality we live in now, “the bad news” always has a greater impact on anyone than “the good news”

My response:

That’s because of how the media works.  Basic principle: “If it bleeds, it leads“. They only report bad news because it is exciting and creates fear, both of which make you want to return later to see how that thing is turning out.  Good news does not have that effect, so there is no incentive for them to include good news stories.

To get you to return – and see the ads, which is the only reason news outlets exist: to sell advertising space – they have to make you anxious, fearful or concerned. Which means bad news, over and over again, every single day.

So we get the impression other cultures are dangerous and scary (they are actually just other people), that other nations are out to get us (they are mostly just trying to run themselves), that an asteroid is going to wipe us out (they mostly are just in their orbit), that a virus will suddenly appear and kill us all (we are riddled with them all the time).

They do not report the billions (yes, billions) of acts of generosity that happen every day.  People giving money or gifts to charity, helping a friend or colleague, giving assistance to a stranger, doing voluntary work, caring for a relative.  Nations collaborate, trade, share knowledge and work on resolving conflict.  Every day people smile, laugh, share, give and care. But that’s not news.

And it should be.

The media give a very false, fear-making, scary impression of what the world is really like.

Remember: they are not giving you the news, they are selling advertising by making you addicted to the drip, drip, drip of titbits about threats and danger that mostly will never affect you anyway.

One generation away from the cave

Posted on by
Reply

From the Academy of Political Science’s Political Science Quarterly. Volume LXXI, Number 2, June 1956, page 180.

The history of the twentieth century, which once regarded itself as the Century of Progress, has revealed fundamental and forgotten truths about man and his nature.  What happened in Nazi Germany on a large scale, and in other countries on a smaller scale, shows that insecure people become primitive in their brutal savagery toward those they look upon as enemies of their security, regardless of the duration of their exposure to the civilizing influences of either education or Christianity.  Since there is no transmission of acquired moral or other characteristics from one generation to another, it must follow that all men are primitive at birth, whether born on the banks of the Congo, the Rhine, or Long Island Sound.  Men who regard themselves as civilized are, in the final analysis, primitive people who have acquired a few years of conditioning in their particular environment, influences whose beneficial effects vanish when their sense of fundamental security is suddenly lost.  Modern civilized man is only one generation removed from the cave man, a fact that can never be out of mind in an age of growing insecurity.

In other words, don’t kid yourself we are any different from primitive people.  We are genetically the same and, without the controls and training society has imposed upon us, we would be indistinguishable.

All of society is just a veneer.

The UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Outcome Delivery Plan: 2021 to 2022

Posted on by
1

In the FCDO’s Outcome Delivery Plan 2021 to 2022 there is some quite exciting stuff.  I’ve cherry-picked the bits I like best:

Foreward

Our ambition for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is to maximise our global impact in the service of British interests and values – working together with our partners and allies as a force for good in the world.

We want to see a world that is safe for open and free societies to thrive, where we benefit from technology while maintaining our security and freedoms, where countries come together to tackle the biggest global challenges for the benefit of everyone.

We will be a force for good in the world, getting COVID-19 vaccines to the poorest countries, shifting the dial on climate change, tackling poverty, giving girls in the poorest countries a proper education, and standing up for democracy, freedom and human rights when they come under attack.

A. Executive summary
Vision and mission

The FCDO will pursue our national interests and project the UK as a force for good in the world. We will promote the interests of British citizens, safeguard the UK’s security, defend our values, reduce poverty and tackle global challenges with our international partners.

C. Priority outcomes delivery plans

Outcome evaluation

The outcomes are linked to UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Priority Outcome 1: Shape the international order and ensure the UK is a force for good in the world by supporting sustainable development and humanitarian needs, promoting human rights and democracy, and establishing common international standards

This is aligned with these SDGs:

  • SDG 1: No Poverty (Target 1.3)
  • SDG 2: Zero Hunger (Targets 2.1, 2.2, 2.5)
  • SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being (Targets 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.7, 3.8)
  • SDG 4: Quality Education (Target 4.5)
  • SDG 5: Gender Equality
  • SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
  • SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy (Target 7.a)
  • SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth (Target 8.4)
  • SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure (Target 9.5)
  • SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities (Target 10.2)
  • SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities (Targets 11.5, 11.b)
  • SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production (Target 12.2)
  • SDG 13: Climate Action (Target 13.1)
  • SDG 15: Life on Land (Targets 15.5, 15.a)
  • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions (Targets 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.7, 16.10, 16.a, 16.b)

Outcome strategy

The FCDO will play a critical role in strengthening international security and making the UK safer and more resilient to global threats. Our capacity to prevent, deter, respond to and mitigate most threats relies on our relationships and influence abroad. We will coordinate the delivery of activity and relationships overseas to protect and promote UK resilience and a resilient global system.

We will develop clearer areas of UK specialism in addressing conflict and instability, better aligning our tools and capabilities. We will lead and contribute to effective international efforts to prevent, manage and support transition out of conflict, as a force for good.

That is only one part of the much larger plan.  And this is the part I find most exciting – something I would like to be a part of.

Understanding International Relations Theory

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve just completed and passed a 12 week course “Understanding International Relations Theory” on Coursera run by the HSE University, Moscow.  It was written four years ago, so well before the invasion of Ukraine. It has been on my To Do list since I completed my Masters in Conflict Resolution and Peace Studies, essentially an international relations course, but I wanted the perspective of a Russian university on the subject.  I got round to doing it when I did because a small number of people were saying the invasion of Ukraine was inevitable and were predicting the nation of its escalation of not addressed.   I also felt it was predictable and based on Russia feeling unheard in its objections to Eastward NATO expansion, not being heard on the world stage beyond its power of veto at the UN and its objections to how regime change was being conducted by the West.

Anyway, the theory is just the same: Realist, Liberalist and Marxist paradigms of interpreting international relations, with their modern neo- versions to accommodate their failings, and the special theories like Democratic Peace Theory, Regime Theory and the delightfully named Liberal Transnationalism or Complex Interdependence Theory.  Also, the critical theories of Constructivism, Postmodernism and Feminism. As expected, it starts with the Peloponnesian Wars, goes through the philosophers like Hobbes and Locke and the Westphalian view of state sovereignty, the League of Nations, the Great War, WW2, the United Nations, the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union and almost up to the present day.  All as expected.

But the interesting bit was toward the end: the analysis of Russian foreign policy.  It is entirely a Realist policy, so very different from how the West operates.  And using the Realist paradigm of a desire to balance power, of great powers operating in a ‘concert of nations’ and Russia expecting to be the most influential state in its region, the behaviour of Russia was indeed entirely predictable.

While many were saying Putin is mad, that he intends to invade and conquer Europe, that it is all to do with internal Russian politics, had got it wrong.  The invasion of Ukraine is – like most violence at any scale – all about humiliation.  Russia resents being treated as insignificant on the world stage, resents the encroachment by NATO and the EU into its sphere of influence, resents not being involved in decision-making about world issues such as the Arab Spring (hence its involvement in propping up the Syrian regime to show that it can) and that it was not defeated and eliminated when the Soviet Union collapsed.  Russia wants to be seen as what it sees itself as and has been for centuries: one of the great powers in the Eurasian zone.

All conflicts end with communication.  And communication starts with listening.  We need to stop treating Russia as a defeated opponent or an enemy to be crushed by an ongoing unofficial Cold War and try listening.

Soft power and boat people

Posted on by
Reply

There are three main forms of power a country has internationally: military, economic and soft power.  The latter is the power over minds or the power of propaganda.

Soft power works by, for example, showing your country as attractive for its ideals, lifestyle, freedoms or opportunities for economic prosperity.  People in other countries see these and demand the same sort of things in their own country.  In this way ideas and values and social norms are spread from one country to another.

But what happens when the people in the other country have an economy that is so weakened that it cannot offer those things, or are in a failed state where the government has been weakened from outside or broken by war?  In these cases, the citizens see attractiveness of the other country and no opportunity to achieve this at home.  They then become economic migrants.

When the first country, the attractive one, does not want those people it attracted to its shores, then a problem ensues about what to do with those “illegal migrants” or whatever term is used to brand them as ‘bad’ and unwanted people.

The solution is to help the countries they came from provide the same sort of attractive benefits that their citizens would like.  Not to impose sanctions or criticise or add to their burden, but assist them in improving the lot of their citizens.

Using military power + soft power against lesser developed states, or economic power + soft power against them, without providing support and aid and trade and opportunities just creates more problems.  Using soft power can hurt both sides; it is then just another form of international warfare.  I wonder if this is what is sometimes meant by ‘cultural imperialism’?

Why is conflict resolution not as recognised as it should be?

Posted on by
Reply

Why do we expect politicians to be all-knowing multidisciplinary people?

This was asked on LinkedIn by one of my fellow students at Lancaster University, someone I was very impressed with, Pilar Perez Brown.  The context was President Macron attempting mediation talks with Putin, despite not having the necessary academic background or training to do so.

Mediators that comprehend the full political and strategic reality of the war are needed, people that know the best ways to guide this conflict and the relations in it. We need economists and strategists that can explain the depth of both sides’ demands, as well as many other specialists who are equally necessary despite not being politicians.

A discussion began.

Conflict analysis and responses have changed enormously this past few decades.  There are far more options and interventions available to prevent conflict, transform conflict and resolve conflict than most people are aware of.  Somehow, we need to get conflict resolution recognised and given a much higher profile in diplomacy and international relations incident management.

Exactly! Thank you for your insight. Indeed the nature of conflict has changed, and so the analysis of it has enhanced, therefore presenting more opportunities to transform and resolve conflicts, as you mention.
Why do you think these processes are not as recognised as they should be?

I think these are some factors:

  1. The nature of the media.  “If it bleeds, it leads“.  War is exciting and attracts readers / viewers so it is the lead story (to help sell advertising and raise revenue for the media).  Peace is not exciting: there is no blood, no blown up cars, no crying children or other images to bring in the readers.  So the media do not cover peace.  Hence people do not know peace-making is happening all the time.  This makes people assume war is the natural outcome of conflict.
  2. The warring leaders do not want to look weak.  All conflict ends by talking.  When powerful people who publicly say they hate each other come to meet and compromise, they do not want their supporters to know they are doing so.  They think it makes them look like they are backing down and are weak.  So negotiation talks are kept secret.  Hence people do not get to hear about them.  When the outcome is a peaceful solution, even then the conflict resolution talks are not mentioned.  So people do not get to hear about how conflict resolution was involved and worked.
  3. Sometimes powerful third parties are involved in the conflict who want their involvement kept secret.  When it becomes politically or economically expedient to have this conflict resolved, it is not necessarily desirable to have the rest of the world see into the detail of the conflict.  Revealing their involvement in the peace process could reveal their role in causing or feeding the conflict, or appear hypocritical because of what they are doing somewhere else.  So they do not want any media coverage of the process of resolving the conflict.  It just quietly fizzles out, without the rest of the world noticing a process was followed.
  4. Revealing the presence of peace-making mediators makes them a target and can cause more conflict.  Some people will not want the conflict resolved and may attack the mediators.  Once mediation has been successful, knowing they were involved could make them vulnerable when they get involved in a later conflict.  So their involvement is never revealed.  This can be high profile individuals or specialist mediation agencies.  Again, the conflict resolution process does not get talked about, this time for reasons of mediator personal security.
  5. Historical precedent.  One view of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler was that it bought the rest of us a year to re-arm and prepare for the inevitable war.  But he has gone down in history as a weak man and a failure.  I suspect politicians are frightened of ending up in the history books for the same reason.  However, if you fight a war and lose, you can still be recorded as the brave hero who refused to give in.  It may seem better politically to go into a war and risk losing, then go into mediation talks that might fail and result in war anyway.  So a guaranteed war is actually more attractive than the risk of one.  Hence getting involved in peace talks risks losing one’s political credibility, so there is no interest, and no desire to have anyone know if they do so.
  6. President Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex and how they have a vested financial interest to influence public policy toward fear of conflict.  Governments and academia get added to this mix, depending on the theory.  I cannot imagine NATO or Lockheed Martin lobbying to have their funds are reduced and diverted to investment into conflict resolution research and promotion.  Mediation specialists have small budgets for advertising and little need to do so to the general public.  The arms industry and the military and their activities get plenty of coverage for free.  That normalises conflict for the public.
  7. The immaturity of International Relations Theory.  It is still based around the Realist / Liberalist / Marxist tripartite.  The Realist theory is simplest, oldest and most embedded in our culture as “might is right” and international relations being anarchic, amoral and all about survival.  Liberal theory has had to be modified many times to try to match current affairs, making it look weak and reactive and so of little use as a theory.  Marxist theory is a political non-starter.  When people have studied international relations theory, it has typically been this academic view, one which is not about conflict resolution.  Instead, it is about studying how war is just and inevitable, based on past experience.  However, that does not cover what actual practitioners have been doing in reality, nor count the times a war was avoided.  Huge progress has been made in understanding how people are motivated and how to achieve change painlessly and so that it sticks.  These practitioner fields and their modern techniques are not taught so much as IR Theory in generalist politics degrees.
  8. But I blame the media foremost.
    Create a cease-fire in a war: it’s an editorial on page 7.
    Slap someone on TV for mocking your partner’s medical complaint: it’s front-page news and it fills social media (about 4,810,000,000 results on a Google search!)
    Violence increases sales and increases advertising revenue, conflict resolution does not.