Student Network for Human Security (SNHS) Blog

And we are back!

This turbulent new year you may be saturated with news about Israel-Palestine sad developments, India's blame on Pakistan, and less about Angola-DR Congo outbreak of ebola, and movement for global protection of the sea. Yet, I would like to comment on the case of Ethiopia and the opinion held through the article referenced.

May I start by declaring that I am not an expert on Ethiopia, neither in Africa, so the comments are based on reviews and other practitioners' views.

The point is that the country would restrict action of foreign agencies (or locals that receive more than 10% of their funds from abroad) on "areas including human rights, equality, conflict resolution and the rights of children". Those are areas sensible for political objectives, and may destabilize the government through international pressure. Such understanding may be evidenced in the outcome of the vote in the Parliament, where the bill was passed by 327 votes to 79.

This is not necessarily bad, and may be a required step to LDC to strengthen their institutions and forge identity. So, the question may be of timing. But it seems that the country is doing well - as remarked by Harvard's Rodrik and commented by Blattman.

There is the question - maybe a naive one - if the endangered organizations would be able to receive funds from the government, once they start to enforce and channel the resources. If it is possible to that to happen, the result of such scheme could clearly reveal the maturity of Ethiopian state to better-off the conditions of their population.

Since it is a decision that only they can make, let's hope this is the right decision.

For those of you who are always in search for the best source of information, this ranking might be of interest - reached through the CGD comment on the index, think-tank I usually follow. As could be foreseen, most of the organizations are from the States, with very impressive budgets.

From this part of the world, the first place is for the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the second for the Japan Institute of International Affairs, the third for the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (India), the fourth to the Indonesian Centre for Strategic and International Studies , and the fifth goes for the Japanese Institute for International Policy Studies . Unfortunately, no furthe info about their budgets or their impact is provided. Also, some of these web pages seem to have been updated for the last time a while ago. Something that makes me hesitate about the classification methodology is that Dr. Pachauri group, TERI, winner of 2007 Nobel price, appears only until the 11th position. But, anyway, it is a good start for your research endeavors.

The story Lasantha Wickrematunge assassination, a Sri Lankan newspaper editor, is a very moving example of the paradoxes of internal war: the fight for freedom is won through the constraint of freedoms. I consider this to be a crucial question for human security: what to do with the military muscle that is generated to confront an internal threat, once this is decimated? The question gains on relevance when you realize the muscle frames the society with an only option to work out problems.

My sincere condolences,

I read once, probably a couple of years ago, about a French sociologist that, during a related meeting in Canada, proposed that the best way to empower the populations under threat in Sudan was to give weapons to everyone of them. Regardless the impression it caused in me, I failed in the moment to save that piece of news, never to find it again; yet that proposal and its implications still come to my mind from time to time as a caveat about what empowerment could mean for some.

So it is just natural to revive such reflections after the report about program on "community guards" to be implemented in Afghanistan, according to the January 12 edition of the FT. The reporter mentions the fears of future lawless militias, the distrust to generate in different regions of the country, and the international shame such a measure implies. It is also highlighted that not everyone is suited to use a gun, since it is not only a matter of owning but of training and control.

But the author never takes a step further into the ethical entailments of arming civil populations - or creating civil armies. What kind if weapon would be brought through weapons? Is that sustainable or durable? Would it better-off the lives of civilians? Is it the only way?

It is very difficult to have an answer to those questions, or the options to solve the conflict in Afghanistan. In a country already intervened by the US and NATO forces, it is not out of mind to think that the only consideration of such a solution is a symptom of failure, and that, in their desperateness, some civilians can do the trick to protect foreign troops withdraw and make the body count look more like a war and less like a genocide - by now.

It is true that lately this space has been flooded by articles around the narrow view on HS. That doesn't mean anything about our personal position regarding the concept, and might be a reflect of the news that get to the headlines of newspapers around the world. But it is not the situation in the academic field, where a plurality of views is constantly adding new insights about almost everything, from everywhere - though not in the same proportions - into the already over-crowded world of information.

To give you an example of a week of information possibly relative to human security, out of science direct system, here are some titles that has got my attention:

+ Centofanti et al. address in the December number of "Science of Total Environment" about a the generation of scenarios to assess risk related to pesticides in Europe. Somewhere else I found that the European Union was having trouble in the approval of new - and the renewal of old - substances given that the valuation methods were questioned in terms of statistical proofs and randomized trials. In other words, in the amount of evidence in respect to the impact inherent to the use of the substance.

+ Florin and Bunting present a Risk governance guidelines for bioenergy policies.

+ Kuo, Tseng and Li make some statistical calculations about the risks of bird flu outbreaks in relation to neighboring countries outbreaks.