Student Network for Human Security (SNHS) Blog

Not-so-surprising news coming from the Economist:

MANY Israeli start-ups should pay royalties to the army, says Edouard Cukierman, a venture capitalist in Tel Aviv. He is only half joking. Despite the recession, Israel’s technology exports grew by more than 5% last year. Mr Cukierman thinks military service deserves some of the credit. Israel’s army does not just train soldiers, he says; it nurtures entrepreneurs.

Acknowledging the historic role of the army in the development of technology, it is an expected result. Yet, why don't we make it official? Why not tapping into this ability of the army to educate future entrepreneurs? It could be a good source of revenue, and may improve the social indicators of the home country.

For a better world, help us find the military a new job.

A couple of interesting articles:

- When you try to get to the bottom of security as an institution that was also imposed to the non-Western countries, the story of the original work undertook by armies always emerge as a source of ideas. If developing countries are still on the process of consolidating their territories, why do their armies have the same profile as first world armies? This portrait of America's army is very telling:

The troops from America’s farming heartlands who are helping Afghans build greenhouses, grow crops and better feed cattle are not losing their identity as warriors — they’re following in the footsteps of our earliest soldiers.

- Besides, this piece of news from the BBC has all the elements that make security such a thorny concept to study:

* The objective of security is unfulfillable.

* But we have nothing to fear, by now.

* It requires a whole life commitment - i.e. resources

* But even then, you never know.

* And, of course, it was the most read news in its moment.

Less than a week for the first draft of the dissertation, so not many posts for a while.

Over the past two years, he has fielded operatives in the mountains of Pakistan and the desert badlands of Afghanistan. Since the United States military cut off his funding in May, he has relied on like-minded private donors to pay his agents to continue gathering information about militant fighters, Taliban leaders and the secrets of Kabul’s ruling class.

I cannot find but depressing this article in the NYT and private funding of intervention. In this perspective, state intervention stops making sense, but then I am not sure who are private spies suppose to be accountable to.