Student Network for Human Security (SNHS) Blog

The Student Network for Human Security expresses the deepest condolences for those fallen in Algiers events in December 11.

For your information, the UN website has launched a memorial site for the victims in all six languages, with the following URLs:

Arab
Chinese
English
French
Russian
Spanish

You can post your comments and thoughts on these pages.

Report made by Doctors without Borders, remarking undergoing emergencies skipped, or overpassed, by public opinion.

Thanks to the Human Security Gateway and professor Saito.

Merry Christmas and better New Year!

A new must in human security studies, the Center for the Study of Global Governance in London School of Economics, launched last November the following proposing a new way on EU position around security issues. Hereby the abstract

Thanks to Professor Saito

In the next days, the eyes of the international community will be placed in Japan, following the outcomes of the two major meetings to take place in town: the TICAD and the G8 summit. As the host, the country has the challenge to ease the advance in the agenda of global and local problems, to reach some common agreements, and to send us back home with the hope that something will change.
Though much has been spoken about the preparatory workshops, the resulting innovative proposals and contested opinions; there are two facts, less commented until now, that could make us think – maybe naively – that Japan can be the difference.

Hi, Blog.

Sure all of you are anxiously waiting for the outcome of TICAD meeting to take place this week. By now, please take a look on the statements from the General Assembly Thematic Debate on Human Security, held in New York last 22th.

The press conference could be found here, and the whole debate here (look for the day transmissions!)

This article is a very interesting reflection on the challenge the emerging terrorist menace imposes to the social equilibrium between liberty and security. Observe that the security conception used in the article is clearly the traditional one, while freedom is quickly equated to human rights. In this situation, human security concept could bring the opportunity to break the dilemma - given the new perspectives it offers both on security and human rights - and help reaching better solutions.

(Any option for empowerment out there?)

I will like to emphasize this example as the crux of the article:

"Despite the [Basque separatist group] ETA threat and the Madrid bombings, Spain has in many ways proved to be a model among governments because it has prosecuted in the usual way," said Mr Roth [Human Rights Watch].

This, he said, supported his argument that security and human rights are not at opposite ends of the spectrum: Maintenance of human rights is a better way of improving security.

"Abuses are a boon to terrorist recruiters," said Mr Roth. "There has been a recognition that the breaking of terrorist conspiracies depends less on interrogation than on the cooperation of the public.

"If the public sees itself as complicit in a dirty war, especially if a community identifies itself with the suspects, that makes it harder."

This recognition maybe the first of several steps for a larger security.

See you around,

OAGS

Fantastic news from one of the top important means for empowerment: information and, thus, the access to Internet. Many of you may have been aware of the restrictions imposed by certain countries to its citizens in order to block sensible contents on the web. Well, this week Google, Yahoo and Microsoft compromised themselves to stop playing that game.

Issues on information were included in the "Human Security Now" report, but it has been documented elsewhere - especially by economists - so you may be aware of the vulnerability imposed to populations lacking access to different sources of information. Distortions in the flow of knowledge may perpetuate inequity, deny opportunities to the less advantaged and perpetuate poverty traps. It may not be overlooked that most of the vulnerable people have not access to Internet, so this has not immediate changes, but the benefits for the system would probably spill over for their sake.

So, check the news and bring your comments.

This case, briefly presented in October 25th edition of the Economist, is the example of an already known ailment of business' ethic failures, with the complicity of the state. From time to time, thanks to the technology advance and public awareness proper of the first world, some materials or products are found to have a deleterious impact on human health or the natural environment. An immediate ban on the commercialization of the substance will follow, plus a long process of epidemiological research and, probably, some kind of compensation. Yet, that is far to be the end of the story. Beyond the ethical problem behind compensation - how much is human life worth? - and internal struggle, there is always the problem of companies survival.

Apart from subsidies, which always distort the pollution problem because instead of "polluters pay" it becomes "taxpayers pay", there is always the option to take the problem somewhere else. It was a shameless business during eighties and early nineties, when hazardous waste was traded between rich countries and corrupt governments in the LDCs. Then Basel convention entered into force in 1992, and nowadays such problems rarely appear in the headlines - though the problem of electronic garbage remains an issue.

The problem regain public attention later inside the agricultural sector. Herbicides baned by health authorities in rich countries were exported to developing countries, which later could not export their production to the countries that sold them the poison, because the products had traces of the substance (Notwithstanding the reasons for the prohibition in the origin nation).

Yet, Canadian position on the Asbestos industry, with the largely accepted carcinogenic effects the material has, is closer to a criminal act. There might be some discussion about whether it is or not buyer's problem to take the risk of using the hazardous material. One project of Japanese international cooperation in the 80s was blocked by NGOs because it included a lot of strong agrochemicals to a tropical country in Southeast Asia, but because of the weather protection clothes were unbearable. But, beyond technical discussion, is this the attitude expected for the number one defender of the Responsibility to Protect?

OAGS

The 2008 version of the Humanitarian Response Index was launched by the Development Assistance Research Associates (DARA) NPO (See the complete note here). For those of you that did not know the index, the web page is here. You can check there the results of last and this year, where the performance of 22 countries plus the European Commission is compared, as well as check other activities of DARA. However, the whole report is not available on-line.

The approach used to evaluate response performance combines quantitative data and qualitative perception by humanitarian organization on the ground. The pillars of the index are:

(1) Responding to the needs
(2) supporting local capacity and recovery
(3) Working with humanitarian partners
(4) Promoting Standards and Enhancing implementation
(5) Promoting learning and accountability

Relevant for our particular interest, Japan remains not well regarded, in a low 18th position. Criticism points to recognized structural weaknesses on refugees and local NGOs. Besides, predominance of earmarked funding, and low support to forgotten emergencies are also highlighted. Positive scores relate to "affirming primary role of civilian organization" and allocation of aid in accordance to international indexes. A little bit confusing, do not you think? Well, expect further info.

OAGS

When trying to classify harm situations in our world, there is a thin and fragile line between negligence and unintended harm. It starts as a unavoidable weakness of the knowledge apparatus - I mean, the impossibility to be 100% sure of a finding - and then this uncertainty spreads to all the stakeholders and their decisions.

There are several cases of this problem, but let's concentrate in the astonishing article in November 25th edition of the NYT, which is based in a paper from Harvard School of Public Health (the paper is available here). According to the researchers, due to South Africa government disagreement on the causal relation between HIV and AIDS, and thus the decision to not use antiretrovirals, 3.8 million person-years were lost from 2000 to 2005. The calculation includes both the lives lost and babies born with the disease. The reporter goes further and explores the political background and motivations behind such decision.

If right, was such decision negligence or unintended harm? Anyway, it is a sad example of how the traditional apparatus to safeguard citizens could fail to act and, hopefully, fruitful ground to re-shape the systems available to confront this century challenges to security.

The news do not specifically mention human security, but the inclusion of human rights and democratic principles in the charter may open some space.

For those interested, here is an interesting summary of what happened last May. Enjoy,

It happens often to this house that many interesting news pile and pile up the bookmark corner, waiting for a proper introduction, which rarely comes on time. So, before leaving for winter vacation, the decision is to let them flow with a mere comment, giving space for the new year. Then, hereby some recent - and less digested - highlights:

+ A group of researchers in Netherlands claimed to have proved the "broken windows theory", which states that observing disorder may encourage people on further illicit behavior. The extract of the original version of the theory, as published by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kellingav, available in Wikipedia, goes like this:

Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside.
Or consider a sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants there or breaking into cars.

+ There are signs that may point to an inclusion of Human Security - literally - inside the security policy of the new United States administration. The first is Obama's Strategy to Promote Global Development and Democracy, titled "Strengthening our common security by investing in our common society". The proposal is one eighty turn on foreign policy that recognizes a broader causal web on current security issues and, thus, calls for wider action and support for a soft power approach to security issues. Besides, among the headings of the document, there is the Freedom from fear - though related to the initial proposition by Franklin Roosvelt.

Furthermore, there is the proposition of a Sustainable Security, presented by the team on national security of the Center for American Progress - according to the Economist, Obama's favorite think-tank. The new concept is an attempt to harmonize national security with human security and collective security, as can be read here, or viewed in the following explanatory video.

By now I am looking for deeper information to base any judgment but, so far, beyond the spectacular presentation, I think that the co opting menace is not cleared, and the cosmopolitan principle far from took into account. Anyway, it is a great opportunity for scholars working on human security to expand their voice.

+ A research reviewed by the Economist, sustains that drug firms suppress unfavorable information about new products. This kind of companies' unethical behavior is in line with a previous story we linked here about asbestos exports and, in the most basic sense, may be another face of the sadly famous Hannah Arendt's "Banality of Evil". Is it to much to think so? Or is it really just business as usual?

Best regards,

Without more introduction, some news:

+ Member nations of the NATO alliance have blocked actions of their troops against drug trade in Afghanistan, because their laws do not permit them do that (New York Times). Drugs are an important source of income to sustain insurgent groups, and the US supports counternarcotics operations. However, some NATO members sustain that the problem of drugs is on of law enforcement, and not an issue of the military. It is of special relevance because this kind of operations are prone to involve civilian casualties. The situation has an additional element that makes it more theoretically interesting, given that the roots of the disputes between the two positions is in the NATO mission casted as "security assistance" ans its implications.

Coda: this phrase in the declarations of Gen. Craddock (US) caught my attention: "He also noted the increasing size and professionalism of the Afghan National Army, which Afghans trust more than they do the office of the presidency." = a future coup?

+ The Japan Times publishes a fuming column about a resort project in Cambodia that threats to heavily affect the ecosystem and surrounding populations. In my opinion, the author goes too fast to blame international donors, but it is well worth to observe his comments about the rule of law and "human security".

+ The Genocide Prevention Task Force released on December 8th its report with the aim of helping the upcoming new US government to prevent genocide - obviously, with the help of all the international community. The group orient its proposals in terms of the leadership, organization and funding. The review published in the Economist highlights the good sense of the report, further mentioning the involvement of will, diplomacy, action and sharing information (networking), but the magazine adequately warns about the unpredictability that surrounds these lamentable episodes of history. The release video here on:

Happy holidays!

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.

The Association of Japanese Institutes of Strategic Studies has been publishing weekly short op-eds about several international issues from a country perspective. Most of the time it seems to take a traditional view of security, from time to time some experts bring alternative views to the arena. The number 56, which title is the same of this post, was written by Kinichi Komano, ex-ambassador in Afghanistan, and highlights some of the challenges of a reconstruction program: the economic burden of the monopoly of violence, and the difficulty to make development plans take off. The solution: international community to shoulder the security problem, giving breath to the national government to do the rest. Sounds good but, easier said than done.

We had already mention some literal considerations of human security by American Think-Tanks, yet some of its reality was yet to be seen. Well, this week has been full of examples of the different kind of challenges dreading us through 21st century, and thus of the approaches adopted by responsible States. The following are some assorted articles that can help you have an idea of the upcoming changes:

+ The emergence of the pirate menace in the Golf of Aden has certainly demonstrated how vulnerable is the trade system. In this article of the NYT, the journalist portraits the limits of American power during the recent abduction crisis.

The problem has been around in the news for a while, and countries like U.S., some E.U., China, India and Japan have mobilized naval support to patrol the area but, as pointed in the article:

“It’s that old saying: where the cops aren’t, the criminals are going to go,” said Lt. Nathan Christensen, a Fifth Fleet spokesman. “We patrol an area of more than one million square miles. The simple fact of the matter is that we can’t be everywhere at one time.”

The journalist goes further to elucidate the problems of a traditional view of the problem:

Mr. Brodersen said Maersk, like most major shippers, did not favor the use of armed guards on its ships, largely for safety and liability reasons. Fuel or fumes could be ignited by gunfire, for example, and crew members would be put at further risk if a gun battle took place.

Some crews have sprayed fire-retardant foam at approaching pirates, and the Alabama crew reportedly used water hoses to battle the pirates on Wednesday. Some shipowners spray super-slippery goo on their decks to trip up pirates; others have even strung electrified wires around the hulls of their vessels.

Maersk also has tested LRADs, long-range acoustic devices. These sonic cannons, which look like TV satellite dishes, shoot disabling sound waves at approaching pirate ships. But these were found to be ineffective, Mr. Brodersen said, and they “expose the crew to being shot at.”

And the director of security of the firm ges to the point:

“But warships don’t address the root cause of the problem,” he said. “The real problem is that there’s no government in Somalia. Even if you catch pirates, there’s nowhere to go with them. Where do you take them? In the long run, the international community has to deal with Somalia.”

J. Peter Pham from Foreign Policy Magazine explains a little bit more of the background of the problem here, but his advise is almost exclusively militaristic.

Given the seriousness of the domestic situation in Somalia, where in spite of the humanitarian crisis, it is hard to international agencies to have stable missions, one can wonder if that organization capacity cannot be used for the good inside.

+ The other interesting development is the Pentagon budget changes announced by the head of the Defense Secretary, Robert Gates. Details and analysis from the NYT and from the Economist can be found here and here. The decision is to scale-back money on mega-projects, and to concentrate efforts on the needs that fit today's fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and also cyber-war.

You have to concede that it is still a lot of money, around $664 billion according to the Economist, but there is a spark of hope in the decision. If, as some of the journalists say, the U.S. government is changing its focus from tomorrow wars to present conflicts, there is a small possibility for the rest of stakeholders to help frame security issues in a way that make those tomorrow wars fade more in the horizon. In academic terms, if Obama administration de-constructs the remnants of the Cold War arms race, we must make sure it does not happen again. Human security can help shape the discourse far from it

Yeah, sounds like a dream, but it is worth trying.

+ ... Especially, if we take into account president Obama position about nuclear disarmament (here from the Economist cover).

All this changes reflect what has been already presented in Munich, earlier this year, and surely will give you lot of incentive to keep on working - despite neighborhood traditional problematic guys.

From the BBC coverage on Swine Flu

Hi everybody!

You may be wondering about our silence. Well, besides our conference in August, we are going also to present a paper here, and thus we are working hard for it.

Therefore, just some quick comments about the swine flu incident.

First, to note how it was treated as a security issue in its own right, see for example the respective editorial column of the economist:

IT IS said that no battle-plan survives contact with the enemy. This was certainly true of the plan drawn up over the past few years to combat an influenza pandemic. The generals of global health assumed that the enemy would be avian flu, probably passed from hens to humans, and that it would strike first in southern China or South-East Asia. In fact, the flu started in an unknown pig, and the attack came in Mexico, not Asia. (Keep reading here

And the pandemic menace has been a security issue with ALL its components: emergency measures, restriction of human rights, use of public force... The article of Selgelid and Enemark "INFECTIOUS DISEASES, SECURITY AND ETHICS: THE CASE OF HIV/AIDS" (sorry, no free link here) can give you a good idea of the components I refer to. I consider that these arguments should be meditated more before loosely ascribing a threat to human security. This, the principal argument of my (under construction) presentation in August.

Let's for example, imagine about the patients: were they humans or the disease? Mexican in all the world were stigmatized all around the world, denied their right to free movement, and as in China, repatriated (see here the photo from the Telegraph - most probably is not related to the incident, but helps you have an idea about the situation)

In Japan, where initial efforts of isolation did not work, the subsequent strategy of containment has also presented the problem of stigmatization. You can have a look at this article of the Japan Times , where the journalists follow the responsibility of media in exacerbating fear.

This elements for your consideration while we prepare for August conference.

See you there!

At last a priority (via FPB)

The Wall Street Journal reports about a change of priorities in Afghanistan:

U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal said that American and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops must make a "cultural shift" away from being a force designed for high intensity combat and instead make protecting Afghan civilians their first priority.

This could be a surprise for those not familiar with the priorities of life in an armed conflict - though the General later says that civilians have always been the priority - but it is very illustrative of a possible positive change going underneath.

According to Kaldor, commenting on traditional security theory, troops in battle first protect civilians from their own country, then troops themselves, and just after them civilians from the enemy side and enemies. Although the reality in the ground is much more complex, this differential valuation of life taught in military schools partly explains the so-called collateral damage and other atrocities of war. Thus, the intention is very welcome, yet we may be decades from some real effects.

Two months ago, the only pig in Afghanistan was quarantined - just to contain the fears of the locals. Would they do the same with the foreign military forces?

Original news from Reuters

Nietzsche once wrote about the humanity's grim "eternal recurrence": repeating again and again the same life, with the very same mistakes. I get a feeling of that when I read statements like this (talking about a new European Systemic Risk Board created to avoid future economic crisis as the one we are getting out of):

The new structures may not live up to his expectations. The risk board, for instance, has only the power of its voice. In good times its warnings may well be ignored and during a crisis it may have to hold its tongue for fear of sparking panic.

I wonder if society definitely lacks the ability of learning and if having a voice means so little, as though we were all doomed to become Cassandra.

Best wishes for all.

So, finally, it seems that the government of the United States is one step from recognizing Climate Change as a National Security threat. I read first this (uncritical) article from the New York Times. The highlighted comment came from a retired general, and goes as follows:

“We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms... And that will involve human lives.”

The expected reaction appeared in the Foreign Policy blog of Stephen Walt. After reading the whole report that originated the news, and reviewing some other interesting opinions, he closes with:

But the more closely you look at the report, the clearer it is that the actual national security implications of climate change are modest, at least for the United States. The likely demands on U.S. military forces will be for humanitarian relief, not for the protection of vital U.S. interests. I have no problem with humanitarian relief, by the way, but let's call it what it is -- a form of global philanthropy -- and not try to sell it as a defense of the American people.

I just want to add that, if you follow the quote carefully, this whole case may be an interesting start for a new paper, since it turns upside-down the conspiracy arguments behind securitization: it is not the case of the human security zombies rushing after the Department of Defense money but, on the contrary, the soldiers behind their share for that big new thing.

I may come up with an abstract soon...

Tons of work lately, and not much time for the blog but, for your entertainment, two sort of counter-intuitive emergent menaces to humanity in the news (both from the Economist):

First, the ban of smoking in public buildings enacted in... Iraq! Well, yes, why not? The authorities say that an average of 55 Iraqis die every day, which is larger than terrorism toll - though I feel a little concerned about the method to come up with that number. But as you may suppose, people is not quite happy about this, specially because perception on the priority of threats is quite different - and I think yours too. So, has this something to do with human security? Sure, it tells us a lot about hidden threats and the effects of fear: uncertainty pushes people to risky behaviors that can make them more insecure than what the perceived threat actually does.

Second, a story from one of those places where the "absence of threats" claims for some new. What else can you think when you read the Danish Prime Minister saying: “We don’t want a society where you cannot go walking with your child or your poodle without risking an attack.” Maybe this is not so uncommon in the first world, but I think this politician goes too far with his idea: not only banning certain breeds, but killing all the mongrels. “We will surely see lots of press photos of sweet little puppies being put down but we must be determined.” It should be hard to make politics out of no threats but, you know, you even have Copenhagen meeting in two months...

See you!

Following the trend on climate change from a previous post, some additional info about the trending topic and its effects. The BBC published in its web page an interesting article about the way Climate Change is displacing other environmental problems out of the agenda. Fortunately, water issues are still as relevant as Climate for the green hooligans, but is a shame that issues as desertification or fisheries receive less attention. Although, to be honest, it is possible that pop-altruism concentrated in their new apocalypse, gives time to less passionate discussions on the other problems that, sooner or later, would re-emerge.

But, why apocalypse? Climate change is so pressing that it justifies any available mean of persuasion. If not, just ask the editorialist of the NYT:

One can only hope that these arguments turn the tide in the Senate. Mr. Kerry, Mr. Warner and like- minded military leaders must keep pressing their case, with help from the Pentagon and the White House. National security is hardly the only reason to address global warming, but at this point anything that advances the cause is welcome.

Trying to be optimistic, climate change can bring along a longly deserved change in the profile of world armies. Just last week, under the stress of the flooding that affected Taiwan, President Ma publicly said that

“now our enemy is not necessarily the people across the Taiwan Strait but nature,” Then, an order for 60 American-made Blackhawk helicopters was cut by 15, and the savings used to buy disaster relief aircraft.(from the NYT)

45 instead of 60 may seem a minimum digression from the previous plan but, if we add this gesture to the document published in America two weeks ago, it could be speculated about the seeds of a trend.

Human security is about how to change the mentality of the guys with guns too.

See you,

From the NYT

Do you remember the weirdest reaction to the swine flu pandemic? A hint, it was not Afghanistan decision to isolate the only pig in the country that lived in the zoo. But you are hot: it was Egypt decision to kill all the pigs in the country to avoid the spread of the disease. A draconian measure of religious discriminatory nuance - pigs in the Muslim country belong to Christians - had some unintended consequences: tons of organic waste that pigs were fed of are now filling the streets.

I wonder if I am being impious...

Although APEC has been including drug trafficking inside its human security agenda, I haven't heard of any researcher on human security dealing with this hot issue. Besides, if it is difficult to do so in the countries where the problem is a daily reality, much more here in Japan where a pop star with milligrams of a forbidden substance has been in the news for months.

Anyway, in what I personally believe would be the better possible human-security outcome, the argument seems to be is leaning towards some form of decriminalization. Much has been heard about U.S. administration stance in this respect, but there are many other changes going on around the globe. If you want to read a little bit more about the trend, here are some links:

+ Portugal's experience

+ Final Report of the Latin American Comission on Drugs and Democracy

+ Virtually legal - special from the Economist

It seems that some of the contents from the Economist are going to be blocked after some time... Hurry up!

There have been plenty of criticisms to Obama's Nobel Price of Peace, but I was not totally convinced. Something in his attitude seemed to deserve it, somehow. But his remarks on the award ceremony finally dissuaded me. Call me sensitive, but I did not expect a discussion about the existence of evil.

In a seemingly more benevolent analysis, Brooks from the NYT call him a "Christian Realist". Please, judge yourselves.

This made a lot of sense to me. Via Owen abroad

From the recent article in the NYT about the G.D.P.:

The question is: How many measures beyond G.D.P. — how many dials on a new dashboard — will you need? Stiglitz and his fellow academics ultimately concluded that assessing a population’s quality of life will require metrics from at least seven categories: health, education, environment, employment, material well-being, interpersonal connectedness and political engagement. They also decided that any nation that was serious about progress should start measuring its “equity” — that is, the distribution of material wealth and other social goods — as well as its economic and environmental sustainability. “Too often, particularly I think in an American context, everybody says, ‘We want policies that reflect our values,’ but nobody says what those values are,” Stiglitz told me. The opportunity to choose a new set of indicators, he added, is tantamount to saying that we should not only have a conversation about recasting G.D.P. We should also, in the aftermath of an extraordinary economic collapse, talk about what the goals of a society really are.

I feel like reading about the "vital core", don't you? The open option suggested by the authors of the "Human Security Now" report fits the necessity of context in order to determine the values to protect. It cannot be done a priori, heavily depending on the people who will live - suffer - the consequences.

However, it is not clear for me the role of the categories. Is not any list arbitrary? Do we need them? Umberto Eco may say yes, but I have my doubts.

Good day!

Considered the father of Peace studies, this interview is a good introduction to professor Galtung's life and work. Via Peace and Collaborative Development Network:

Louise Arbour, head of the International Crisis Group (ICG), says the Sri Lanka model consists of three parts: what she dubs “scorched-earth tactics” (full operational freedom for the army, no negotiations with terrorists, no ceasefires to let them regroup); next, ignoring differences between combatants and non-combatants (the new ICG report documents many such examples); lastly, the dismissal of international and media concerns.

And there are some interested on learning from this success story...

THAILAND - The political situation was back to normal - but it was necessary for the government to maintain the state of emergency for a time yet due to fears of fresh unrest, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said yesterday.

Once again, security means to give extraordinary powers to the government, and rather that freedom from fear, fear is the source of power, of legitimacy.

The whole news here. Via the indispensable human security daily news.

UPDATE (July 7): As predicted, the state of emergency is far from coming to an end.

“Our position has been to develop a solution that bridges between having nothing and having Afghan National Police, and this program does that,” said the senior NATO official. “So it’s a good development and especially so since it has consensus within the Afghan government and the ownership that come with that,” he said.

This interesting article of the NYT on the difficulty of consolidating a police corp in Afghanistan. I am sure some statistic about the police could serve as a proxy for human security. But not so sure...

Best wishes for this summer!