Tuesday 13 October 2009

The Three Musketeers and Collective Security

One for all, and all for one (latin: un pour tous, tous pour un; also inverted to All for one, and one for all) is a motto traditionally associated with the titular heroes of the novel The Three Musketeers written by Alexandre Dumas, père, first published in 1844. In the novel, it was the motto of a group of French musketeers named AthosPorthosAramis and d'Artagnan who stayed loyal to each other through thick and thin.


This is essentially what collective security in International Relations is all about. When a number of nations get together under the umbrella of an International Organisation such as the United Nations, this applies when an assault on any one of the members means an assault to all its members.


Tomorrow, I'll be discussing just this subject with colleagues at the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy. Liberalists on one end of the table and Realists on the other ... another age old debate about unipolarity, the balance of power, the bad boy of the West i.e. Captain America and sorry to bring it up again ... Should the US and it's allies invaded Iraq in 2003? All I ask is a penny for every page that has been written on this and I could retire in sheer luxury for the rest of my life.


Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary General, is someone I admire. It might sound shallow and wholly unintellectual for me to admit that a good part of the reason for this is that he's virtually my neighbour. Unfortunately it's not what you're thinking ... I don't live in a UN owned mansion on Sutton Place in an exclusive suburb in Manhattan's East Side and fortunately for Kofi, he doesn't live in a 1950's semi-detached home in North West London. We're neighbours because I'm Nigerian and he is Ghanaian, two heavyweight West African countries, only separated only by two little strips of land called Benin and Togo.


Well it only made sense then, I found out what Kofi thought about all of this collective security business, and what better place to look than his famous report in 2004 "A more secure world: Our shared responsibility - Report of the Secretary-Generals's High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change". I am about to perform a magic trick so please pay attention. The report is a 99 page report and I am going to sum up what it says about collective security and the use of force in 6 phrases. Legality, Legitimacy, Seriousness of Threat, Proper Purpose, Last resort, Proportional Means and Balance of Consequences. Liberals would probably answer 'No' on all counts and the Realists would say 'Yes'. That's my act done. Good night.

Wednesday 7 October 2009

The Power of Words

There are numerous Biblical verses that enunciate how powerful our words are. One that I am particularly drawn to is in the book of Proverbs 18 verse 21 which begins ... "Death and Life are in the power of the tongue ...".

This has been on my mind lately for two reasons. Firstly, Pastor Colin Dye of Kensington Temple in London, where I have worshipped for more than 10 years has been preaching a captivating series on this subject over the last few weeks. The second reason why it has come to the forefront of my mind is because I have just attended a one day conference titled "A Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone" where quite frankly there have been many words.This conference, the 4th in a research series that has been run annually was hosted by the Centre of International Studies and Diplomacy of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) where I'm studying.

When Ambassador Dhanapala, a former Under-Secretary General for Disarmament Affairs of the UN, gave his keynote address, I sat comfortably in my skeptics chair. Settling in, I thought to myself this was going to be another long line of speeches by eminent people (all with CV's as long as my arm) saying what we 'need' to do to rid the world of nuclear weapons. The speeches wouldn't make any difference. However Proverbs 18:21 came back to my memory and Pastor Colin's message about how our words determine who we become made me start to see things in a different light. Is there really anything as 'empty words' if what we say really has that powerful an effect. My mind started to wander back to great Orators, past and present and what they might have achieved with their words ... Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King and of course, my main man, Barack Obama. On the other side of the spectrum I also thought of Adolf Hitler and how he used his communication skills, albeit negatively, to influence the history of the 20th century. It then dawned on me that there are no such things as empty words. There is always an impact, small or big, postive or negative.

I shifted slightly in my skeptics chair, now feeling a little uncomfortable and decided to pay more attention. Ambassador Dhanapala was recollecting his Presidency of the 1995 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference, a landmark event in disarmament history. 5 of the nuclear states have ratified the treaty. The other 3 nuclear states in our world today, India, Pakistan and Israel are yet to do so. The conference also allowed the extension of the NPT and resolutions on the Middle East were passed. Maybe the thousands of words that will be said today will have an impact somewhere sometime beyond my wildest imagination ... I better pay attention.

Friday 2 October 2009

Globalisation has created a borderless world? Yeah right! Kid yourself.

It was Mark Twain who said "I didnt have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one ...". When you have numerous ideas and extensive information, the challenge is always determining what is pertinent and essential to impart the right message. This is a vital skill.

On Monday, as part of my media training on my course in diplomacy, I am meeting with Simon Cructhley and Deborah Mckenzie, two prominent media consultants in the UK, who have been involved with the BBC at the highest level in Journalism and Political Analysis. I am giving a 3 minute presentation of any subject of my choice in International Relations. 3 minutes! There are subjects I could talk about for 3 days, never mind 3 minutes. Now I understand how Mark Twain must have felt. Especially as the subject I've decided to give my presentation is one on which numerous volumes have been written - Globalisation.

I have just read a few chapters from Thomas Friedmann's "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" where he talks about a new world of globalisation and how we now live in a borderless world. He introduced the concepts of the democratisation of finance, technology and information. In other words these 3 areas are now more readily available to a larger pool of people than ever before. As a management consultant for over 15 years working primary with IT Financial Systems that provide 'better information', I agree with the concepts of this so called 'democratisation' which has exponentially accelerated in the last decade especially since the ready availability of the internet.

Where I begin to be more doubtful is where people begin to talk about a 'borderless' world, where this globalization has broken down the traditional borders and walls seperating countries, people, cultures and religion. Somehow I cannot understand why the young muslim boy, Mohammed, in Indonesia feels the borders which define his culture, religion or sovereignty of where he lives are dissolved just because he has access to the internet. I would even go as far as stating that the discovery of a 'new world' helps to further define your own identity and the borders are even more clearly defined and obvious.

I've got 3 minutes, so I'll look at 3 of the main illustrations put forward by the proponents of the theory that globalisation is creating a borderless world and explain why I think each of these is slightly flawed.

Firstly there is information, knowledge and the good old world wide web. The hyperglobalist is quick to point out the emergence of the new Knowledge economy, a common example being that of the intelligent Indian woman in Mumbai being able to take advantage of her good grasp of English and Accounting making her responsible for the large call centre of a major investment bank in the United States. What they conveniently forget to mention is that she still proudly wears her sari everyday to work, would rather spend the evening at the temple than watching CNN at home and a weekend with the family celebrating a new baby by feasting on vegetarian delicacies still rates much higher than a shopping trip to the glitzy shopping mall in the posh central mumbai district. Borders are defined by these. Sovereignty is defined by this. its not the mere availability of information that creates a borderless world but what people, organisations and governments do with that information.

Secondly there is technology. There are many facets of technology that have promoted globalisation (or should I say capitalism?). I'll focus on just one aspect however. Communication technology primary the rise of email and mobile communications. Ok, I'll admit one thing ... the perception and concept of time and distance has changed with this. Of course twenty years ago when I first started living in London and posted letters to my Dad in Nigeria once a month to tell him how I was, is a far comparison to today where I could text him 3 or 4 times a day to let him know how his grand-daughter's piano concert went. It could make you feel closer and distance is blurred. Importantly though distance and borders are two different things. Because you can get to the border quicker doesn't mean its disappeared. Remember the feeling you get when you get off a long haul flight and have this deep sense of being in a 'different world'. That feeling doesn't go away if you fly by concord. Arguably I might even say it's enhanced.

Larry Summers, a former US deputy treasury secretary always liked to tell the story how in 1988 on the campaign trail for Michael Dukkakis, he was once met by a car at the airport that had a phone in it. He was so thrilled by this that he called his wife to tell her he was in a car with a phone. Incredibly 9 years later, he was visiting Ivory Coast on a US funded health project in a village miles from Abidjan the capital. Having to travel part of the journey by canoe, he didn't even blink when he was handed a cell phone during this river journey to take a call from Washington. Of course, globalisation exclaims at the cell phone but the canoe, the long established river route and the African Chief and villagers decked out in robes that met him on the other side, remind him there are still borders.

Thirdly, there is the democratisation of finance. According to the hyper-globalists, the possibility of financial prosperity is now open to an increasing percentage of the people in the world. Or is it? A Harvard Business School report titled "Saving the Worlds Poor" by C.K. Prahalad shows that 65% of the world population still lives on less than $2000 a year. Maslow's hierarchy of needs has been turned upside down because ironically a good percentage of these own a television and telephone and have access to the internet. Of course in theory, globalisation via the democratisation of information and technology, means these people have the possibility of financial prosperity and they could invest and profit from the stock exchanges in New York, London or Tokyo. How many actually do? I'm not a betting man, but I'll be willing to put a large sum that the percentages are really low. Finance helps people to move between borders more easily. As a young Nigerian man who saved up to come and study in England and subsequently go on to have a successful career, finance was always a key factor.

It's 2009 now, and there is a growing trend of many friends and colleagues of mine, going back from the West to their home countries in Africa, Asia, South America and the Middle East. They are going back to reclaim their own olive tree in their back gardens and leaving their Lexus' in the driveway. The Lexus and the Olive Tree was Thomas Friedmann's analogy of the irony of globalisation. He recalls a journey on a bullet train in Japan following a visit to a high technology Toyota plant where the Lexus car was made. He had been completely blown away by the incredible robotic technology that created the automobile, but even on his journey back, he was sat in this train reading an article in the International Herald Tribune on an aspect of the Arab/Israeli conflict basically an argument in one of the oldest corners of the world, a fight, in his analogy, about who owned which olive tree.

The truth is you and your neighbour may both have a Lexus' in your driveways, but who owns which olive tree in your back gardens is still as relevant as ever if not more so. Globalisation hasn't created a borderless world so don't kid yourself.

Thursday 1 October 2009

Is Today important?

People place a lot of attention to dates. In cultures, religion, personal relationships and all aspects of life we can decide a date is more significant than it is and as such place great importance to it. Today is Thursday the 1st of October 2009 and its the Independence day of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in West Africa where I am from. Today is also my first official day as a Master's student at the school of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) where I am starting the MA in international Studies and Diplomacy. Nigeria is 49 years old and I am not far behind at 41. I believe there is significance in this date. My main reason for studying for an MA at an age where others might begin planning retirement, in a subject that is as far removed as my previous 25 years studying engineering and working in the IT industry, is that I want to be ready for an opportunity to serve my country. I believe it will come, but I want to be as prepared as I can when it does. Spiritually, Academically, Intellectually, Physically, Mentally and Emotionally.

Diplomacy is an art form that pays a lot of attention to dates. This year is the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall in Germany and Josef (I think that's what his name was) my new classmate at the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy who is actually from Berlin, tells me how so much is going on this year, just because it's an anniversary. It is well known that diplomatic momentum is heavily dependent on symbolic deadlines and negotiators favour these when they are anxious to bring negotiations to a conclusion. The anniversary of the outbreak of war always serve as a good date for the signing of peace agreements. A good example of the pressure of a symbolic date on negotiations is the proposal by the Cuban government in May 1988, that the negotiations of the Angola/Namibia peace negotiations be completed by 29th September (Crocker, 1999, p. 229). This was the tenth anniversary of the UN Security Council resolution on the arrangements for independence of the South African controlled Namibia.

As a Christian, I am also aware that dates in the calendars of great religions are always very significant not just in international politics and diplomacy, but in everything and every aspect of life. Christmas is the most notable of these serving as a virtual deadline. Every year, "We need to get this done by Christmas", is on the lips of many. The book of Ecclesiates talks about seasons and a time for every event under heaven. Summer, Autumn, Winter and Spring come and go and God gives men and women visions, "for a season such as this".

Today is the first day of a new season. How long it will be, I'm still unsure but I am excited. The beggining or end of something important creates yet another anniversary. And who knows which one of these anniversaries will be instrumental in accelerating diplomatic momentum for some crucial negotiation to change the world.