Tofu Notes

Sending them home

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:25:00 +0000

What can you say about a story like this?

Djibouti has forcibly sent 40 asylum seekers from Somalia back to the Somali capital Mogadishu, the United Nations refugee agency said on Wednesday...

UNHCR said Djibouti authorities forced the 40 asylum seekers on to a plane which flew them back to the Somali capital on Tuesday.

Sent home. To Mogadishu! And that's after they've tried to find asylum in Yemen and been turned away from there, too.

I understand the politics of refugees. Honestly, I do. But forcibly sending people to Mogadishu?!

Sadly, the government of Djibouti is not alone in wanting to return refugees to war zones. Some politicians in Australia, for example, say that Sri Lankan asylum seekers should be forcibly returned to Colombo.

Barnaby Joyce, you're in good company.

Tonight: Footy on the big screen (to take your mind off evil)

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:43:00 +0000

In his recent roundup of the situation in Nigeria and Sudan, this Alex Thurston fella (who writes an excellent blog that I wish I wrote) touched on an issue I've been meaning to mention: DDR. One of the most important components of a post-conflict peacebuilding effort - or even a peacekeeping operation - is the disarmament, demobolisation, and reintegration (or DDR) of combatants. According to the United Nations, DDR "aims to deal with the post-conflict security problem that arises when ex-combatants are left without livelihoods or support networks."

DDR is getting underway in the Niger Delta and, as Alex points out, there is some cautious optimism about its prospects. I find DDR really interesting because, in order to get anywhere near meeting all of its lofty goals, it requires a large injection of creativity and perseverance. In order to tackle both the push and the pull factors that might motivate former fighters to take up weapons again, you'll try just about anything. And so, in the Niger Delta, they're taking a novel approach.

The amnesty’s local co-ordinator, Bestman Nwoka, is trying to ensure this happens, so he is organising the centre at Aluu to receive thousands more former militants. They will sleep four to a room, be well fed, attend classes and even get psychiatric counselling, he says. They will be able to watch football matches on a big television screen. Chelsea v Arsenal, says Mr Nwoka, will "take their minds off evil".

I love it.

And hey, while we're on the topic of footy and peace, has anyone seen this documentary fillum called Tackling Peace? The Missus and I missed the recent Canberra screening because we were moving house, but we hear the film is excellent. I'd love to hear from anyone who's seen it.

Refugee debate (2009 remix), or "Opinions are like bums..."

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:23:00 +0000

One half of the Aussie commentariat has gone into groupthink mode concerning the issue of asylum seekers attempting to reach Australia by boat. The meme is that asylum seekers are "illegals" - that is, criminals - who are trying to enter Australia because the Labor gumint is a soft touch. An example of this groupthinkery came yesterday when every man and his blog was quoting Greg Sheridan's opinion on the matter.

Sheridan - who makes no secret of his political leanings - is entitled to his opinion, as predictable as it may be. His column rolled out all of the usual arguments, including the suggestion that recent arrivals from Sri Lanka are not legitimate refugees.

However, being a News Ltd columnist on foreign policy with connections within the Liberal party does not make one an expert on the issues of border protection or international refugee flows. There are some experts out there, though, and it would be helpful if our media (and the blogging echo chamber) would paid them a little attention.

For instance, here is what an intelligence analyst who works in the area of border protection had to say about the current situation when someone bothered to ask:

"The idea that the change to policy has caused this surge is erroneous.

"The change has been minimal. Some smugglers have been marketing it as a softer approach, but the extent to which that has reduced any deterrent factor is questionable.

"You do need to consider the push factors, especially the war in Sri Lanka and ongoing conflict in places like Afghanistan."

Sheridan, bloggers, and the Liberal party themselves - "Teh boat people might be terrorists!!1!" - are in the business of finding "facts" that suit their own predetermined line of thinking. Intelligence analysts are not - they're job is to seek all available information, evaluate it, analyse it, and reach reasonable and objective conclusions. I know whose opinion I will value more.

This week's readings on peace and conflict

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:20:00 +0000

I haven't been blogging much lately but I've been reading a lot of really good stuff. The interests I formed while at uni have endured and so, as those who follow my tweets or shared items will know, my reading is largely concerned with matters of peace and conflict. And there is always plenty to read. Here's an overview of what I digested this past week.

International Crisis Group, Nagorno-Karabakh: Getting to a Breakthrough, Europe Briefing No 55, 7 October 2009.

The "frozen" conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, an enclave in Azerbaijan which is occupied by Armenia, has been of interest to me for a while now. I didn't realise how little I knew about the situation until I read this latest ICG briefing on the current mediation process and the prospects for peace. As with all ICG publications, it provides a solid background and an analysis of the actors and the conflict dynamics. If you don't know what's happening in Nagorno-Karabakh then this is a good place to start. It also touches on wider issues in conflict resolution.

One aspect of the paper in particular gave me a bit to chew on. Before reading this briefing, I'd focused on the international dimensions of the peace process. I was concerned, for instance, with the impact that relationships between Armenia and Turkey might have on the resolution of the conflict. While this issue is important, it seems that the domestic dimension may prove more decisive. In both Armenia and Azerbaijan, the government supports (to a greater or lesser degree) the move toward peace. The people, however, are not yet convinced. There is a lot of aggressive rhetoric on either side and this may undermine the whole process. Consequently, ICG calls on civil society to pull its weight and do some peacebuilding.

Incidentally, when I wrote about this situation earlier, I talked about legitimacy, prestige and the role of third parties in peacemaking. I wondered whether the interests of foreign parties might compromise a mediation process. I neglected to mention that many people in both Armenia and Azerbaijan are suspicious of the role of Russia in the peace process. They perceive foreign powers as being less interested in justice and sustainable peace than they are in their own strategic goals in the region. They're not fooled by the diplomatic bullshit. This ICG briefing, therefore, is an interesting read on a number of levels.

Raffaello Pantucci, Understanding the al-Shabaab networks, Australian Strategic Policy Institute, 13 October 2009.

This brief discussion of Al Shabaab, the Islamist insurgent group in Somalia about which I have frequently written, threw up a few facts and trends that I was previously unaware of. It also makes some projections about the possible future impact of Al Shabaab outside of Somalia. The contested narratives concerning the movement's origins are described, which is handy.

Pantucci discusses the instances where members of the Somali diaspora or converts to the Al Shabaab cause have decided to support the cause by either (a) traveling to Somalia to take up arms or (b) planning terrorist attacks outside of Somalia. The list is longer than I realised. It is pointed out that Al Shabaab need not actively recruit; its sympathisers abroad often act without any guidance from the movement itself.

Pantucci talks about the group's "networks" and maps out in part the shape and function of these networks. Future papers from Pantucci will be worth a read, too.

Cooperation for Peace and Unity Afghanistan (CPAU), Delivering the impact of peacebuilding [pdf], 13 October 2009.

Drawing on its in-depth analysis of local conflict in Afghanistan, CPAU has produced a policy briefing that calls on the Government of Afghanistan and other national and international stakeholders to ramp-up their commitment to local peacebuilding in the country. CPAU argues that the effective management of localised conflicts, which often concern livelihoods and resources, is an essential component of the wider strategy in Afghanistan.

The paper makes a series of recommendations. The most important of these concern the strengthening of traditional or informal justice systems (which people turn to when the formal justice system is absent or lacking legitimacy) and the trial of a "multilayered peacebuilding programme" in support of broader justice sector reform.

At present there is a lot of talk about the international war effort in Afghanistan changing its focus from the sexy hunting-down-the-bad-guys action to an approach that emphasises human security and the protection of communities. In light of this, CPAU's work in the area of local conflict and non-state justice mechanisms is extremely important and its recommendations come at an opportune moment.

(Maybe I'll post another recap of my readings next week.)

Posta Kenya delivers the goods

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:48:00 +0000

Some of you might remember a little project involving a couple of cartons of hand-knitted kids' jumpers bound for Love Shack in Nairobi. Some Tofu Notes readers even chipped in a few bob to help pay for the postage. Well they've arrived at last, after an arduous sea voyage and a few months' worth of unaccounted time. Good work, Posta Kenya!

Of course, we never doubted they'd arrive. No, that's a lie. I think I'd mentally written them off a couple of months ago. But Karen in Nairobi was optimistic. When I last spoke with her she said, "Don't worry, they'll make it. I am planning a new project for young mothers with babies and they have to be here in time for that."

Karen's faith in Posta Kenya was not misplaced after all. So what'll happen to these globe-trotting jumpers from Cooma?

In January, Love Shack will open the first class of its new "Little Citizen's Day Care" project. The idea is to support teenage mothers from Nairobi's slums by providing holistic care for the children and parenting education to the mums. The knits will be distributed to the little ones, who will also receive "a bath, clean clothes, breakfast, a health check and a cuddle" every day they visit. By the time the kids are old enough for school their mums will be self-sufficient and able to pay school fees.

And there's another goal, too:

The founder of Love Shack, Karen Ward, lived in the slum for two years in order to conduct a grassroots assessment of the needs of the children. It is clear to anyone that spends time in Kenya that real reform of the country lies in educating the citizens. At Little Citizen's Day Care we will set a foundation of fundamental values and ethics that will set children on a path to a bright and honest future. [Project concept paper.]

If, like us, you think that a project like this is worth supporting then you might consider flinging a few bob in Love Shack's direction (more info here). I'll post more news about the jumpers and the teen mums education project in the next few months.

My dream t-shirt

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:54:00 +0000

When I get around to ordering my "I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that" t-shirt, I want them to print, "And anyway, what has it got to do with you?" on the back.

Prestige, politics, and peacemaking

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:42:00 +0000

Political analyst M.K. Bhadrakumar, who writes for Asia Times, deploys an interesting phrase from time to time. Bhadrakumar talks about the United States (and NATO) having a "monopoly of conflict resolution" in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region, and suggests that other powers, such as Russia and China, seek to challenge this monopoly where possible. I've read this on a number of occasions across the past couple of years but have never really thought about what it means. Today I had reason to give it some thought.

This morning I was reading the latest Europe Briefing from the International Crisis Group (ICG) concerning conflict resolution in Nagorno-Karabakh. Russia is playing a constructive role in the mediation process between Armenia and Azerbaijan and is supportive of Western diplomatic efforts to mend relations between Armenia and Turkey, a relationship which may prove critical to peacemaking in Nagorno-Karabakh. The ICG makes the following suggestion about Russia's motivations.

Russia views its mediation efforts over Nagorno-Karabakh as a means for promoting its influence in the region. It also sees an opportunity to mend its tarnished image by presenting itself as a responsible regional power. [My emphasis.]

Perhaps this is what Bhadrakumar has been eluding to in the context of Afghanistan. Just as Russia wants to be seen as a responsible power in the Caucasus, the US and its NATO allies want to be the ones to bring peace and order to Central Asia. Large powers understand that size and military or economic clout may be undermined when legitimacy - respect - is lacking. Peacemaking brings prestige, and maybe even legitimacy.

Clearly there are some drawbacks of conflict resolution processes being monopolised by large powers pursuing their own interests. Most obviously there may be pressure applied for outcomes to be reached that suit the mediating powers themselves rather than the parties to the conflict, but I guess that can be an issue no matter who is involved. But what about the question of who is left out? Does a Russian or American monopoly of conflict resolution exclude other local players who may be better suited to the task at hand?

The goal of peacemaking - at least in theory - should be to stop conflicts becoming violent and to lay the foundations for sustainable peacebuilding in the future. In reality, states that become involved in conflict resolution processes may have other outcomes in mind; maintaining a monopoly of conflict resolution, for instance, or manufacturing prestige and legitimacy. These aren't the only motivators, of course, but they are clearly present to some extent and may impact upon behaviour and decision-making. I'll keep this in mind next time I see images of high-profile figures smiling, shaking hands, and talking about peace.

Two interesting stories among the sad ones

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:25:00 +0000

A couple of interesting stories emerged from Afghanistan over the past day or so. The first concerns a statement by the Taliban:

"We had and have no plan of harming countries of the world, including those in Europe ... our goal is the independence of the country and the building of an Islamic state," the Taliban said in a statement on the group's website www.shahamat.org.

"Still, if you (NATO and U.S. troops) want to colonize the country of proud and pious Afghans under the baseless pretext of a war on terror, then you should know that our patience will only increase and that we are ready for a long war."

Some observers, like Joshua Foust, have responded skeptically, and for good reason. Yet there's another dimension here.

On the face of it, the statement is a public relations exercise. It paints the Taliban as an innocent victim of foreign aggression and is possibly intended for an already sympathetic online - and Arabic-speaking - audience. On another level, however, the statement is directed at the United States and its allies, hence the mention of Europe. The message for Taliban sympathisers is clear, so what's the message for the US and its partners-in-war?

In my view, the suggestion that the Taliban is no threat to Western nations is an especially conciliatory statement. Compared to the relentless hostility voiced by Al Qaeda, for instance, the Taliban statement conveys an entirely different position: we are not waging a war against the West, we are simply fighting for our independence, and we will only fight so long as foreign troops occupy our country.

These are fighting words, sure. But they're fighting words with strings attached. I suspect that this statement is an indication that the Taliban is positioning itself for negotiations with the US and NATO. The Taliban hasn't placed its cards on the table, but it's certainly considering its hand.

Finally, the statement reiterates a common theme in Taliban announcements: the insurgency is in for the long haul. As debate takes place in Western nations concerning ongoing commitments to the war, this part of the statement may be pitched toward Western politicians wary of public discontent.

The second interesting article concerns evidence from Afghan civil society that suggests Afghan women support the presence of foreign troops in the country as a guarantor of security. Writing from Kabul, independent journalist Aunohita Mojumdar asks whether General Stanley McChrystal will leverage this fact when making the case for a greater commitment of US troops.

"We are suffering from terrorism," said MP Shinkai Karokhail. "We cannot say that troops should be withdrawn. The international troop presence is a guarantee of my safety."

Afghan women were particularly critical of a policy option advanced by US Vice President Joseph Biden to reduce the number of American troops in Afghanistan and redirect the mission to the destruction of al Qaeda networks...

In an earlier interview, women’s activist Wazhma Frogh told EurasiaNet that international troops were not the answer, but necessary for building the capacity of Afghan national forces. "Their presence is useful while there are warlords in power and the insurgency is going on."

Frankly, I doubt that the interests and wishes of Afghan women will be a high priority for the Obama administration when it reaches a decision about the direction it will take. But if, as Mojumdar urges, these women's voices were indeed heard during the debate in the US and elsewhere, a new factor may enter the popular discourse about the war and its objectives.

General McChrystal wants the counterinsurgency to focus "on the people, not the militants". That is, he wants to concentrate on human security, not just battlefield success and military metrics. The views of Afghan women would be an excellent way to frame a discussion of human security and what it actually means in Afghanistan today.

Defending American prestige

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:08:00 +0000

John Howard, currently visiting an old pal in the US, has made a media appearance in which he called for a greater commitment of Australian troops in Afghanistan. In making his case, Howard could have drawn on a number of serious and reasonable arguments in favour of sending more Aussie troops. He didn't.

Mr Howard told Fox that: "There should be additional commitments from all of the countries, including my own, that have troops there at present."

"What we've got to ask ourselves is, what is the consequence of failure in Afghanistan? And that would be an enormous blow to American prestige, it would greatly embolden the terrorist cause," he added.

Okay, I realise he's visiting his old buddy, and I understand that FOX News is a slightly right-of-centre media outlet, but seriously. Ten years at the helm of a nation, portrayed as a strong, sensible, intelligent statesman, and all he can muster is "American prestige"?

Please, John, stay out of the media and just enjoy your retirement.

Soul Makossa (No. 1)

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:54:00 +0000

Development assistance / humanitarian aid not bombs

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:14:00 +0000

Apparently the global financial crisis is forcing governments in the rich world to scale back aid to the poor world. No doubt military budgets will be next.

Two loves lost

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:59:00 +0000

This year I lost two loves. Here's how I'm gunna remember them.

Marty and I took my Torana up the Pacific Highway. Melinda was a good mate and we hadn't seen her since school. We went out and silly. Late, huddled in front of the CD player, I fondled a couple of unknown CDs.

Newcastle Uni had introduced her to a funny little band called the Lucksmiths. She'd bought a few CDs, raved about their live shows.

Back then I could drink, and I sat up doing so after the gang went to sleep. Perched in front of the stereo, I plucked "A Good Kind Of Nervous" from its cover and gave it a spin. A track called "Under the Rotunda" won me over. In the morning I was found with the CD sleeve in my hand.

A few years later I was lucky enough to interview one of the fellas from the band for a student paper. "You boys aren't too well known in western Sydney, so how would you describe your sound?"

"Imagine you're walking on the beach. The sand is cool between your toes, the sun is warm on your shoulders. There's a dog chasing a frisbee along the sand. Overhead there's an aeroplane and behind it there's a banner that reads, 'I love you!' That's what we sound like."

That's how I remember The Lucksmiths.

We were in Nakuru, Kenya. A break from Nairobi and the madness that was Vasco's time in Somalia.

I'd downloaded the last couple of Grods podcasts and brought them along.

I remember sitting out on the little balcony listening to the boys. They were just talking shite, nestled in some Melbourne pub. Giggles, puns, in-jokes, nonsense. I didn't know 'em, they didn't know me. But the sounds made it seem so close. It was liking being there, having mates around me.

At a rough old time it was so fucking valuable. The connection was more important than I can describe.

That's how I remember the Grods gang.

I'm "home" now. The Luckies have called it a day and the Grods lads have hung up their boots. And it's only with their passing that I've realised what they meant to me. A band and website.

Tweeting through the fog of war

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:55:00 +0000

The revolution in military affairs - where communications and other technologies changed the face of warfare - failed to lift the fog of war. There is still uncertainty, misinformation, confusion. Communication technology does, of course, allow the fog of war to be penetrated in new ways, creating opportunities to obtain information and conduct interpretation and analysis. This isn't just about satellites, radars, and unmanned aerial vehicles. A communications technology that's cutting into the fog of war today is Twitter.

Twitter's fog-penetrating capabilities were displayed overnight when a series of violent incidents occurred in Kandahar, southern Afghanistan. Independent journalist Alex Strick van Linschoten, who lives in Kandahar, captured the events in a string of tweets:

While Strick's information would soon be available elsewhere in the media, his tweets were Valuable for a couple of reasons. First, he's an "on the ground" source. Second, his communication is immediate. Further, when other sources began to report on the issue, followers of Strick's tweets were able to compare and assess the information being presented. For example, when Al Jazeera reported on the event its Twitter feed read:

No, replied Strick:

Another journalist, Michael Yon, is also in Kandahar. A little while after the initial attack was reported, Yon tweeted:

Strick replied to Yon, saying that he was on his balcony and hadn't heard any explosions. Interestingly, Yon's next tweet said that he was up on his roof watching events.

For an Afghanistan watcher, all of this tweeting is important for two main reasons. First, it provides a range of viewpoints based on immediate first-hand experience, and these act as a counterweight to mainstream or official reporting. That is, it helps us work out exactly what's going on. Second, the fact that there are contradictory reports from people who are actually there gives us some sense of what the "fog of war" is really about. In other words, it demonstrates why it's so bloody hard to work out what's actually going on. For those who have studied war but have been fortunate enough not to have experienced it, this is invaluable.

Bloggers of all stripes have voiced their opinions on Twitter of late. To those who see all the tweeting as a white wall of irrelevant noise, I'd reply that exchanges of tweets like those reproduced here demonstrate that Twitter, and the communication it enables, is far more important than they give it credit for. Just as communication media are needed to cut through the fog of war, so too is a discerning eye needed to cut through the white noise of Twitter in order to find information that holds value to the individual reader. I've found the value in tweets and I'm not turning back.

Iranian weapons in Afghanistan

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:34:00 +0000

A regular feature of media coverage of the war in Afghanistan is the claim that the insurgent groups are obtaining weapons from Iran. There are some stories of this type doing the rounds now and I have a few doubts about them. These sorts of accusations are difficult to prove. There are many ways that weapons of Iranian-origin could end up in Afghanistan without the involvement of the Iranian government. A cynical observer might see the claims as politically motivated. The US and its allies have plenty of reasons to make accusations of this sort against Tehran.*

But there is also the possibility that the insurgents themselves are flinging propaganda around. Last year, for example, a "Taliban commander" suggested that the insurgency's favourite mine was an Iranian-made weapon known as the "Dragon". International weapons experts have never heard of it. Further, it is known that many if not most of the mines deployed by the insurgents are home-made, which is why the term "improvised explosive device" is so widely used today.

The primary source of weapons for the insurgency is likely to be Pakistan. This is not necessarily an accusation against the government of Pakistan. The border, as we are often told, is "porous". Bomb-making materials are household items like cooking pots, bags of fertiliser, and motorcycle batteries. The insurgency employs a network of buyers, sellers, and intel-gatherers to obtain the materials it requires. Perhaps this is one reason why the Taliban would be happy to see NATO and US forces off chasing imaginary Iranian smugglers a few hundred miles away.

* It may also be worth asking why we hear so much about Iranian weapons but relatively little about the Chinese ones, like those shown in recent official images.

Benga

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 10:48:00 +0000

I knew the sound well. On lazy Sunday afternoons as I wandered in and out of Dagoretti pubs, chatting with locals and sinking Tuskers, it was the omnipresent soundtrack. Ample bottoms would shake, grins would spread, voices would rise.

It was danceable, singable, and - to the untrained ear (that is, mine) - extremely repetitive. I came to love it. My memories of Nairobi vibrate with its rythyms. Go on, have a taste.

Terrorism and displacement in central Africa

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 01:09:00 +0000

Seriously. What do you have to do to be called a terrorist these days?

The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) has been making headlines again this month. In Southern Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and Central African Republic (CAR), attacks by the LRA have displaced an estimated 125,000 people during August alone. In this instance, that clinical term "displaced" means abandoning homes and livelihoods to flee "rape, torching houses, abductions and looting".

Hundred of thousands more were already homeless after the LRA began its latest round of violence at the end of last year.

In short, the LRA is terrorising communities in three nations. Its predatory violence targets vulnerable communities in DRC and CAR and threatens to disrupt upcoming elections in Southern Sudan. Its leader, the recalcitrant Joseph Kony, is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Proposed solutions are thin on the ground. Military efforts to bring the LRA to book have been unsuccessful. Given that much of the violence since December 2008 has been a "reprisal" against a US-backed Ugandan operation, you might even say the military option is counterproductive in terms of human security.

The International Crisis Group (ICG) calls for more talks. A new peacemaking effort, the thinking goes, will at least bring the violence to an end for the near term and allow Kony to state his position.

As much as I respect the ICG, in this case I question the value of talks. Kony has used peacemaking efforts to his own advantage in the past, taking part only to gain time and then pulling out of talks without explanation. The man is a thug, a criminal, and a terrorist. While I don't buy the "we don't talk to terrorists" line, this man has done his dash. Still, local people consistently say they want peace before justice, so perhaps talking with Kony - and affording him some political legitimacy - is the lesser of two evils.

So what to do? And who will do it?

If these terrorists were threatening Western cities or Western businesses, perhaps we'd see a Coalition of the Willing using its Air Power and HumInt and COIN against the LRA and its "safe havens". I don't think that's the answer, either. But somewhere between doing nothing and bombing villagers from the air lies a strategy that might bring this terrible violence to an end.

Surely a few members of the international community can knock their heads together and come up with something.

Thankfully, it seems that I'm not the only one who's frustrated with the situation. As things have deteriorated and humanitarian access in Southern Sudan has been impacted, the United Nations has begun talking about new mandates for its peacekeeping forces in Sudan and Congo so that those forces are able to take more robust action against the LRA. It's a start.

Understanding Islamism

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 22:33:00 +0000

I read a lot. Too much. One of the reasons I blog less frequently than I should is that my brain noise levels are too high and I can't distill my thoughts down to a few hundred word units. In the past I have taken measures to mitigate this issue. The information diet is an example. But it hasn't helped.

And so I recently decided to cull my "areas of interest". I am interested in conflict, and there happens to be a lot of conflict in the world at any given time. It's like an element of nature. When you try to keep abreast of every conflict you end up with more information than you can process, a dash of depression, a paroxysm of helplessness, and way too much brain noise.

Anyway, having reduced my list of conflict situations, I identified a few common elements between these conflicts. One was ethno-nationalism, another was underdevelopment and exclusion. These I am conversant with. I got stuck on a third: Islamism. And I decided that it was time I got to the heart of the issue.

If you ever have the desire to understand political Islam, there's no better place to start than the International Crisis Group's 2005 paper, 'Understanding Islamism'. As you'd expect from the ICG, it deconstructs the issue thoroughly, considers historical context, and critically unpacks the dominant discourses (on either side of the political spectrum). I wish I'd read it years ago.

Boycott

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 08:14:00 +0000

A woman I work with is of Sri Lankan heritage. I committed a bit of a faux pas this morning when I offered her some of the tea I was drinking. It's from Sri Lanka. I was curtly advised that Sri Lankan products are being boycotted. "Even fair trade tea?", I asked. Yes, even that. Chastised, I returned to my workstation.

Boycotts are the civil society version of an economic sanction. Like embargoes, used by governments against other governments, boycotts are used by groups of people who seek to use economic power to achieve a political aim, usually in protest against a government. It could be argued that the boycott is a non-violent form of protest and is therefore a pretty good option. I'm not so sure.

Embargoes and other economic sanctions put in place by governments are without doubt more powerful than any boycott, but does that mean that boycotts do not cause any harm? There may be no direct physical violence, but what about other forms of violence?

Take Sri Lankan fair trade tea sold in Australian supermarkets as an example. Sri Lankan farmers and farm workers are taking part in a scheme that ensures them fair prices for their products. Do-gooders in Australia - like me - can buy these products and make a small contribution to sustainable and equitable livelihoods in the developing world.

So what happens if a boycott or embargo is put in place in protest against the government of Sri Lanka? Assuming there is a sufficiently high level of support for the protest, supermarkets won't be able to sell fair trade Sri Lankan tea anymore. Until a new market is found, the company that buys the tea from Sri Lankan farmers will buy less, and farmers will scale back their production.

Following this logic, the outcome will be a negative impact on farmers, workers, and their families. In poor rural areas of a developing nation, it's likely that the community will also feel the effects. Maybe the company will be impacted, too, possibly causing it to reduce its level of investment in Sri Lanka.

And the up side? Will this (relatively minor) change in the market for tea have the desired impact on the policies of the government of Sri Lanka? I'd say not. Unless there are suddenly millions of angry unemployed farm workers descending on the government, it's unlikely that there will be any real impact at all.

So what do I say to my Sri Lankan co-worker? How do I explain that her boycott, if it has any impact at all, is only going to hurt the poor? What alternatives do I put forward? I don't know. To be honest, I understand the arguments in favour of the boycott and I don't believe firmly enough in my own position to challenge them.

There are strong feelings attached to the decision to boycott Sri Lankan products. The decision to pursue a form of protest that is, at one level at least, non-violent is admirable. However the need to make a political statement, to do something about a situation of perceived injustice, may mean that we overlook the need to think carefully and objectively about the likely consequences of that action.

In the scheme of things, my co-worker's decision - and my own - will probably make little difference at all. Perhaps we're even counteracting each other.

What this little encounter highlights, though, is the tension between the desire to act in accordance with our beliefs and the necessity of rigorously assessing the possible outcomes of our actions. In a globalised world this isn't just a question for governments to deal with, but one that is present in the decisions we as individuals make in our daily lives.

One for the "skeptics"

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:16:00 +0000

Those damn global warming fear-mongers are at it again.

The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics... Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts...

So who are these so-called "analysts"? Lefties, I'll bet. Or greenies. Or lefty-greenie-lesbian-fascists who worship Al Gore (who, by the way, is fat).

Actually, it's the US military.

Hat-tip: Nathan at Post Conflicted.

My little mate

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 08:40:00 +0000

Whenever we hear from our friends in Nairobi I get some news of my little mate. For instance, this news came via a note from her Mama today:

We are doing fine... and Scharmy is looking forward to her 7th birthday on sat 22nd aug... the kind of cake I am being told to make!!! ...aaaiiii.

I can well imagine the noise that's being made! And I bet she's also demanding chips.

Jiggers

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:16:00 +0000

Last year, when I visited a little school in Kawangware, I learned about the health problems that kids in Nairobi's poorer suburbs deal with from day to day: malnutrition, head lice, HIV-related illness.

I also learned about jiggers. They're nasty little fleas that get into your feet, especially if you don't have any shoes to wear. I saw some kids with sores on their feet, but I didn't see any as bad as these.

Winning hearts and minds 1960s-style

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:45:00 +0000

An amusing post at Ghosts of Alexander mentions a US development project in Afghanistan in the 1960s:

And then there was the USAID guy in Kandahar who drove a giant pink Cadillac, which the locals set on fire one day. If you wanted to destroy something symbolic during a riot, you just could not do better than that. Good stuff.

Come on! How could a pink cadillac not win hearts and minds?

This is why it's so hard to solve

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:02:00 +0000

Nothing could illustrate the complexity and brutality of the conflict in Somalia better than the killing this week of five Pakistani Muslim clerics in the town of Galkayo. The motive for the attack, which took place while the men were in a mosque, is unknown. It has been condemned by both Al Shabaab (themselves known for brutal attacks) and Ahlu Sunna, a group opposed to Al Shabaab's violent Islamism.

I can't claim expert status when it comes to the conflict in Somalia. I don't think anyone can. But I have a reasonable grasp of the issues, the actors, and the dynamics. And I am at a loss to explain this event.

Who is responsible for the attack? What do they hope to achieve? Is this a foreign element, perhaps from Pakistan? What does it all mean? I haven't a clue. But that's just the way the conflict in Somalia goes. And it demonstrates precisely why the world is getting no closer to finding a solution.

It's over

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:00:00 +0000

Something significant changed in our household this morning. In place of a nagging anxiety that has been there for the last nine months, sometimes dragging us into despair, there's now an immense feeling of relief and joy.

News began filtering in overnight concerning our friends and colleagues who have been held hostage in Somalia since last November. They've been released. As I type this on Wednesday morning, the Kenyans are at home with their families and the Europeans are sitting around a swimming pool at a Nairobi hotel.

It's difficult to imagine how they must be feeling, or how the news of their release would have been received at home.

As with every news story that emerges from Somalia there are conflicting accounts of how the release came about. Some reports suggest that a ransom was paid, others say not. There are suggestions that the outcome was achieved in part because of the efforts of the governments of Oman and Egypt as well as France.

The negotiation process was kept out of the press. This was a deliberate strategy to prevent the kidnappers from leveraging media attention. It meant that those of us who wanted to know what - if anything - was happening to secure their release had to deal with long periods of distressing silence. Perhaps it was a successful strategy. Maybe there were other factors. We'll never know.

The news gave me pause to reflect upon other kidnapping victims in Somalia and elsewhere. One victim's family has recently made headlines in Australia by calling on the government to act. I'm torn over the issue.

The government has rightly pointed out that media attention may be counterproductive. Yet if the government is actually doing something, surely families and friends can be provided with some information, even if negotiations are secret. The fact that family and friends of the Australian victim have spoken to the media suggests that the government is not keeping them informed. They deserve better.

The emotional shift in our household will continue for some time. A range of emotions will rise to the surface as the reality of what's occurred sinks in. There'll be pain and sadness as we reflect on the experiences that our friends have endured, as we make contact with them and hear in their own words how they are coping.

But our overall sense right now is simply relief: It's over. And I sincerely hope that others who are waiting for similar news will one day experience this feeling.

Entracte

noreply@blogger.com (Toaf) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:06:00 +0000

So Ms Vasco has just hopped into a pre-dawn taxi (yet again!) and will soon be en route to Harare where she'll spend a few weeks. While she's away I'll be busy with a couple of little projects that will consume much of my time and energy, so it seems like a good time to give the blog a bit of a break. I imagine I'll be writing again in a month or two. Adieu!