A Radical Idea for Europe

The European Union’s 60th anniversary this month comes at a time when some political leaders are attracting significant popular support for policies that directly call into question the value of the union. It’s not just the EU under attack, but NATO, the United Nations, the Council of Europe and its human rights court, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – all the institutions and ideals that emerged in the post-war, post-Holocaust spirit of “never again” that bolster respect for human rights and rule of law are facing fresh attacks in western democracies and beyond.

There is, of course, much to criticise about the functioning of the EU and other post-war institutions – bureaucracy, lack of transparency, economic policies, or simply when their actions do not live up to their values. But today’s criticism goes beyond the inefficiencies and inadequacies; the very existence of these bodies and even of the post-war order itself are being questioned.

It seems puzzling on the face of it. Nothing so earth-shattering has happened to justify a sweeping rethink of the reasons and need for core institutions that have helped ensure peace and stability in Europe for decades – no great depression, no dramatically rising crime, no sharp rise in unemployment. Some would cite the 2008 economic crisis as a cause or maybe the stresses of enlargement or the introduction of the euro, but if these are key factors, there’s been a curious delay between those events and today’s populist responses.

There has been a spate of terrorist attacks, but there have been far more protracted campaigns in the past that arguably led to far less questioning of political fundamentals. The everyone-for-himself response to chaotic arrivals of asylum seekers in 2015 probably didn’t help. Even so, there’s no clear cause one can point to to explain the seeming drift toward radical solutions that undermine human rights protection.

Even the globalisation and identity arguments often put forward to explain the rise of rejectionist populism don’t really make sense. Why, in 2017, when globalisation has been steadily marching on for decades, and populations mixing for decades, is it suddenly at a tipping point? There’s no obvious cause for the radical shift in general political direction, although the willingness of mainstream politicians to embrace the dangerous mantle of populism certainly hasn’t helped.

Some argue that people have forgotten history, but that doesn’t ring true. Europeans know about World War II and understand the horrors of the Holocaust. Denial is still very fringe.

But perhaps the problem is historical knowledge ends there for too many people. We are less familiar with how key institutions emerged after the war to ensure peace and security through political and economic integration, based on respect for fundamental human rights. Maybe people understand the philosophy of “never again” but too often don’t realise that, 60 years on, that is exactly what the European project based on strong human rights values has been about and has helped deliver.

These post-war hopes and institutions backing democracy and human rights were the radical ideas of their time in response to dire circumstances. We don’t need a new radicalism; we need to bolster the one we have. And we need political leaders to stop denigrating European institutions. Nothing less than the peace and security of Europe depends on it.

In Nigeria, a Troubling Impulse to Vigilantism

As details emerge of yesterday’s bombings in the Nigerian city of Jos, it seems the horrific death toll – now 118 and counting, as rescue teams pull victims from the debris – was augmented by frustrated residents taking the law into their own hands.

Nigeria’s Channels TV news and others have reported that, after the first bomb exploded at a busy market, a crowd approached a man acting suspiciously just prior to the explosion. According to this report they chased him to his car, beat him, and set his car on fire, sparking explosions that killed some people in the nearby crowd.

Nigeria’s government has been unable to stop the militant Islamist group Boko Haram’s killing spree, and has arguably fed the insurgency with the abusive response by security forces. Outraged and frightened residents now seem to be prepared to take matters into their own hands.

The media here is full of stories about concerned communities attempting to settle matters on their own, whether it’s groups of hunters declaring they will find and bring back the nearly 300 schoolgirls kidnapped by Boko Haram last month, or smaller groups attacking individuals they suspect of being Boko Haram members.

In addition, a “Civilian Joint Task Force,” formed by private citizens but supported by the Borno state government, is cobbling together young men and boys in villages and towns to help them defend their communities with whatever weapons might be at hand.

One huge problem with all of this vigilante activity is that these citizens, though justifiably outraged by events, are untrained and undisciplined. Without the necessary skills, experience, and supervision, they risk inviting dangers they cannot overcome. And, the justice they aim to provide is not really justice at all. As the Jos tragedy demonstrates, vigilante actions make the problem worse.

What Nigeria needs are military and police forces that are professional and able to address the insurgency in a way that respects rights and wins public confidence. Unfortunately, what Nigerians have now are abusive security services that lead to people seeking revenge, in place of seeking justice. 

Do social media help make international intervention less likely?

The question may seem a bit counter-intuitive at first. The common, if not yet quite conventional, wisdom is that, the more social media buzz there is around an issue, the more people get engaged in it, and the more popular pressure can be brought to bear on decision makers to take action.

Indeed, that probably works with many topics, including national and international crises. If there’s been a flood or an earthquake, for example, social media can help get the word out, transmitting messages in all formats -- text, audio, stills, video -- through those networks of personal trust that make tools like Facebook and Twitter so effective.

If an aid organisation plays it right, it can no doubt link up with the inevitable outpouring of international sympathy via social media and bring in new individual donations to apply to its work helping the victims. Perhaps it can even corral public pressure and direct it toward governments to get them to announce fresh aid packages in response. That seems reasonably straightforward.

In a conflict, however, things are very different.

On the trail of Boko Haram

I wrote this piece from Zaria in Kaduna State in northern Nigeria. It appeared in The Independent on 12 March 2012.

=======

“You could say Boko Haram is everywhere, or you could say it’s nowhere: both would be correct.”

This apparently confusing observation about the Nigerian militant Islamist group from one local expert is actually more helpful than it seems.

Responsible for a string of violent attacks in Nigeria that have killed some one thousand people over the last two years, Boko Haram, which means “Western education is forbidden”, has been bewildering and surprising to security specialists here. Ask some, and you will hear that the organisation is a threat to the very unity of Nigeria. Ask others, and you will hear that it is not an organisation at all.

And, yes, they are both right.

Lessons from a Decade of Conflict

Looking back at the last ten years, it is tempting to wonder if the world has not learned anything at all about conflict and conflict resolution in that time.

Afghanistan may have been a war of necessity after 9/11, but the international community continues to under-value the need for functioning government institutions to deliver services and justice free from corruption, and consequently the insurgency is now stronger than ever. Pakistan, where millions of people have been displaced by militancy and counter-terrorism activities, enjoys no more stability than ten years ago. Iraq, a thoroughly avoidable war justified through a political abuse of the memory of 9/11, took the lives of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians and more than 4,400 US military, far more Americans than were killed on that fateful day in September 2001.

In monetary terms, these wars alone have cost trillions of US dollars and played no small part in the crippling government debt crisis in America today.

Equally worryingly, universal values took a serious hit over the past decade. We witnessed extrajudicial renditions and imprisonment at the hands of Western governments supposedly dedicated to universal human rights. Even worse, torture became an issue of public debate rather than a moral red line.

PAX: A New Idea in Conflict Prevention?

Another blog post I wrote for Reuters AlertNet, this 24 May 2010 piece describes a project with some fascinating potential. I've been loosely involved with them as a kind of advisor ever since.

=======

I had a fascinating meeting at Google in London this morning. Attended by some very senior journalists, former top-level government officials, and representatives of NGOs, universities, and think tanks, the three- or four-hour session looked at a proposal for a new way to approach conflict prevention.

Called "PAX", the idea is to gather SMS, images and video from the general public in areas of conflict (in the style of FrontlineSMS and Ushahidi), and combine that with satellite imagery to form a massive open database that could be accessed to help pressure key governments and others into preventative action.

Gaza: If Not the EU, Who?

My Crisis Group colleague, Robert Blecher, and I penned this for the European Voice on 7 January 2009. It was reprinted in a number of national outlets across Europe.

=======

The collapse of the weak ceasefire in December and the return to all-out conflict between Israel and Gaza under Hamas has tempted many to say, "here we go again", with comparisons to the summer 2006 Israel-Lebanon war flowing freely from the keyboards of commentators everywhere.

Indeed, there are some similarities: provoked once too often, Israel responded then as now with overwhelming military power against an Islamist force and the civilian infrastructure, resulting in enormous casualties for which both sides blame each other. The international community is split on how to act, as the US tacitly gives Israel a green light to carry on its attack and the Arab world shouts and cries with little effect. All the while, the horror and humiliation are stoking the next generation’s militancy.

The question this time, however, is whether anyone in the international community has learned the lessons of 2006.

A Responsibility to Protect: The World's View

My then-boss, Gareth Evans, and I wrote this piece for openDemocracy on 4 April 2007. In it, we looked at the "responsibility to protect" doctrine in light of some encouraging new global public opinion research and what it meant for crisis-areas such as Darfur. It was subsequently republished in a number of newspapers, including the Swiss Le Temps.

=======

Trying to draw sustained international media attention to violent conflicts and mass atrocities around the world is a depressing business. The subject-matter is deeply disturbing, attention-spans are limited, and it is often hard to tell if publics are taking any notice in a way that is likely, in turn, to make their governments more responsive.

On Darfur, for example, non-governmental organisations such as the International Crisis Group have been ringing alarm-bells for over three years, yet effective international action to stop the state-sponsored violence has not materialised.

But new evidence suggests the message is getting across, at least on one level.

US and Iraq: Post-Pottery Barn Rules

I posted this on my Reuters AlertNet blog on 17 March 2007.

=======

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s ominous pre-war warning, "You break it, you've bought it", set the tone for the public debate on Iraq for years to come. How ever bad Iraq got, the US would have to deal with it, because the American-led invasion had released numerous unforeseen, though hardly unforeseeable, consequences.

If last week's New York Times interview with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is any indication of where the American public debate stands today, and the new guiding principle really is, as she says, "the American people are done with Iraq", then the era of the "Pottery Barn rules" has given way to something much worse.