The Influence of Names: Is Your Name Unintentionally Holding You Back?

Whilst researching for my dissertation I became fixated with youth unemployment, it is a problem that affects my friends and myself. 'What will we do after university?' is a frequent question that often has a resolute, parrot-fashion or panicked response. 

Tangentially I became interested in capitalism as a concept. Why am I jumping through all these hoops of education to gain pieces of paper that resemble lumps of shiny metal that someone in the pre-historic age decided were important (five banks are still calling the shots on this one anyway)? What if the whole world thought leaves were the most valuable good? I would be pretty rich at the moment if they were (obviously it is scarcity that creates value in a capitalist world so this be of little consequence – Brazil would simply become richer still). The debate about capitalism has become more visible in recent years after the catalyst of the boom and Thomas Piketty’s recent publication has caused this debate to resurface again.

This then led me on to the influence that names can have upon our economic performance and this (you can breath a sigh of relief) forms the subject for this article. Does it make a difference? And if so, why? I will cover the other subjects of youth unemployment and capitalism in later articles so watch out for those.

What is striking in the conversation concerning normlative determinism is Ian Salisbury’s reference to research on the coincidence of names in Oxbridge undergraduates, ‘advantageous names’ outnumber ‘made-up names’ by 80-1. So if you are an Elizabeth and applying to Oxbridge your fingers should be crossed with a justifiable hope; but if you are a Shane, Jade or Chelsea then you had better look elsewhere. 

Is this true? Well the research is conclusive and the impact that names have is without doubt; so, you had better choose wisely future parents for your babies' future is partly tied to their name. It could affect schools, jobs, and relationships. Let us look at this in more depth.

What does your name say about you?

Surely it is about the person? The qualities they show? The way they relate? Of course it is but the power a name holds is without question. How many books, religious articles, and scientific publications play with the concept of your name? Knowing your true name, name changing, and the effects that names have are all discussed.

However, is it the name or the fact that classes are likely to choose a certain set of names? It is not often that you find a Percival among the lower classes or a Chardonnay among the upper classes. They are certain social stigmas attached to them which neither class finds tasteful. Therefore it is not the name but the class. 

What would be interesting would be to assess the effect a divergent name has upon different classes. Yet, a human life is not some plaything to be meddled with and if I was the test subject I would find the whole affair rather disturbing. The luck is out on this one.

Or is it? David Figlio does conduct a test that draws out a conclusion on the effect of different names by analysing birth certificates and whether the baby’s mother will be a high school dropout (there is nothing wrong with that but it does have interesting implications). He finds that a name that a teacher perceives to have been given by ‘uneducated parents’ affects how the teacher reacts to the student – as though the parents have consigned the child to a certain fate. Pelham, and Mirenberg and Jones, substantiate these findings and argue that an individuals’ name strongly affects their residential location choices, career choices and spousal selections.

David Key’s comment on the concurrence of ‘a’ on the end of female names and thus her social economic class shows a remarkable similarity. Compare Sophie to Sophia, Susan to Susanna, Helen to Helena, Dianne to Dianna, and Frances to Francesca. The former is often of lower class to the later.

What about the other way around? George Osbourne’s original name was Gideon but he appeared anxious to change it to a more generic name so as to avoid issues at the poll. Clever chap!

Superfans also pose an interesting question. Just because you might have a devotion to a certain team does not mean that your children should be related to them - the consequences are more far-reaching then you can imagine. The story of the Manchester United obsessed mother today compounds this absurdity. What will the cats think?

Though you may deny it our names do have an influence on a lot of worldly factors. Of course there will be anomalies (it could even be you!) but evidently we all have a duty to take care in deciding the names of our offspring. You could contend that if you do not value economic wealth then this argument is rather flawed; your name should represent your group, your class or your heritage. Yet, to talk in terms of class, to participate in the capitalist world (though I appreciate it is rather difficult to do anything else), and to have a job, entails a stake in the significance of names.

I guess in however many years my offspring had better be name appropriately or someone will be redirecting me to this post (it might even be them!).

Thoughts? Has your name held you back? Does this make sense? Do you think this is right? 

The IPCC: A 'Weather Report' on the Climate Change Talks Today

With the report from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued today, the article by the World Review on China conveniently substantiates their findings. In the 2007 assessment it was the US that was seen as the world's top carbon polluter; but now China accounts for a quarter of the emissions. Though, clearly they are the most populated state in the world. 

So to help drive down these emissions what do you think we can do? It is a glorious sunny day but tomorrow might bring the storms of climate change and this is the warning we were looking for.


Money Talks?

According to the IPCC report the changes would be affordable. It would only cost the global economy 0.06% to implement off the global annual growth rates of 1.3 - 3%. Perhaps too far for governments at this time.
Oxfam's climate expert Jan Kowalzig said: "This report puts the fossil fuel companies and their financiers on notice: the era of fossil fuel energy is ending.”

So what next Jan?

Increase a reliance on renewable resources?

The answer to all our problems which is often advocated by the greens on our political plate. Yet the government steak (stake) in the plan has largely been reduced since their devotion to the Green Bank. With 16% agreeing that the Conservatives have completed their goals regarding being the 'greenest government ever', against 46% who disagree, it looks like the party has not become the environment best friend yet.
The appointment of Owen Paterson, a climate-change sceptic, as environment secretary compounds this issue. Paterson said in September 2013: 'People get very emotional about this subject and I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries.'

Thanks for that Owen!

Dr Stephan Singer, WWF director of global energy policy, states that: "Renewable energy can no longer be considered a niche market. Renewables must – and should – eventually take the full share of the global energy market within the next few decades."

Have a browse around the Natural Resources Defense Council (typical to make it sound like a war) for some work on renewable resources. Interesting analysis of America.

The IPCC is seen the leading voice on Climate Change but needs to consider recent research

What else?

Well we could always resort to pumping CO2 underground? Read the article here. 

Summary

If you want more of an overview then I suggest checking out the report. This is not my area of specialism but has always interested me. Would love the views of all to help develop this discussion. It is obvious that we need to do something but what is still the question we are asking!

Do you? Did you? Who you?

This article is stylised in the format of three questions and aims to cover recent developments in the World Service.

Do you know what the World Service is?

Great, what an insightful question you just posed! However, if you are currently sneering because you already know then now is probably a good moment to move on to the section entitled ‘did you?’ Almost like walking into a seminar, deciding it wasn’t for you today, and relying on the readings to see you through.

So for us mere mortals the World Service is…

“The world's largest international broadcaster, broadcasting news, speech and discussions in 28 languages to many parts of the world on analogue and digital shortwave platforms, internet streaming, podcasting, satellite, FM and MW relays. The World Service was reported to have reached 188 million people a week on average in June 2009. It does not carry advertising, and the English language service broadcasts 24 hours a day.”

Right now, they are airing an insightful documentary on crypto wars which happens to be an interesting area of development for the future of security studies… just in case you were wondering.

However, the most important provision it provides is independent news to many states that have strict laws on media. For instance, if you happened to be in Zimbabwe right now, where all broadcasters transmitting from Zimbabwean soil, and many of the main newspapers, toe the government line, you would be able to get the world service.

It’s the BBC to the rest of the world that provides a forum for discussion and information.

The BBC of the world

Did you know that the World Service is paid for by your TV license?

Before yesterday the World Service was funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). After all it was a tool to increase the recognition of the British across the world.

However, now the World Service is funded by the BBC.

Who you?

So what do you think? Is it okay that the BBC has taken on the role of the Foreign Office considering the recent cuts to BBC Three? Simply, the government has pushed the cost on to us to cut budgets in the FCO.

Personally, I think it is okay. Not that the government has pushed the cost on to the BBC but that international media is a long-term business and should benefit from the consistency the organisation has promised to provide. Whilst under the FCO the World Service lost around 14 million people as it dropped 5 languages due to budget cuts – not cool guys. It is the World Service’s ability to provide valuable news to those who may not have the right to understand why their states act the way they do that substantiates its existence. If we are committed to democracy then it should remain.

When I come to pay my TV licence I would have no issue in £10 of it going to help support this valuable service. I appreciate that a service that benefits others may not be preferential in such economic conditions but surely its worth looking beyond our current situation.

Help keep the megaphone for the voices of the world going and commit to the continued existence of the World Service.

Thoughts?

The Last Seminar: Democracy's Fall in Turkey

In reflection, my last seminar was a rather daunting yet enjoyable closure to three years of undergraduate study at the University of Exeter. Indeed it followed a similar pattern to all my contact hours, as very few had read the readings, the presentations seemed to drift over the class, and it ended with a rather broad discussion about democracy. If you do not know the readings just ramble on about current affairs, it works every time.

Equally, when stating my views on democracy promotion in the Middle East I caused a little bit of tension as usual. Brilliant. I enjoy when someone in the class decides to make it their mission to prove that you are wrong, and quite often they do this in a somewhat belligerent manner. However, if I have learnt anything in three years it is that facts can be drawn from many different sources, some truthful and other's simply made up with conviction. If you feel that it is wrong then research it, politics students are adept at making things up.

The question was 'Is it right to pinpoint China as the state to democratise?

Basically, should we be embarking on a global policy or targeting China because we believe that once it falls the rest of the authoritarian world will follow?

There are arguments for both sides -

If we succeed will it be a proper democracy? There is difference between having elections and them being competitive, fair, free, and regular. If we based a democracy on simply elections then Afghanistan, Syria, and North Korea are little fledgling democracies. Only this month Kim-Jong-un won 100% of the votes in his district... he must have a superb campaigns team.

Yet, China supports North Korea economically and under a democracy perhaps it may begin to impose sanctions? This would make the regimes stability very weak and may lead to the end of the current dictatorship. The fall of North Korea would weaken the stability of other regimes as North Korea is seen by the international community as the most repressive state.

And so on....

Could this vital trade recede under a democratised China?

So you are probably wondering what I said to ignite the class in fevered discussion?

Simply, I noticed that democratisation tends to follow where American interests lie. Whether that is in South America, the Middle East, or Central Asia. No one disagreed with that. But, when I added that perhaps democracy does not suit the Middle East due to a different culture I may as well have been in court.

'What do you mean?' they heckled. 'You are simply regressing back to orientalist thought.'

However, yesterday I felt vindicated from this onslaught by the Turkish governments attempt to block twitter and YouTube. The AK party, the Justice and Development Party, was heralded as an example that democracy and Islam could work in the Middle East (or Near East). Yet, after this week many have been left wondering whether this will ever become a reality?

So, do you think democracy can work in the Middle East?

As the war rages in Syria, Egypt is unstable, and the Gulf states maintain their rule with the proceeds from oil, democracy's future has never looked more turbulent.

Is Germany the Key to a Resolution in the Crimea?

Germany could be the main deal broker in the current politics surrounding the independence of Crimea suggests Steve Szabo, Executive Director at the Transatlantic Academy.

Watch this video for a comprehensive overview of the resolution to a possible political solution. It is only roughly six minutes of your life that offers a different view on the crisis. Worth it? I think so.

Does Merkel and the German state present a chance for resolution?

NATO and Tribal Elements in Afghanistan

For the media to portray Afghanistan in a manner easily understood by a wider audience they must inevitably reduce the complexities of the local and tribal relations to broad locations and groupings. For instance, stating that the Pashtuns largely occupy the south of Afghanistan and the north of Pakistan; whilst the Haraza, Aimak, Uzbek, Tajik, and Uzbek occupy the North. This is overly simplistic as shown by this map:

Note the pockets of Pashtun throughout the North (The light green colour if it is hard to see)

(The Pashtun pockets originate from the rule of Amir Abdur Rahman who uprooted many tribal communities with the goal of strengthening the central government and deliberately weakening the tribal system. He was a Pashtun himself but he resettled various Pashtun tribes and subtribes as punishment for rebellion or to use them as counterweights against hostile non-Pashtun tribes or ethnic groups.)

On the one hand, rather than analysing local tribal factors, it is this broad understanding that NATO and Afghan government forces have based their counter-insurgency policy upon. The work of Robert Gonzalez reiterates this understanding as he contends that a misguided focus on the ‘tribal’ features of Afghanistan is drawn from the ‘desperate political situation’ to identify a source of insurgency that may be rapidly resolved – tribes are ‘imagined’ collections of individuals.

Yet, this argument fails to appreciate the patrilineal segmentary lineage systems that operate in these regions for the ‘social structure of communities is based either on the tribe or the locality’ which unites together if faced by an external threat.

On the other hand, the Taliban use their pre-existing knowledge of tribes, subtribes, and clans to convince the tribes to co-opt and recruit local leaders who can convince their men to fight. The Afghan government has only served to deepen and strengthen this tactic through mismanagement, patronage, and corruption of local strongman not necessarily linked to the quam, a unit of identification and solidarity that could be based on kinship, residence, or occupation.

This is combined with an image of the U.S. and NATO that is at its lowest point since 2001 making the mobilisation of tribes on their side more unlikely.

Ergo, the US and NATO considered the Pashtun as a whole and failed to comprehend the vast web of tribes allowing the Taliban insurgency to rise within the population.

The International Criminal Court: Time for an Update?

Though debate on the use of capital punishment still simmers among some groups in the UK it was formally abolished in 1965. Further, on 18 December 2008 the United Nations adopted resolution 63/168, which is a reaffirmation of its call for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty (62/149) passed in December the previous year. The resolution calls for states to freeze executions with a view to eventual abolition.

However, where do we send all those notorious international criminals who cause the death, mutilation or disruption of thousands of individuals? 

The International Criminal Court (ICC).

However, few have been vocal in asking whether this institution is entirely practical in its role?

Often public services are measured on the premise of quotas, numbers and other forms of comparative study. Yet, it is reductionist to assess the ICC in this format least because there are insufficient benchmarks to compare the ICC’s work. And even comparisons between its work and the ad-hoc tribunals like the International Criminal Tribunal of Yugoslavia (ICTY) or the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda (ICTR) is problematic due to their differing structures, features, budgets, and jurisdictions.          

Time for an update?

Inspiration for this article?

I try to begin the day by catching up on the news, first on the BBC, then Reuters, and finally Al Jazeera. I find that comparing different news stations helps to present a more holistic interpretation of the world news. Also, I find the blogs on Al Jazeera offers an in-depth study into a certain niche part of economics, politics or humanitarian issues.

A recent blog on Al Jazeera by Haru Mutasa on whether the trial of Bosco Ntaganda, a warlord from the Democratic Republic of Congo, will make a difference to those terrorised, forms the inspiration for this article.

She questions whether the ICC fulfils its purpose, of discouraging crimes of the gravest manner, as many in the Democratic Republic of Congo realise that ‘the reality is even if he (Bosco Ntaganda) is found guilty and is locked way for the rest of his life, chances are someone will carry on from where he left’

Issues with the ICC

Atrocities are still occurring so it can be infered that the threat of conviction by the ICC does not discourage the leaders of these crimes. This could be because at the time the leader is hopeful that he will prevail and therefore not have to face any charges.

This is combined with the lack of a police force under the ICC’s control making them unable to enforce arrest warrants.  The warrants of arrest for Sudan’s President Al Bashir issued in 2009 and 2010 are unlikely to be enforced by a President against himself.

Formed after the First World War the League of Nations also lacked suitable methods of enforcement.

Hypocrisy?

With Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo the warlords have been implicated by the present presidents but the national armies have escaped investigation. Is it fair that one side escapes punishment even though in both states they committed acts of savagery?

For instance, President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda has on various occasions ordered his men to ‘shoot and kill the civilians’.

Focus on Africa

For an International Criminal Court the focus on Africa is hardly 'international'. If you visit the website the top bar is dominated by African states. Other states such as Sri Lanka should be considered further by the ICC.

Africa again? We need a more holistic outlook!

Recommendations

The ICC should:

• Remain independent
• Indict all guilty of crimes within a given state
• Push for major states to ratify the Rome Statute
• Make all aware that only crimes committed after 2002 can be investigated to limit false expectations from the international community
• Involve the Security Council to enforce warrants
• Empower courts in the states to try those of lower note and concentrate on those who conducted the gravest crimes

The ICC is a worthwhile organisation but with these improvements we can hopefully help to reduce some of the most abhorrent crimes. For the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo they need to see changes on the ground, not just a warlord removed and replaced by another.

We Extended Our Hand to Russia, but Instead We Got a Barrel: A For and Against for the Seccession of Crimea

The Crimean referendum on whether to split from the Ukraine and add another little portion of the world to the behemoth that is Russia will to be held this Sunday. Syria has regretfully faded from our thoughts as we seem capable of only focusing on war-torn state at a time (yet, it could be argued that it is Ukraine’s close proximity to our European Union and theoretically our sovereignty that has made this state’s condition such a concern) and the news is dominated by the yellow and blue of a tense Ukrainian situation.

There are a lot of difficulties with this conflict ranging from nuclear weapons, democracy, and revolution. For America and Europe to allow Russia to attack a state protected under their treaties, particularly the 1994 Budapest Memorandum highlighted by Ukrainian PM Yatseniuk, would demonstrate that America does not have the power to stand against Russia and presents an embarrassing conclusion to a difficult period of US foreign policy. To a lesser extent, Europe would be implicated under similar charges.

Furthermore, any sanctions imposed by the two partners are predicted to affect their economies as well. This is would constitute an unpopular move in our present economic situation; an aspect the UK is apparently well aware of when a picture of an important document urging against sanctions was leaked. How likely that this was an ‘accident’ remains to be seen.

Anyway, so instead of condemning the Russians in line with the present media I am going to have a go at justifying the unification of the Crimea into Russia. If I reach some sort of strong conclusion that it should not then maybe we, the West, should take a step back from the current state of affairs. Yet, if I fail then maybe we can conclude that perhaps the Crimea should remain in Ukrainian hands. 

For

A Whim

The Crimea was originally given over on a whim by the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, who was half-Ukrainian in 1954. The break-up of the Soviet Union 44 years later was not envisaged at this time so giving Crimea over to Ukraine was likely to not have been given due thought.

21^st February Deal

When the president fled Kiev, the opposition moved in to fill the power vacuum. But earlier that week, in a bid to calm the crisis, both sides had agreed a deal to restore the 2004 constitution and reduce the president's powers. That deal was signed by Mr Yanukovych and opposition leaders as well as by three EU foreign ministers - but fast-moving events soon rendered it out of date. It was not signed by the Russian official present.

Illegal

With all the discussions of illegal activity on the behalf of the Russian forces in the Crimea we should not forget that the Ukrainian Prime Minister was overthrown illegally after having won a democratic election. The cyclical issues related to revolutions repeating themselves due to being justified by previous successful revolutions.

Little left

Putin can claim a victory, but it will be pyrrhic. Moscow will have gained little it did not already hold: access to the Black Sea and military infrastructure in the Crimea. It stands to loose ties with the Ukraine so gaining the Crimea is hardly likely to benefit them.

Democracy

With talks about Scotland and independence we can see a similarity in the Crimea. If a majority of the region desire to join Russia then surely democratically they have the right to split from the Ukraine.

How long can Ukraine hold out in the face of a strong Russian occupation?

Against

UN security council

The UN security council meeting yesterday was typically a showdown between Russia… and every other state. Lithuania’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Raimonda Murmokaitė, summarised the thoughts of the UN clearly,

‘A referendum had never been set up so hurriedly and in such clear violation of Ukraine’s constitution.  The voices of many other ethnic groups in Crimea would not be heard through the referendum because it had only been planned because the Russian Federation was “fast-tracking” the annexation of Crimea.  As a result, one could only imagine the shudders being felt across the region, she said.  The Russian Federation had repeatedly expressed recognition of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity under existing agreements, yet the its actions violated the very foundations of international law, as well as regional and international security.  Nothing that had been said warranted or justified the Russian Federation’s actions, she emphasized, noting that Ukraine had repeatedly invited monitors in and had nothing to hide.  The crisis was deeply troubling because it had a highly explosive human dimension and risked unleashing the “most dangerous demons” of hatred, she warned, calling upon the Russian Federation to stop its “warmongering”.’

Democracy

The media has often cited the majority of Russians in the Crimea as a reason for Russian involvement. In fact, Putin has also argued that sending troops into the Crimea is to protect the Russian people. However, only 58.5% of the Crimea are Russian… so perhaps that majority is not so conclusive.

Economic sanctions

European leaders appear to be calculating that the damage to Russia would be far worse than to Europe. EU-Russian trade makes up 15 percent of Russia's economy and just 1 percent of Europe's. Although EU countries depend on Russian gas imports, storage tanks are full after a mild winter season. We have the time to hold sanctions in place.

Swings and roundabouts really but I would argue that Russia taking the Crimea makes more sense than the issues surrounding the West Bank.

Pound for Pound Matching: What is the Deal?

If you have ever donated money to charity you will be familiar with the ‘if you raise £1 then we will match it’ scheme. It is a method via which big donors can encourage you to donate to something they feel is important, to kick start a campaign, and raise awareness.

I have never really thought about these matching schemes but in reality it is confusing to say the least. Why would corporate organisations want to match equally the money raised by its employees to a wide range of charities? Well… because it is a nice thing to do obviously!

I am sceptical of this and companies’ policies often back this up. Companies tend to back a certain set of charities because a particular company director has a personal affiliation to one, it has some benefit for the company or a company genuinely feels guilty about the effects of their actions.

For instance, The Shell Foundation was caught in a scandal in 2006 as “An attempt by Shell to portray itself as a model of corporate social responsibility was undermined last night after Whitehall documents showed its charitable arm discussing a key commercial project with a British government minister”.

Shell has been cited in scandals. Do we want to get banks involved in more?

However, I am not discounting the honest work that many corporations do and the ability that these matching schemes have to encourage people to donate. What I am concentrating on is the influence matching has upon our donations. Can we justify the matching schemes ability to take donations away from those organisations that we may ‘value’ more? Money is not the end game; it is how effectively it is used that matters.

If you work at a corporation you should review the charities you are matched on as to whether you feel they are effective. If you do not then perhaps you should call a vote on them? As a corporation in a democratic society you have a right to!

Combining this with a recent TED talk by Michael Metcalfe entitled ‘We need money for aid. So let’s print it’ promises an interesting discussion.

(Insert little bio from TED which summarises it better than I could.)

During the financial crisis, the central banks of the United States, United Kingdom and Japan created $3.7 trillion in order to buy assets and encourage investors to do the same. Michael Metcalfe offers a shocking idea: could these same central banks print money to ensure they stay on track with their goals for global aid? Without risking inflation?

Interested? Watch the video here!

The bank would evidently work as the matcher, would print money to encourage confidence in the aid sector and then support the charities work. Great idea.

Yet, if this is combined with the theory discussed above then this places the banks in a powerful position. They would become the influencers in the business word and the aid sector. Often aid works to reduce the affects that corporations have upon the developing so the power which would be held in the banks mandate would surely negate this. Banks have not proven to be the most reliable in recent years.

Think before you donate!

I want to believe in the good of humanity, but just in case I would recommend not going down the lines Michael suggests.

That is it. But, I would appreciate your thoughts!

Has Iran replaced Saudi Arabia in the Middle East?

America and Iran is meeting today to discuss the latter’s nuclear policy and future relations. This development in the international community is to be honest rather obscure and not a transition many predicted. The main question this article asks is why the pleasantries? What has changed in the region that has made America keen to engage with Iran?

Likely Allies? American and Iranian talks continue.

The Near East/Middle East (yes there is a difference) is evidently a complex web of state relations. A brief overview of the area is practically impossible but I will attempt below to layout the relational history of the states discussed in this article.

America and Israel – Typically strong allies as Israel has been seen as a bloc against the extremism so feared by the Americans. Yet, with the 24^th November 2013 Geneva Interim Agreement, which eased economic sanctions on Iran in return for a freeze on its nuclear program, the relations have worsened between America and Israel. With this second round of talks Israel is watching the development with intense focus.

America and Saudi Arabia – A checkered relationship typifies the relational foreign policy of these two states. The first conflict between the two states centred on the creation of Israel and since then it has been dominated by this issue, oil, and counter-terrorism. By partnering with Saudi-Arabia, America has reduced Arab defiance to the Jewish state.

Israel and Iran – In 1947 Iran was among 13 countries that voted against the UN Partition Plan for Palestine. Two years later, Iran also voted against Israel's admission to the United Nations, and showed tacit solidarity with the Arab states during the 1948 Palestine war. After the 1979 Revolution, Iran severed all diplomatic and commercial ties with Israel, and its government does not recognize the legitimacy of Israel as a state.

However, this is a broad overview. In reality the states all help and work against the other states in divergent ways. For instance, only yesterday an article was published on Israel attempting to sell arms to Iran.

Why Iran?

So why is America courting Iran when Saudi Arabia can provide the oil needed to keep its international dominance?

Simply, it does not have enough. The Saudi oil production is beginning to flatline and thus America is looking elsewhere for oil, mainly Iraq and Iran.

Saudi Arabia's Oil dominance is showing signs of waning.

With Iraq’s security issues, Iran is a tempting partner for American oil interests but is displeasing to Israel as demonstrated by this rather untactful article in ‘The Jerusalem Post’.

Though, Ayatollah, the Iranian Supreme :eader, is not optimistic about the talks today we should not read too much into this statement. After years of opposition it would be strange for Iran and America to become strong allies. Approaching the talks with scepticism simply safeguards the Iranian government against its developments and may help to further reduce the sanctions placed on Iran.

Furthermore, this is the not the first time the Americans have worked with the Iranian. During the Bonn Conference concerning the future of Afghanistan the Iranians were vital to securing American intentions (read After the Taliban: Nation Building in Afghanistan by J. F. Dobbins for an in-depth account of this period).

It is an interesting shift in politics in the region and I look forward to the progression in these talks. It may have a knock on effect for the talks on Syria as well.

The West and its Fight against Tradition

Those familiar with Edward Said’s ‘Orientalism’, or even its source Maxime Rodinson’s ‘The Mystique of Islam’, will be aware of the orientalist vs. the oriental argument.

Yet, I would contend that we are all aware of this divide. The ‘subtle and persistent Eurocentric prejudice against Arabo-Islamic peoples and their culture’ abounds in our everyday media.  It is an ‘us against them’ mentality that has been fostered by each side to mobilise support and vilify the ‘other’.

(For a quick summary of ‘Orientalism’ by Haroon Khalid click here)

Rhetoric embedded within this perspective repeatedly fuels a misguided opinion and furthers the continuing conflict between Western and other cultural values. It becomes an ‘I know better’ format of international aid which frequently fails to understand the subtle cultural ties and aggravates current issues.

Gender disputes further complicate this debate.

I try every day to browse the BBC website to keep up to date with the news but frequently I become distracted by some obscure articles. I feel many of us suffer from this short attention span and random features grab our highly ‘media focused’ minds. The article “Kenya’s Battle to End ‘Sex for Fish’ Trade” is one such topic that drew my attention away from Syria and the like.

(Read it here)

Fishing is the major economy around Lake Victoria

A Differing Perspective

Evidently what is occurring on the shores of Lake Victoria is ‘wrong’ from a Western perspective as women are trapped into a situation which they cannot avoid. It concerns and centres upon their livelihoods.

It is encouraging to hear of Agnes Auma’s self-mobility as a product of a targeted international aid project. Her self-mobility is the form of aid that I have been suggesting to the international aid community for a while now when I speak on these issues. By creating an example of how the gender roles may be altered it encourages other women to mobilise and for men to realise their own shortcomings.

Nonetheless, it is important to recognise that by bashfully trying to 'educate' cultures and declare what is ‘wrong’ or right’ is firstly hypocritical and secondly negates its causal nature.

As a Western culture we have a certain set of values and standards which are not necessarily ‘right’ though I hope that many would agree that we have progressed a long way. Freedom of speech, universal suffrage and the right to a fair trial are honest intentions though often our systems fall short. Surely, that is just human nature we cry? Our traditions are born out of centuries of trial and error which we cannot confess to be the ultimate format. 

Causally, men are simply following the traditions passed down by their fathers. They may have some innate idea that what they are doing is ‘wrong’ but it is wrongly/rightfully legitimised by the tradition they have inherited. By attempting to rapidly change this we risk alienating men who feel threatened by this new force in their community. They may regress to even more traditional understandings of gender relations in an attempt to consolidate their prominent position in society.

In summary, some practices conducted by men in the developing world are not ‘right’ but we must understand that we are approaching these issues with a wholly Western perspective. We should work to comprehend the community’s traditions and encourage women to self-mobilise their rights. By women advocating their rights with international support these sort of practices are likely to change for a better future.

Flooding: It's Time for an Individual Response

As my car immobiliser suffers from water damage due to Renault’s somewhat lacklustre attempt at engineering I cannot help think of the plight of others within the UK. We are in a severe situation as the Governor of the Bank of England has mentioned that the effects on those flooded will influence the UK’s economic situation. Forgive me for taking on the often quoted Darwinian phrase but is it ‘survival of the fittest’ when we consider flooding?

Flooding has become an issue that this nation continues to suffer from and the future does not appear to be forgiving. As a nation we are over-populated and continuing to place houses on flood plains is common alongside a form of flood defence to alleviate issues. Yet, as humans are we taking a step too far? Can nature truly be restrained?

Simply, yes we are fighting a battle we cannot win. Nature has no master, is relentless, and attempting to build large-scale flood defences has had limit success. The failed flood defences of Ruthin, North Wales in late 2012 offer a typical example of these ineffective solutions.

The UK seems to have limited solutions to this issue as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) wrote a consultation paper in 2013 to ensure ‘property insurance continues to be widely available and affordable in areas of flood risk in the UK’. This is a resolution rather than prevention to flooding.

Flooding is only going to get worse

From a macro consideration the world is consistently impacting human activity yet other states have learnt to adapt. Japan is afflicted by earthquakes and has adopted measures to reduce the damage it can bring. Surely we should adopt a similar response.

But it is not a national response but an individual response. We need to move on from a reliance on state because in this present economic situation the state can do very little. If you live in a flood-prone area it may be time to adapt. We cannot consistently rely on insurance (though you should check if you can get it!) You must research the area before you move there to prepare yourself for the eventuality.

This is a good video on how a couple in Oxford have adapted

It’s time to leave the government and the economy to deal with the plight of farmers as their entire life is at risk. Damning rivers or stopping floods flooding the flood plains can only logically cause issues. Consider how you can make your homes more resistant and check out the area before you move. It may be ‘picturesque’ now but it will not be when 3ft of water comes smashing through the door. It won’t even knock.

Karzai Renegades on Allied Support

Two prisons both central to concerns over human rights. One prison released its inmates against American wishes and one prison holds 166 detainees despite being the focus of an executive order.

What is all this about?

In the news today 65 detainees of Bagram prison have been released by the Afghan government. Bagram has often been described as the Guantanamo Bay of Afghanistan and contains the alleged troop commanders, bombers and other notables of the Taliban forces. With the upcoming Afghan elections on the 5th April it is worth considering why Karzai has done this? It has affected the relationship between the American and Afghani government. So was it all worth it?

Discussion over Afghanistan's future centers on whether the Taliban will regain control of the region. Karzai is aware of the threat the Taliban hold and therefore seems to be edging away from the Americans to secure the progression he has made.

A few factors support this:

1. Karzai has backed away from signing the Bi-Lateral Security Agreement in November as he wishes to forestall it till after the next elections. Yet, this contradicts the Loya Jirga, a grand assembly of elders, who approved of the agreement and asked Karzai to sign it as soon as possible. The rational behind his refusal to engage in this agreement is likely linked to the calls by the Pashtun to take a harder stance against the Americans.

2. Aid is another concern. After skimming through the book 'War Front to Store Front' by Paul Brinkley I was surprised to learn that 60% of the GDP of Afghanistan is foreign aid, 30% is from the narcotics trade, and 10% is economic activity. Drawing conclusions from these figures, I consider Karzai to be concerned about is whether the government he leaves behind will function without American backing. If American backing is pulled from Afghanistan and the government is wholly reliant on it then it will collapse. Karzai is attempting to make the government independent from America to encourage other sources of economic support and growth.

Bagram is another disagreement between Karzai and America

What makes this situation challenging for Allied Forces is that they are unable to logistically plan for the future of Afghanistan. Do we continue to fight to secure what we have gained or do we except that we have lost the fight and leave it to the Afghan people to dictate their future? Will Karzai's attempt to distance his government from America help weakening his government and enabling the Taliban to gain further control?

Finally, how can America be so committed to removing Guantanamo Bay but then condemn Karzai's decision to close Bagram? Human rights and the hypocrisy we often breed is concerning.

5 Broken Cameras: The Palestinian Stuggle

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has always been a complicated affair and highlights the impact of borders. In most regions of the world borders have been set since colonial times though conflict over their geographical position is common. Chechnya, Kashmir and the Kurdish regions are prime examples.

‘5 Broken Cameras’ tells the story of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the village of Bil’in and their futile struggle. Often what occurs in the Gaza strip is not ‘news worthy’ in our countries as it is so frequent but a quick search will bring up localised news articles from only two days ago which cite evictions, destruction of Arab properties and Palestinian deaths at the hands of Israeli troops.

The documentary follows the lives of notable activists in the region and is grounded in the birth and childhood of Emad’ son, Gibreel. It asks questions about the conflict, Palestinian struggle and hope.

It is worth a watch, has won a number of awards and despite a disheartening ending it will challenge your understanding of the current conflict.

(It is on Netflix so you do not have to buy it!)

Has Egypt's Arab Spring Returned Back to its Source?

The news today marks a return to an Egyptian nation of the past. Nearly three years ago President Mubarak was removed and many believed the grip of military on the government to be in decline. As General Abdel Fatah al-Sisi announces his predictable candidacy in the upcoming elections has Egypt really changed or has it returned to its pre-revolution roots?

This article will argue that the Egyptians have grown tired of the revolution and are willing to sacrifice some liberties for stability. Yet, how they view their relationship to the state has altered, they see themselves as citizens rather than subjects. General al-Sisi must tread carefully if he is to retain power in this turbulent state.

In political theory protracted violence often leads citizens to demand a strong leader to resolve conflict and restore a sense of purpose to the state.  Evidently they want reform but continuous violence disrupts their economy and when foreign investment declines and businesses suffer many protesters begin to be concerned about how they will eat rather than political change. The 98% who voted yes for the new constitution in Egypt substantiates this mentality.

General al-Sisi has become a figurehead for stability in Egypt

The Muslim Brotherhood still detest the current situation but due to their lack of political prerogative they have resorted to violence and protest to secure their demands. Regretfully, without a political manner of expressing their opinions against a strong militarised state this is largely ineffective.

On ‘The World Tonight’ Ritula Shah asks Mona Makram Ebeid, lecturer at the American University in Cairo, what al-Sisi will be like as a leader and highlights his previous role as the former intelligence chief for President Mubarak.

She states that he ‘is the people’s choice’ and this is not widely debated. But, Tarek Radwan, Associate Director of the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, argues the military background of al-Sisi means he will look at issues from this relatively strong and repressive perspective. Ebeid contends that al-Sisi is more savvy then this and he will have to be. The Egyptians are well aware of their rights.

Research concerning coups suggests that once a coup occurs it then justifies subsequent coups. One regime has fallen to the people, surely another can?  If al-Sisi becomes President he will have to contend between the demands of the military and the people. If the military perceive him as becoming a weak leader they will remove him and if the people grow tired of his rule they will protest. What complicates the matter is that it is the military that breed corruption in Egypt as they dominate the government posts. Real democracy is impossible in this climate of officership.

(Steven Cook’s book entitled ‘Ruling But Not Governing: The Military and Political Development in Egypt, Algeria and Turkey’ covers military rule in greater detail)

The Egyptian Army has a stake in political decisions and is far from apolitical.

True democracy looks unlikely for the Egyptian people but the protests have warned politicians that the people are able to act. Whether al-Sisi's election will lead to tighter repression or a gradual and controlled opening up of the state is uncertain in this present climate but he has a difficult task ahead.

Mali: The Tuaregs, MNLA and Ansar Dine

The plight of the Tuareg people has been largely ignored in the Western world. As mercenaries for the deposed Muammar Gaddafi they have received scorn, abuse and displacement in the wake of the Libyan revolution. Many would argue, in rage at the atrocities that Gaddafi conducted, that this tribes assistance to the mad dictator should be punished. I can only conclude that hindsight is a wonderful tool, the Tuareg people had no option.

The Tuaregs are known as the ‘Kurds of Africa’ and as a people span five separate states. They occupy some of the harshest land in the world relying only on livestock and limited supplies of water. As the world’s climate alters life is becoming increasingly harder.

After the revolution in Libya concluded in 2011 it was the Tuaregs that took the brunt of popular dissent. With only a sparse population Libya relied on labour migrants during Gaddafi’s era and thus the sub-Saharan tribes flocked to this source of wealth. Most were involved in all sectors of the economy but due to some fighting for Gaddafi over half of the current detainees in Libyan prisons are black sub-Saharan Africans.

For those that returned to their native lands the desert life is one of hardship and comes as a shock to those accustomed to electricity, running water and healthcare. In Mali, the government did little to address the concerns of the Tuareg people as the South embezzled the economy and corruption ensued. Revolutions have occurred frequently in the past and thus this generation’s revolution was inevitable as highly trained mercenaries returned only knowing one trade, the art of killing.

Droughts severely reduce the Tuareg livestock causing starvation 

Who are the MNLA?

The MNLA (National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad) was founded in October 2011 and aimed to create a Tuareg separatist state entitled Azawad. They have heavy weapons brought down from Libya and are experienced fighters.

Highly trained MNLA fighters with a heavy arsenal of weapons

Who are the Ansar Dine?

Ansar Dine stands for ‘defenders of the faith’ in Arabic and seeks to impose Sharia law in Mali. They aim to realise Osama Bin Laden’s dream of an Afghanistan esque Arab Emirate under strict Sharia law in Africa.

Ansar Dine seek the implementation of Sharia law in Mali

These two forces have opposing goals but both needed to overthrow the government of Mali to begin their campaigns. Consequently, they conducted concurrent operations in the region and took control of Northern Mali. I must stress they were not working together but just happened to see a benefit in avoiding conflict with each other.

Yet, these differences caused cracks in the MNLA operations as the Ansar Dine vied for control over cities such as Gao after the north was taken. In addition, the MNLA took over lands which belonged to other tribes, such as the Dogon people, causing general dissent against the northern occupation.

Therefore, the MNLA was beaten back and Islamist militants took control. The French and Mali forces continue to fight these militants.

What I desire to accentuate is the difference between the MNLA and the Ansar Dine. For the purposes of the mass media attention the two were conflated. It was easier to secure backing for operations in the region if the Ansar Dine’s Islamist crackdown was highlighted and the threat of terrorism exploited. Rather than suggest we were fighting a tribal group who face economic hardship and desire secular self-autonomy.  These demands are not unreasonable and often receive worldwide backing in other parts of the world. 

Further peace talks should offer reasonable promises and incentives to the Tuareg’s to quell dissent. The revolution may be over for this generation but another generation will take up arms to fight for the rights of this forgotten people.

We must be more willing to look deeper into conflicts to understand the rationale of groups and break apart the media’s rhetoric.

Inspiration for this article comes from the recent Aljazeera three-part documentary entitled ‘Orphans of the Sahara’. I would fully recommend watching these videos if you are interested in the Tuareg’s plight, particularly part two.

The Ukrainian Protests and Musings on the State of the EU

At the end of 2013 the Ukrainian government voted to further ties with Russia and reject a deal to strengthen links with the EU. The New Year has heralded mass protest, captivated the world media and destabilised the country as a whole.

This article will look at what makes the EU so attractive to join, Russia’s policy towards its previous Soviet states and whether the EU membership is simply a unifying purpose that opposition leaders are utilising for political progress.

Is the EU the perfect suitor?

It has been a difficult partnership for any states which consider the EU to not be ‘perfect’ per say. The UK has not had good relations with the EU as it seeks to remain independent and dependent – holding this balance is difficult. Likewise, as you move further East states are locked between the might of the EU and the Russians. Both powers carry advantages to cooperating with them.

With fears over the EU typified by Greece's economic turmoil, why are states still eager to join?

Simply economics, grants and freedom of travel between countries have helped states starve off turmoil.

Poland is a prime example of a flourishing state which has adopted wholeheartedly the European Union mechanisms to boost its economy. Reading a 2008 document published by the Polish Government it suggest that the membership helped reduce unemployment from 20% in 2003 to 11.4% by the end of 2007. This was accompanied by a nominal rise in salaries by 58%

From this case example we could conclude that the EU is economically beneficial.

Poland a shining example of EU integration

Not so quick…

The EU has an economic problem as it seeks to make states economically similar to allow freedom of trade. This works when the global economic system is growing. However, logically if economic decline ensues then the similarity of the EU has led economic suffering. Daniel Hannan aptly articulates this when he discusses Spain:

“Nowhere is the failure of the euro clearer than in Spain. A country which was running a budget surplus going into the crash has been reduced to penury and squalor by the determination of its own political class, and Europe's, to maintain the monetary union at any cost. Who has gained? Bankers and Eurocrats. Who has lost? Everyone else.”

Moreover, economists used to believe that an economic monoculture insinuated a positive economic climate but following the economic crash they have turned to the lessons of nature. Indeed a 2009 Bank of England report summarises an argument I have been suggesting for a number of years:

“In consequence, the financial system became, like plants, animals and oceans before it, less disease-resistant. When environmental factors changed for the worse, the homogeneity of the financial eco-system increased materially its probability of collapse.”

Ergo, an economy based on a single currency and economic model makes the states within the EU less resistant to economic shocks.

Has this currency debased our individual economies?

Returning to the Ukraine the economic growth which the EU membership offers seems attractive. Yet, if it is the economy that is a concern then surely the 15 billion dollar bailout from Russia would resolve the dissent and the cut in gas prices is bound to appease protesters?

In the Ukraine the riots have little to do with the economy. The Ukrainians want democracy and see closer ties with Russia as a suppression of their rights as substantiated by the recent anti-protest laws.

(On a side note, Putin’s claim that they are simply helping their ‘brothers’ in the Ukraine and the bailout had nothing to do with the government E-turn on the EU seems unlikely… the coincidence is too high to be an accident.)

What is concerning is that joining the European Union may be being used by the Ukrainian opposition as a unifying focus to join groups together against the current government. They know that by doing this they will draw in the media and tap into the current discussion about joining the EU. The Ukrainians are tired of a corrupt government but by using the EU they debase the organisation. If it is associated with regime-change rather than democracy then the EU has not become a vehicle of democracy but an opportunity for opposition parties. The EU cannot afford to pick sides or the whole concept is threatened.

Democracy or regime change?

I may be overly pessimistic about the oppositions intentions and my political musings could become unfounded. Yet, my experience of politics has taught me to ask these questions, no matter how absurd.

The future of the EU is questionable and democracy promotion is complicated. The battle for Ukraine continues on its snow swept streets.

Peacekeeping in the Central African Republic

The Central African Republic (CAR) has descended into another bout of sectarian violence as Muslim fighters have had their arms seized and the minority comes under attack from the Christian majority.

This region of Africa is often forgotten as Sudan, The Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda dominate the news as violent clashes, war lords and child soldiers plague these states.

France has deployed to its old colony in an attempt to quell the violence and though some have argued that it is another attempt to serve their own interests they have been well received. CAR has 4.6 million people and only 200 police officers, that is 1 policemen to every 23,000 people. No wonder they cannot control the populace.

French troops patrol limited areas of the CAR

Michel Djotodia came to power on the back of a rebellion last year after the Muslim Seleka ousted Francois Bozize on the charge of failing to respect a peace deal agreed in 2007. Yet, the rebels have continued to attack the populace leading to the rise of sectarian violence as Christian ‘anti-balaka’ work to protect themselves. Making matters worse is that the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) is operating in this region. In addition, it is not a good moment to be an elephant as over 90% have been killed for exports of ivory to the developed world in order to finance the conflict.

However, what affect have the French forces had upon the violence in this region? Though widely well received is that because they have supported the majority Christians as suggested by the Muslims?

In the CAR French peacekeepers have, with the permission of the UN, begun to remove weapons from the Muslim fighters but this has allowed militias to launch reprisals. Christians were angry at the government, blaming their economic conditions on its policies but in reality it reflected the current global pattern and the UN’s inability to access the region as it feared armed groups.

Disarming the Muslim groups draws the state into a stalemate and as suggested third party interventions appear to prolong conflict. They place a barrier between the fighters and enable them to build up rhetoric and weapons. If peacekeepers are implemented for a long period which enables the sides to ‘forget’ the atrocities which occurred or economically divert their attention then this may be effective. Yet, with no form of statehood it looks likely to be a costly and protracted peacekeeping mission.

Many desperately flee the conflict via any form of transport.

Nonetheless, the haunting memory of Rwanda keeps Western politicians eager to implement forces to prevent the feared genocide in the CAR. But are they doing enough?

In the Defence Web’s analysis of peacekeeping it notes that Retired Rear Admiral Rolf Hauter argues the mandate for an operation must correspond with the requirement on the ground to have any chance of success, “the forces assigned to the operation must be able and willing to execute the mandate ie adequate numbers, trained and correctly equipped. If not, it will most probably be a waste of time”.

The forces committed to conflict resolution must be significant enough to reach to all corners of the state. Presently, French forces are unable to police the rural areas where the militants have set up new bases and continue the atrocities.

In light of the British Army’s Strategic Narrative published on the 1^st October 2013 it is clear that for a military force to achieve successful intervention a division strength of 25,000 troops is necessary. In fact, this is mentioned consistently in the report. Simply, we need to concentrate on several issues at a time and devote considerable resources to conflict resolution, whether economic or militarily. Cutting the Armed forces in the United Kingdom is the appropriate course of action as the United Kingdom is accused by Robert Gates, former US defence secretary, as being unable to fulfil its full partnership alongside the United States.

If we are committed to resolving conflict in the international context we must retain a strong military force which we are prepared to deploy for long periods of time in effective peacekeeping missions. With the Taliban suggesting Afghanistan will be retaken after the troops pull out in 2014 we need to revise our peacekeeping strategy and halt risky and small operations which serve only to reduce conflict in the short-term. Long-term policies may not be popular with the voter but the public must stop and consider the arguments.

The Plight of the Botswana Bushmen

On Tuesday the BBC released an article on the Bostwana Bushmen. When reading it I could not help but think of the parallels to the Native Americans on reservations in America. Visiting Africa and going on safari is something I have always considered on my list of things to do but how much is our tourism costing people in Africa?

Well at first that was what I considered the issue was, an attempt by the government to expand tourism. However, the Botswana Bushmen's land lies directly on the world's richest diamond field.

These tribesman live on and from the land and therefore they are not costing the world a great deal. Yet, now they have been forced to live a 'modern life'. They have become dependent on the state rather then on their own self sufficiency. When we are considering the implications of the benefit culture in our own country this is worrying (George Osborne wants to cut more money from the welfare state - click here for the full story).

My thoughts are that as a Western world we are concerned with a sustainable world yet our businesses are forcing perhaps the most sustainable tribes to modernise. Our lives are not particular happy, money does not make things better. You just need to read the thoughts of Mark Boyle who lived on no money for an entire year and continues to do so to realise this.

I am encouraged by the words that Mark quotes from Ghandi, 'Be the change you want to see in the world'.

That does not mean we all have to go to limits that Mark has but lets consider our actions so that the West's contradiction becomes a quality of the past not the present. Be the change. Read the BBC article and make your own deductions.

The Tribesman face a difficult transition to an unwanted life.

The Democratic Republic of Congo: Fighting in the Katanga Region

We, the West, may like to hide our past and pretend that we have moved on from it all. As though we have matured from a ‘naughty’ stage in our development to reach the heights of human welfare, economic prosperity and become the guardians of global peace. I mean we banned the slave trade, defeated communism and attempt to secure peace at every turn. Yet, though we like to promote this side we often forget that we accelerated the slave trade into a global business, wrecked countless states so its people could not express themselves, and often provide weapons for profit without considering the implications they may have. The repercussions of our abuses during the time of the colonies and the slave trade are still felt across the developing world.

Of course, we should not be too hard on ourselves. The slave trade has been a constant feature throughout the world for countless centuries and the fact that we got powerful… well other empires have existed before us that committed terrible acts of brutality. This is not a justification, rather the necessary context for this discussion.

The issue is that we, at least on the outside, now fight against most of our previous qualities. However, the developing world does not easily forget what we did. The signs of our presence are everywhere from the language they speak, the borders they guard and the political systems they use.

(Side note: There is a good film coming out called '12 Years A Slave', the interview of Chiwetel Ejiofor in the Culture was interesting and he has really taken his role a step further by campaigning strongly for an awareness of the slavery that still occurs to this present day.)

We should not forget the past.

It is not front page news, but the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has been having some problems in the eastern and southern part of the state. It is easy to see why.

Throughout the research for my dissertation I have been focusing on the sources of conflict. Of course across the world these sources vary in their prominence but a unifying factor is the economy. Everything appears to be based around it. 

When we look at our own lives it seems obvious. Why do we attend school? To get a job (Yes, I know the government forces us to but they do have a reason). Why do we attend university? To get a better job (hopefully). Most of our lives are revolved around the economy and it consequently has an influence on our lives.

What the people of the developing world want before democracy and any other fancy initiatives is the ability to survive. Thinking about this I am reminded of an article I read about Morocco. It stated that though the people took some interest in politics their main focus was how they were going to feed themselves the next day. They do not care unless they can see the benefits in their everyday life. That is why aid is so focused on building a basis so that people can begin to consider democracy and other projects. Makes sense.

The DRC is a resource rich state, in fact that is an understatement... it is one of the richest in the world. Most of it based in the east and south of its territory (see below). Starting to get where I am going with this one?

The location of resources in the DRC

That is right. For a state repeatedly rated poorly in the UN Human Index this should not be the case. Furthermore, the people of the DRC are not blind to their natural wealth and understand it creates vast amounts of money. They observe truck after truck go by with the resources they have mined to be sold for huge profits which will rarely reach their way back to them. I can understand why they are angry.

Here enters another factor I witness in every conflict - leadership. The people can be angry but often will not do anything about it until a strong leader unites them together, works out a plan and tells them why they are fighting. 

For the one of the richest regions in the DRC, Katanga, it took the leadership of Gedeon Kyungu Mutanga to kickstart another conflict in the region. He was freed in September 2011 after gunmen attacked the prison he was in.

It did not take long for this former militia leader to draw men to his banner with promises of a 'better life'. A man who fled a rebel base told a BBC reporter that:

"Gedeon came to our village in August 2012," he said.

"We did not see him with our eyes; he hid in a hut to talk to us.

He told us that if we joined the Kata Katanga, we would have a better life. He told us that if Katanga became independent, it would put an end to the harassment by the soldiers, and would give us access to the resources that belong to us.

"Katanga is very rich, but we don't benefit at all. He told us that would change."

For men of this region this is an attractive offer as the Congolese law that 40% of the taxes on companies who operate in the area should be spent in this region have never materialized. In the face of regular mistreatment by government forces an armed struggle was inevitable.

Yet, what has limited support for the rebels is the brutish way in which they treat the local people too. The rebels, drawn from communities similar to the ones they are abusing, often rape, pillage and loot villages to support their army and in desperation against the overwhelming government and UN forces.

Indeed, the Congolese Prime Minister Matata Ponyo stated that "For me there is no rebellion".

With an 8-hour battle between rebels and government troops yesterday the President's statement seems unfounded...

It is not more violence that will cure this desperate situation but a united effort by the West to understand the havoc we wrecked here and encourage the government to improve the humanitarian conditions of these resource rich states. They need to have the bread of tomorrow to consider the politics of today.

If you are interested in the Congo, the Dutch settlment and all things historical you should check out "This World: Dan Snow's History of Congo".

For the purposes of keeping this post shorter I have not explored the rebel group, how the borders with other countries helps their struggle and other conflicts in the state so I would simply google Katanga, Gedeon Kyungu Mutanga or the DRC if you want to know more. Further, I may follow up with more articles on this or feel free to post below and I will attempt to answer your questions.