I’ve just completed my first residency in the Human Security and Peacebuilding MA program.

To date, the program has been fascinating and it had a great cohort comprised of Diplomatic, Disaster Management and Business Consultants, Military Officers, NGO leaders and a few recent graduates all of whom were delightful people. What they share most in common is that they all deeply care what happens to other people in the world and they all share very unique perspectives on the world, born of their unique experiences. I’m looking forward to working with each of them in the field of action and learning.

What did we cover? Dr. Hrach Gregorian took us through topics such as Globalization in it’s many dimensions, Economic, Logistics, Global Security and the Right to Protect (R2P), Food Distribution, Global Financial Institutions, Civil Society Institutions, NGO’s, the UN, World Bank, G8, G20, IMF, Businesses and others, outlining the theme of how interconnected the world is. We looked at how even the best laid plans to make things better have unintended consequences on Human Security due to the complexity of linkages.

We looked at how Aid sometimes did more harm than good, and at the various examples of Truth and Reconciliation commissions, the history leading up to them, how they did their work, and the outcomes.

An invited guest speaker Ambassador Jeremy Kinsman, shared with us a glimpse of his deep understanding and knowledge of civil society, the impact of democracy, how democracies are formed, and a few of the  requisites of democracy such as minimum standards of per capita average income and a basis of experience in civil society.

We looked at the definition of Human Security and how some countries regarded it in its’ very simplest form (i.e. ensuring adequate food, physical security and shelter) while the UNDP in its’ 1994 statement outlined Human Security in terms which made it much broader and more difficult to contain, and which forms a basis of society that looks beyond nationalistic borders.

And we looked at differing views on military spending and the strength of the military industrial complex. Some papers argued that it was a necessary deterrent and that it was supported by democratic votes, and, others argued, that military spending, especially on nuclear deterrents, but also on the build up of conventional weaponry, is both a flagrant and immoral use of huge sums of money which usurp the development of civil society; efforts to educate, feed and assist the masses of suffering souls. It undermines the support that would binds nations together in mutual security efforts.

If you’re interested in where I stand on the issue, I found the latter argument to be much stronger and better researched. Rather, than creating a more secure world, military spending assures the continuation of power struggles that keep nations apart. To be sure, some reasonable semblance of physical security and military strength must be maintained at the international level and R2P is a reasonable concept given that there are some ruthless rulers willing to destroy their own people in order to maintain power, but it is hard to argue that any one nation should maintain a constant threat over others, and, at very least, an effort should be made to begin reducing the military industrial complex in favor of increased research and development on other issues. Even a reduction of 10% of the world’s military budget if redirected to development efforts would solve most of the funding issues facing humanities efforts to develop civil society and ensure an adequate measure of other dimensions of Human Security for all nations. And the concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) enforced through possession of nuclear weapons makes no sense. No world leader, however outraged they may be, by an attack on their country, could ever morally drop a nuclear weapon on hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent people, most of whom don’t even support the aggressive governments who profess to represent them. Such an action could only be regarded as a war-crime. The military complex that continuously builds weapons and sells them to under developed nations only serves to assure the continued suffering of innocent people and guarantees the continuation of militaristic domination by the few. Those who would argue that militarization is brought about by democratic votes haven’t bothered to consult the countless billions who suffer as a result. (so much for my rant)

We also talked about the types of democracies such as representative democracies, each method of which has its’ strong points and flaws, as well as direct democracy, such as the California approach, where the state has been decimated by referendums, where the people can vote for increased spending with a 50% +1 vote, whereas additional taxation must pass by a 2/3rds (66.6%) vote. Imagine a system that allows the citizens to vote for spending increases far in excess of tax increases and allows the state to go broke and destroyed its’ own educational system, subjecting it to even greater challenges in the future.

We also looked at examples of the world in conflict and ways that we can contribute to reparation through the development of the economy through major industrial investments, micro-finance, and through commercial partnerships which provide agricultural and tourism based incentives to less favorable industries such as growing opium poppies, through anti-corruption programs for polices forces, through human rights training for army leaders,  and by the use of sports and other educational programs for developing skills and cooperation.

Dr. Robin Cox lead us through the process of gaining understanding of the world of being, Ontology, and of our own way of knowing and various ways of making meaning of the world, our Epistemology. And we looked methodology and the various methods used for doing both Quantitative and Qualitative research.  We also learned how to review scholarly works, to do a proper research proposal, to do literature reviews, to write research questions.

Colleen Hoppins gave a wonderful and very entertaining presentation on research Ethics that still has me chuckling when I think back on it.

And Retired Rear Admiral Roger Girouard shared his unique perspectives and challenged our thinking on other elements of Human Security as a precursor to the course he will be teaching later in the program.

Dr. Kenneth Christie, Head of the program, provided both the program overview and some insights into our second overseas residency in a post conflict country and our major project work which will require us to do six months of work overseas.

My personal project goal is to work with diplomatic or civil leaders on developing methods of principle based consultation, responding to civil input,  and developing  policies for engendering economic development as well as the development of civil society, food security, peace and sustainability. (Wow can you do all that in six months?) If any of my readers know of a contact in a country looking for this kind of assistance, please have them call me.

All in all, a very powerful immersion into the world that is Human Security and Peacebuilding. I’m looking forward to the rest of the program.

All the best,

Garth Schmalenberg
1-250-815-5323

garth@hbi-leadership.com
garth@partnersforprosperity.org

As always, if you liked the article, please share with your friends and contacts, whether representing businesses, political organizations, religious groups or NGOs, by e-mail, the share button, or any other way that works for you. I’m happy to respond to all requests for collaboration or if you are looking for a speaker for an event.

As I’m reading and studying trends related to various world issues, I noticed a few trends that gave me cause to ponder. Beyond speculation, these trends may also give us clues as to how we might organize our businesses to contribute to the betterment of the world.

For example, on reading the World Values Survey, there appeared to be a trend toward individualism and secularism until 1980, after which the values seemed to take a little bit of a reversal at least in most cases. While there was no discussion on this point in the chart, I have to wonder if there was a pause to re-think the issue of continued movement towards secularism and individualism.  

What’s even more interesting is that the Happiness Index taken by the World Values Survey suggested decreasing happiness in the US until 1980 (this same period of trending toward secularism and individualism) after which there was a reversal. The US happiness index also increased from 1980 onward peaking at 2006 during the Bush administration, although perhaps by that point with the anticipation of change on the horizon.

 Still, I have to wonder whether the reversal in trend toward secularism and individualism suggests. » Continue reading “A Reflection on Trends towards Happiness and what it means to Business”

Over the weekend, I had the great privilege of attending a conference on “Rethinking Human Nature”, an incredible array of scholars and activists who, rather than protesting in the streets, demonstrated, by their examples of dedicated service, through their studies and their occupations, their deep and abiding concern for humanity. The conference theme was about evolving and developing the capacities of the higher human nature.

Among the many brilliant presenters was a young lady who is working on her PhD thesis whose presentation was entitled “What Can Justify Duties of Global Economic Justice? Individual Responsibility, Human Consciousness, and the Oneness of Humankind”. Her name is Shahrzad Sabet. In asking the question, she began by sharing with us the globally accepted UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights. She the began to dissect the responsibilities for the implementation of these rights. To be fair to Shahrzad, I will state that the remaining text is my perhaps feeble understanding of the arguments she so simply and brilliantly presented and perhaps, at some point, I will have a chance to speak with her further to clarify or to refer on-line to her thesis work, but I can only say that after hearing what she had to say, I was completely overwhelmed by her convincing arguments recognizing that there really isn’t a minute to lose in beginning to bring this argument forward on a wide basis, and I am also quite convinced that someday this young lady will be amongst the Nobel Peace Prize winners because these same arguments will force all nations and all people of conscience to take action. Such action will come in the form of adopting laws and practices which will require all citizens of the world (or at least those who have the freedom to vote or make buying decisions), all business leaders and all government leaders to act forcefully in upholding these Human Rights by taking practical, direct and personal responsibility for implementing Global Economic Justice through their votes for responsible government representatives, those who will make the necessary revisions in government institutions, and in turn, through laws which will require all people to make these Human Rights a reality.

In nations such as Pakistan, Haiti, India, Indonesia and many others, billions suffer under the oppression of poverty, the lack of a suitable infrastructure, and through catastophic environmental impacts, while much of the world continues to enjoy their freedoms without paying much attention and governments pay immense amounts of money towards military spending and the expansion of environmentally destructive practices which only serve to further human suffering.

Her arguement goes something like this: » Continue reading “Individual (Legal?) Responsibility and Liability for Global Economic Justice”

My extended visit to British Columbia has enabled me to enjoy many of the blessings of the Vancouver Island. It is a place of tourism, boating and every sort of adventure, caving, sailing, kayaking, swimming, crabbing, whale watching, you name it. An island paradise to be sure. That having been said, there is a tremendous amount of traffic and obvious contributions to the CO2 levels which impact climate. After having taken part in some of these adventures, I have to ask myself, besides paying for carbon offsets, what would actually get me, never mind anyone else, to stop traveling up and down island between my parents home, my sisters homes and the many other points of interest the island has to offer. No question that, at least in my family, we are driving smaller 4 cylinder cars thus reducing fuel consumption over larger vehicles and we drive slightly older cars (my parents car is a 1992). Maintaining vehicles extends their life and reduces manufacturing and resource requirements. But even with many smaller cars on the road, their is a pollution problem in certain congested spots especially along Highways 1 and 17 and, even with the tremendous number of trees, the island traffic still contributes to the global CO2 problems.

It’s fairly clear that people are just not ready to give up their holidays, their retirement freedoms or their independent modes of transportation. Even those of us who are aware of the severe issues have difficulty giving up our carbon habit. A book called “Right Relationship” by Peter G. Brown and Geoffrey Garver discusses how we have, for the most part, failed to maintain a right relationship with the planet and suggests how we might re-establish such relationships. But if we are going to maintain “Right Relationship” with our planet while maintaining “Right Relationship” with our friends and our families (who often live some distance from us) and our own sense of well-being which requires exercising some level of freedom, we will need to take a different “tack” than just sitting at home. For those not familiar with this use of the word “tack” it is a method used by sailors when sailing against the wind, whereby they zigzag diagonally across the line of the opposing wind in order to reach their up-wind destination. Ironically, the other way of going up-wind is to motor. Even though sailboats for the most part are powered by the wind, most have on-board diesel motors for travelling in harbors where using wind power is unreliable. Yet another source of CO2.

If we imagine Sustainability as our up-wind destination (i.e. the wind of our personal freedoms seems to blow in the opposite direction). What are the “tacks” we might take in order to reach our desired destination? We want to arrive at a place where we are in “Right Relationship” with our planet and where we have the freedoms we desire. We want to get their without having to motor all the way and creating a problem for the planet and for future generations. » Continue reading “Sailing! An interesting tack on achieving Sustainability”

Groupthink is the concept of having many people go along in agreement with a decision essentially because, either someone of authority has spoken and others are afraid to contradict their idea, or because in the silence of a discussion, each individual believes that others agree with the “apparent” consensus and don’t want to stir the pot. One other cause of groupthink is that everyone in the room has the same frame of reference for the discussion. In other words, they actually do think alike and make a decision in agreement, even though that decision may be uninformed.

The consequences on a larger scale may be what we experience as a society. We all begin to think alike because no one has challenged our assumptions. Environmentally, this has led to things like Climate Change because we jointly assumed that it was OK to keep going in the direction that we were going. Thankfully, mother nature eventually speak ups and shares her opinions through the impacts that we start seeing on the health of the earth. So the image of our earlier consensus is now, at least, being challenged and other voices are starting to be heard.

Establishing a Consultative Environment that Leads to Better Decisions » Continue reading “Groupthink and it’s impact on Business, Sustainability and Decisions”