Global debt management

With the Greece situation taking center stage the last year or so, you think that the world has never been through such an ordeal before. In fact there are always countries at the brink of collapse and the impact just as great. Argentina is one example of economic collapse which causes global unrest. However the question remains, how to stop or slow down the collapse? As always the advice is to not panic. Sadly that is what takes place because the doomsday thoughts take over. To manage such panic rests with the negotiation tactics of the lenders, supporters and the borrowers. The advice on how to manage the debt pay back is to not air the dirty laundry in public at all. Next is to take the long term view of repayment. Meeting the fixed payment amount should not be the focus. The focus should be making as much a payment as possible at each target date. Most economist would quickly point out that such a plan would only create a never ending cycle of missed payments. Furthermore there is the issue of interest payment. The money is leant out in order for the lender to make money. Now this is where arguments often diverge on two paths. One being economic and the other being social. What is the main focus in global debt servicing? Is it to secure economics or is it to secure society? There can only be one top priority. It should be no surprise that society is the main focus in this short essay. In this focus the debt repayment schedule is hinged upon the borrower making as much payment as possible. The negotiations should be able to monitor and understand the moving dollar amount well before the due date. This keeps the security of the economy going. In such a situation it is absolutely necessary to not panic, worry or openly fight about the repayment schedule. Each due date a payment is made then, future due dates and amounts are adjusted accordingly. Such ideology of flexibility is often met with the phrase – you have no idea what you are talking about. For those that say that, they are often more interested in the making money, interest payment, in short greed. The civil unrest is of secondary concern. The flexible approach would save us from the talk of the European Union breaking up. It would save the banks from closing and save the ripples of panic attacks. All of these are the social impacts we are enduring right now due to a focus on economics not society.

Peace talks and legitimacy of membership

For the past two years Russia has been excluded from the leadership circle know as the Group of Eight (Seven). This exclusion is due to Russian aggression in Ukraine. Such exclusions demands answers for why the Republic of the United States (RUSA) and United Kingdom (UK) were not excluded for their aggression towards Iraq in 2003? It is those situations which draw the questions of legitimacy and leadership on the global scale. As we work the question of legitimacy down to make comparisons and draw insight, we can look at the questions of legitimacy of groups in civil war zones. There are numerous of examples where violent actions of a group are linked to a political group. For example the Irish Republican Army alliances with Sinn Fein. Al Qaeda also has a political branch. In Afghanistan a similar situation took place with the Taliban. In other groups the main statement is made to be a political stance that is forced to use violence to secure themselves. The Palestinian Liberation Organization is such a group. During many civil wars there are circumstances where groups see an opportunity to grab power and legitimacy by acting violently. Such situations are often seen in more turbulent areas such as Syria, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo and other conflicts of such composition. The mindset of these groups are rooted in the ideology that if they can grab and hold enough area they will gain a seat at the political table. This seat will provide power, influence and of course money. All of these scenarios bring the question of legitimacy into play as decisions are made as to who is to sit at the peace negotiation table. It is easy to understand the mindset of those that act violently to gain a seat at these tables. The payoff is seen as worth the risk. To make all of this very simple, there is a perfect cliché to use – The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The louder the squeak the more grease provided. However what is become well known is that such tactics are destructive to social cohesion. Applying the cliché will only build a society that rewards negative civil disobedience. However there are groups that will succeed in obtaining power through such actions. A recent battle of who get to sit at the table is the Syrian Peace Negotiations? This question has been one of the largest hurdles to peace in Syria. Who decides the members are to be at the table? How do you have a negotiation without the current Syrian government of Assad? How do you allow anyone from the Islamic State to sit at any peace table? Which neighbouring states and/or regional organizations get to sit at this table? Next we have to include the international actors. In the case of Russia, UK and RUSA, they are legitimate world leaders whether their actions are right or wrong. Which of them get a seat? The short answer is, everyone gets a seat at the table – EVERYONE. This is the most challenging part of peace negotiations. How do we bring that reality to the table? The answer to that question is the absolute core of each and every article that has been and will be written on this forum. Peace negotiations are truly an ongoing element of a prosperous society. In truth the negotiations never end. Yet how does such a thing begin? In Syria for example it starts with each and every person having a desire to stop the violence. Such a reality may seem impossible but that is why peace efforts can never end. The question of legitimacy has to be taken out of the debate as to who sits at the table. At the outset all we can work with are the current leaders. For Syria that is President Assad. There is no choice to be made or argued. The same would be if we needed to talk with the governments of Russia, RUSA or UK, the only option is the current people in office. The one element that is to be very clear is that peace takes time. The members who are to sit at the negotiation table will arise from community engagement sessions/ programs. These community sessions are designed to bring out legitimate actors of peace in every community. These are the people that are working to build positive communities that focus on inclusion of diversity, peace, tolerance and good governance. As such operations tend to go, there will be major upsets. Often these meetings are targets of attacks by groups such as ISIS. Car bombs, suicide bombers and/or rocket attacks have been applied to destroy these meetings and early stages of the peace efforts. Such acts only support the exclusion of such groups from the negotiation table. Sadly the debate about who is to have a legitimate seat at the negotiation table starts all over again. The spiral of arguments, finger pointing and revenge are set in motion stalling the peace process. This is the exact situation we are dealing with in Syria, Israel, Iraq, Ukraine, Libya and many other places. The question of legitimacy in terms of who sits at a peace table is a barrier to peace. The only way through the legitimacy barrier is to push it aside and focus on the coupling of the current leadership and a very determined community engagement program. This dual approach must be met with a very stoic resolve to have peace. We know that violent acts will take place, they will most likely never end. To match that vigilance, peace efforts must also never end.

Which side are you on?

Across the world we have witnessed a number of movements explode into chaos and then into civil wars. The Arab Spring is one such movement. This movement began as a peoples demand for fair governance, equality and to reduce the gap between rich and poor. Unfortunately most of the countries where demonstrations took place have slid into civil war. The most damaging demonstration has taken place in Syria. The situation in Syria has confused many world leaders as to how they should deal with the chaos. The Canadian Prime Minister has stated he has no clue which side to support. Russia and the Republic of the United States of America (RUSA) are always at odds and Syria is no different. Next we have Saudi Arabia who are strong allies with RUSA yet are actually supporting the groups fighting against RUSA. Oddly enough RUSA also supported the rebels (terrorists) in the early stages of the Syria chaos. This is the crux of confusion of which side to support. To add further confusion, many statements of the cold war mentality have sprouted up. Some world leaders are saying that the Cold War is over while others see its continuation. For this writer, the Cold War has been renewed on many fronts and the Ukraine is a front line. Syria as well can be seen as an extension of the Cold War with a mix of old war crusades. With such labels the truth of the matter is that war is war. No labels are really needed as to the participants, politics or place. When people start killing each other on the scale which is Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, etc… the ideology, politics and or place become second to the solutions. With that statement taken seriously, there is only one platform to focus on. Only one side to be on. Only one issue to be discussed. The one platform is Peace.

Realities of Peace Management

To achieve peace on a global scale a few realities need to take root: - Armies give security not peace. - Leaders need to keep talking no matter what takes place. - No country or person is above the law – respect is the issue here. - The adhoc manner in which we deal with conflicts needs to change. Take any current conflict and each of the above points will clearly standout where mistakes are made. At the outset of a conflict, the third point is often the fuel for unrest to begin. In broader terms the rule of law speaks to fairness and when people live with the feeling of imbalance long enough, they begin to protest. For examples we can look at Ukraine, Syria, Yemen and Burundi. Also we can not ignore the unrest in many communities of RUSA such as in Baltimore, Maryland. These protests present leaders of the community and these leaders must be listened to. Unfortunately this step is often missed. The reasons or causes for the miscommunication rests with two factors – time and panic. It takes quick action to quell the swell of emotions. This quick action leads to panic on both sides. From there the people begin to rally and hold demonstrations. Again this is the opportunity to talk and set solutions in motion. What we often experience is the rush to arms. Police or military are moved in due to panic on both sides. This is when we hear the tag lines that peace must be restored. In fact peace was broken well before the demonstrations happen. What is being sought is security. That security will allow time for peace talks to find solutions. The above paragraph is the process that usually takes place. If leaders are interested in finding solutions, taking responsibility and taking charge greater efforts must be made. These efforts (discussions to find solutions) need to happen well before the swell of emotions rises to the level of public protests. All too often we allow such protests to spin out of control. This is due again to the panic people feel from the unknown of what to do and little or no hope of improvement. What is clear is that peace is a constant, fluid process. Ultimately the constant need of focus on peace is the main reason peace efforts often fail. The efforts of peace are deemed unnecessary when life seems to run quite predictably. The lull of order allows for discussion to be viewed as tedious. Once that mentality sets in, issues go unchecked, communication is lost and anger rises. The Arab Spring movement is a great example of the breakdown in peace management amongst government, business and society. The second point of the list is encompasses in respect. Each of us have laws, rules and guidelines to follow. These are in place to provide structure and a sense of knowledge about the future. When these are not adhered to, the entire system is thrown into question. For example the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 put the entire global system of law into question. From there a complete distrust in leadership had given rise to Arab Spring, the fall of Syria and the worldwide turmoil of Islamic State. Had certain people adhered to the rule of law and the guidelines of international law the world would be a very different place today. In the context of law, we have the capacity to take actions when governments use questionable methods. Unfortunately the laws or guidelines are thrown aside for reasons that are centralized on a one sided perception of righting a wrong and a peace process takes too long. Also, these processes again take great effort. However the need for quick action puts panic into the minds of leaders. This panic leads to adhoc methods, questionable actions, less communication and disrespect of law. The opening four points are not the total list of needs for peace to take root. The complete list would include insanity. For every effort of peace we must take into account the acts of insane people. Clearly such situations are part of life and cannot be foretold. However in the process of peace, such factors can be mitigated. This is why we must be diligent in our efforts to keep talking, respect laws and manage peaceful solutions. The recent talks held between RUSA and Russia has shown some promise of a respectful peace process finally taking place.

Pan African Peace

Continental peace in Africa has been a dream for centuries. To be fair not many continents experience overall peace. In truth not many countries experience peace either. However the hope for peace in Africa has been a goal of international relations for centuries. As with many such issues, the complexity of such a goal can paralyse the mind. Peace in Africa has many hurdles and the most important are the leaders. Take for example Burundi. Here is a country that could have peace if one person would set his own desires aside. The Burundi scenario plays out in many countries and is the most crucial component of continued chaos. The personal agendas of political or military leaders have subverted peaceful transitions. Furthermore, many African countries must deal with neighbouring conflicts as well. For example Libyan collapse filtered into several countries. Also the chaos in Yemen will filter into both Sudans, Somalia and other East African countries. These international factors only complicate already complex situations. There are various efforts/organizations working to bring stability to these conflicts. The largest of these are the United Nations, African Union, regional groups and international organizations. Each of these groups and organizations are stretched to the limit as each country need tremendous resources. However the largest resource in need cost no money and that resource is peace. All too often we endure individuals who fight to hold on to power for no good reason and Burundi is an example of this. In other cases the failure comes from a lack of vision to prepare others for the transition of power. These factors cost the least money and give the best results. What stands in the way is the ego of leaders who want to build a legacy. In truth the legacy quickly turns into chaos and the person is just another hurdle to peace. The classic African example is Zimbabwe and Libya. Each of those countries had great chances of peace yet the leaders failed to prepare for that reality. Egypt is in the middle of such a situation. With Egypt, the neighbouring countries have a major impact. Included is the influx of Islamic State across the Middle East and Northern Africa, this group will have its impact as well. Other groups have been causing havoc in many African states such as Al Qeada, Boko Haram, and Lords Resistance Army are the most notable examples. For a continent that is well known for its warlords, poor peace transitions and bad government, ironically the United Nations had two African born Secretary-Generals. Sadly, there are leaders that could bring peace to many countries. The problem rest with the violence that creates enough chaos to make organizing peaceful transition almost impossible. The few leaders that keep the chaos ongoing are masters of spin and fear. Such leaders hold on to power by making enemies and telling lies. It is that last statement which is the crux of every conflict in the world. For a Pan African Peace to take hold there will need to be a few key countries to withstand a peaceful transition of power. There is no bigger player than the Democratic Republic of Congo. The size and resources of the DR Congo are elements which have great influence. If the DR Congo were to maintain a peaceful society, that would stabilize a vast territory on the African continent. The methods to bring peace are well known. The list of reasons why peace has not been achieved are the same as every other war. The number one reason is that leaders are not interested in peace.

Silk Road Rejuvenation.

For those that know about the Silk Road and/or the Orient Express train route, there is a great history of culture, trade, tourism, adventure and war. The traditional routes go above, below and through the Caspian Sea. This rejuvenation will also entail energy trade (oil/gas pipelines) along the traditional routes as well as from the South China Sea into Central Asia. With the rejuvenation there is an economic area spanning from Indonesia to Ethiopia to Central Europe to North China. This is a huge area experiencing great obstacles. The major obstacles are the well known wars which have raged on for decades if not centuries. The Afghanistan war stretches into all neighbouring countries. Iran, Syria and Iraq has put huge questions into trade with anyone for quite some time. Ethiopia and East Africa has endured millenniums of strife. Lastly the unease amongst the countries surrounding the South China Sea also has impacts on the new trade efforts. On the plus side there are two major economic forces which are working to find solutions. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) is one force. The other is a new development called the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). Now these efforts will employ a version of trickle down economics. We know from experience that the top down format of trickle down economics has not been as great a saviour as we had hoped. In the last twenty years of peacebuilding we have understood the need for a multilevel approach to society. Such a topic will get extremely complex very quickly. The management of this complexity is what will be of utmost importance. At present there are a number of phrases that relate to this complexity such as, All of government approach, 3D approach (development, diplomacy, disarmament), sector security reform, community based approach, micro lending, corporate social responsibility (CSR), multinational agreements and many others. The BRICS economic group has been around for some time. The AIIB is very new, actually still being formulated. However the support being put into AIIB has been rumoured at $146 billion (US$) and that is just the beginning of the pledges. Both of these groups will no doubt work together and that will produce a very large and influential group. During the next decade or so, we will experience the emergence of this new partnership. As always great things can be done to advance our entire world towards peace. Such a journey will have its share of difficulties. Already opposition to the emerging economic partnership has caused rifts amongst countries. Some see these new partnerships as a slow power grab or at least influence when large economies begin to work with the smallest economies. These situations are common place and defined in a phrase known as Tied Aid, which is illegal. Tied Aid is the practice of donating money to a country with the condition of spending that money in the donor country. Sometimes the tie is to secure a countries support on certain topics, basically a bribe. There are many pitfalls and positives as always. Either way we are in for an amazing time as the rejuvenation of an ancient trade route is reopened.

Common sense in Peacebuilding

Often when we are in conversation we talk of a collective wisdom that refers to an easy solution or understanding that was not taken – common sense. For example common sense tells us to not stand in front of a moving object, more so when that object can cause great harm to us. Even though common sense/wisdom can be a positive influence, it is often just useless points of destructive thought. Often when a phrase of common sense is uttered, the intention is to point out a failure after the damage has been done. On the positive influence of common sense, in the realm of peacebuilding common sense tells us to not kill or even shoot at another. Common sense tells us to talk with each other. We are to work out our issues using calm resolve in concert with those around us. What we are not to do is make enemies of the other who is in the same situation with you. However, such ideology is exactly what we are not getting in many of the wars taking place. What does common sense tell us about the current wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Ukraine and Palestine? The first realization is that peacebuilding efforts usually take decades to complete. One of the fastest peace building efforts has taken place in Tajikistan. Japan and other countries held firm to peace negotiations during 1994-1997. A recent article written by Farrukh Usmonov of University of Tsukuba, Tokyo provides a great insight to a peacebuilding success. At the very root of the peacebuilding success is the singular fact that the Tajikistan parties resolved to stop and prevent further conflict. The focus was on the process of negotiation and achieve peace. Peace became a reality when leaders of all put national interests higher than regional and personal gains. During peacebuilding efforts the issue of weapons is a vital component. The solution is easy to speak about but very difficult to implement. The solution is to have a complete ban on all weapons. Farrukh Usmonov wrote about this in the article, below is a quote for that article. “Tajik negotiation, stated to respect signed military protocol and stop the rearming of soldiers/citizens. Such cases are often present in post conflict. Thus, parties had to understand that even if a single citizen has a weapon, if each side tries to hide weapons it may cause mistrust and may add problems to solve issue, which again may harm society. That is not an easy process and it may take several months, however parties do not have any choice but to implement de-weaponization and complete it by given period of time. That is why, military protocol, which obliged leaders of opposition to dissolve their various military groups, were crucial for post-conflict period in Tajikistan.” In many of my past writings the need for a complete ban on weapons has been pointed out. The efforts to achieve this goal produces great results and speeds up the process. Sadly it is rare that such efforts are made due to the difficulties involved. It is easier to prolong the violence than to collect the tools of war. Thus we have many wars that rage on for years due to the laziness of those who are called leaders. Well to be fair it is not just laziness, there is a great deal of mistrust that exists. No one wants to be the first to lower their weapons. The method to a total ban is to slowly implement such a plan. This is the philosophy behind no fly zones and ceasefire agreements. When we are involved in the chaos of war, common sense can help us. However for the most part common sense has pushed us to kill each other. The sense that we need to use is the one that seeks to build a peaceful society. Rare are the situations such as took place in Tajikistan. We can only hope and pray that such sense overcomes the leaders in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Israel and other war torn places.