Friday, May 24, 2019

International Institutions Under Strain (Part 3 - NATO)

(This is part three of a three part learning blogs to honor those who gave their lives to defend things worth defending.)
Daultay Dofine: This scheme of yours has failed, Lord Sidious. The blockade is finished. We dare not go against the Jedi.
Darth Sidious: Viceroy, I don't want to see this stunted slime in my sight again. This turn of events is unfortunate. We must accelerate our plans. Begin landing your troops.
Nute Gunray: Ah, my lord, is that... legal?
Darth Sidious: I will make it legal.
Nute Gunray: And the Jedi?
Darth Sidious: The Chancellor should never have brought them into this. Kill them immediately.
Nute Gunray: Yes, my lord. As you wish. 
- On the eve of Trade Federation’s invasion of Naboo, Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace

Post WWII, Europe faced the daunting task of rebuilding lives while maintaining vigilance for peace and security of the region. Greece was fighting a civil war, tension was mounting in Turkey, and communism was gaining popular support in Italy. The Soviet had successfully advanced a coup in Czechoslovakia (bordering Germany) testing the hospitality of Western Democracy. Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg came together and formed a peacetime military alliance under the Brussels Treaty.

Then U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall sought to support the effort. He had proposed a large-scale stimulus package for Europe in part hoping to stabilize the region. U.S. Congress passed a legislation for the European Recovery Program in April 1948 allowing for some $12 billion (equivalent of $100 billion today) for post war economic revitalization in Europe.

The Soviet Union stood firm on the other side, however; Stalin had barred any satellite States in Eastern Europe from participating in the stimulus activities and instituted a blockade against West Berlin.

To safeguard the European stimulus investments, a Republican Senator Arthur H. Vandenburg called for the negotiations for a North Atlantic Treaty in May of 1948. The US led negotiations were a success; the “Treaty” was signed in 1949 between United States, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and the United Kingdom.

The core principal of this Treaty was infamously enshrined—an attack against one is an attack against all. Article 5 of the Treaty reads:
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.  
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.” 
NATO has invoked this Muskeetering Article 5 only once—after the 9/11 attacks against the United States. NATO does have an active duty force ready to guarantee the collective defense of the participating nation States; it has taken up the collective defense measures on several occasions including in Syria and in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine crisis.

Today, the NATO peacetime military alliance is the largest of its kind in the world. Yet in all of its military might and glory, NATO is only catching up to the cyber defense priorities of the modern age. Even less so, the NATO alliance as led by the United States has yet to fully appreciate the need for a coordinated effort to deter economic warfare against democracies and promote economic progress conducive to the ideals on which NATO was built.

Nationalist movements are gaining popularity in the US and in Europe. With these moving tides, international conflicts in cyber and economic spaces directly challenge the NATO’s Muskeetering motto. As national incentives across the Atlantic become untangled and misaligned from one another, the NATO alliance appears an outdated watchdog of aging western democracies. With billions of dollars’ worth of economic damages at stake and rising risks to our critical infrastructures, private sector mercenaries and active citizens are organizing to supplement State sponsored ones. From Anonymous to Bell¿ngcat, distributed model of operation is replacing centralized headquarters in military camps with active citizens and private security forces with computer terminals.

NATO’s “all for one and one for all” by default establishes an enemy; but who are today’s enemies? Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the recent May 2019 Cyber Defence Pledge Conference (London) stated in response to a question by UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt:
 “… the more and better protected resilient we will have our critical infrastructure the more the enemies will focus on the mind of our societies. And here, indeed, the aim is to undermine the trust, the mutual trust, to undermine also the credibility of [democracies] …” 
There will always be frictions and wars. Preventing them requires good organization and collective actions, but more importantly it requires a strong moral core—one that was NATO’s inception of fostering democracies, not bullying autocracies.

 “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” ― George Orwell, 1984

Sunday, April 28, 2019

International Institutions Under Strain (Part 2 - WTO)

FDR and Churchill on Augusta
(This is part two of a three part learning blogs to honor those who gave their lives to defend things worth defending.)
I thought you would like me to tell you something of the voyage I made across the ocean to meet our great friend, the President of the United States. Exactly where we met is secret, but I don’t think I shall be indiscrete if I go as far as to say that it was ‘somewhere in the Atlantic’. 
- Winston Churchill, by Public Radio Broadcast, 24 August 1941 

In August 1941, aboard the U.S.S. Augusta in Placentia Bay, Newfoundland, a plan for international system was chartered between the United States and Great Britain—the Atlantic Charter.

The significance of this charter is its timing; it is agreed upon just before United States entered the Second World War. President Roosevelt had hoped that the Atlantic Charter would help him garner political and popular support for United States’ intervention in WWII. History would favor the story that it was the attack on Pearl Harbor in December that had pushed the United States into the world conflict against the Axis of aggression.

The Atlantic Charter outlined eight “common principles” regarding territorial stabilization, trade liberalization, freedom of the seas, freedom of governing, as well as international labor, economic, and welfare standards—as the end-goal of yet another world conflict. It is not a binding agreement. It is an aspiration (arguably following a Wilsonian-vision for the postwar world)—one that would be characterized by freer exchanges of trade, self-determination, disarmament, and collective security.

Following WWII, the United States, United Kingdom, and allied nations pursued the Atlantic Charter’s ambitions and agreed to establish rules for the postwar international economy; the result of which created the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, as well as the signing of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) at an international conference in Geneva in October 1947. The GATT agreement eventually led to the inception of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its rule-based adjudicative process to allow State actors enforce the agreed upon terms of those great Atlantic aspirations.

What is important about the Atlantic Charter—and its eventual outgrowth in the WTO—is that it is by necessity a lesson from history: about tariffs, trade wars, and economic isolation. After the first world war, the Allies had pursued trade barriers that had led to the ruins of German economy. Churchill had adamantly argued that it is not “in interests of the world [that any] nation should be unprosperous or shut out from the means of making a decent living for itself and its people by industry and enterprise.” The then U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull held similar views that economic collaborations are critical to avoiding new world wars.

However, the institutions of world economic collaboration is now under strain as the current political will of the United States takes a domestic-first tariff approach confronting autocracies like North Korea, China and Iran. The Brexit debacle also marks a deterioration of the once courage aspirations of Great Britain. Furthermore, United States’ withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has opened ways for China to build its own multi-lateral agreements and push forward its Belt-and-Road initiatives; albeit it is unclear if these Chinese-led efforts aspire to the ideological perspectives of self-determination and democracy, or are these propaganda efforts to spread China’s “soft power”—whatever that may be.

It should be noted that the Atlantic Charter was never signed. But its substantial influence and its non-binding (voluntary/aspirational) nature perhaps allowed “courageous leadership that looked beyond short-term self-interest” and sought hope in places where economic growth would be of interest for all.

Saturday, April 6, 2019

International Institutions Under Strain (Part 1 - United Nations)

Circa 1945, post-WWII. World in ruins (photo from UN website).
(This is part one of a three part learning blogs with some help from my old military buddies. Here's to those who gave their lives to defend things worth defending.)

“Membership” to the United Nations (UN)
 “is open to all peace-loving States which accept the obligations contained in the [UN] Charter and, in the judgment of the [UN] Organization, are able to carry out these obligations.” 
Charter of the United Nations, Chapter II, Article 4(1). 

The UN Charter is a fascinating piece of writing. Information about its significance are readily available on the worldwide web: regarding its historical perspectives of multilateralism embodied in the great wars, its governing structures built around UN body politics, as well as the obligations of its member States to work as one towards humanity’s common aspirations. For the most part, our global consciousness has accepted the UN’s role charting a course addressing climate changes, human rights and humanitarian crises, peace keeping through its often-paralyzed Security Council, as well as addressing a salute of global problems working closely with organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO).

Among rational minds, it is common sense to peacefully coexist in ending the scourge of wars, restoring faith in fundamental human rights, and transitioning to renewable energies and better consumption practices. Yet our path presents a challenge to established economic structures and corruptible enticements cemented in our society, both of which are bedrocks of a fast-flowing stream carrying powerful corporate and private business interests. While the UN has symbolically endorsed the unity of “people, plant, and profit” in its sustainability rhetoric, it has not put much effort into incorporating economic considerations in its body politics. In fact, there is an implicit understanding that such considerations are outside of the UN Membership consciousness and left to the likes of World Trade Organization and the World Bank. That is a problem isn’t it? The UN body politics have embraced a cognitive dissonance on sustainability (people, planet, profit), and it is no wonder:
“In different areas and for different reasons, the trust of people in their political establishments, the trust of states among each other, the trust of many people in international organizations has been eroded and ... multilateralism has been in the fire.” 
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, 73rd session of the UN General Assembly.

The UN today seems to aspire to large bureaucracies in countries with very low literacy rates. It has welcomed Iran’s Minister of Justice, Seyyed Alireza Avaei, to address the UN Human Rights Council and appointed Iran to the UN’s Global Women’s Rights Commission. Its Security Council often complacent and the UN representative body often made incompetent from member State’s unwillingness to participate.

If one of the UN’s main obligations is to secure and promote humanity’s common aspirations, then we should ask ourselves why multilateralism is under threat from rising income inequalities, geopolitical tensions, voluntary and forced population migrations, as well as technological evolutions. While the institutional entities (World Bank, WTO and G20, etc.) are slowly pacing to charter a new course in sustainability, the populous has taken matters into their own hands. Today, we see collaborative production models rampant. Network governance with peer-sourced computing (e.g., blockchain) is gaining a foothold to unsettle the financial services sector. Crowdsourcing is primed for the big time with the likes of Wiki, Kickstarter, and now Bell¿ngcats. 

A key stakeholder of, or even a defender of the UN would argue against any alternatives to the UN, as no other entity like it has yet to emerge which grants buy-in from sovereign states. But the implicit assumption is that a sovereignty is vested with power from the center and within its government. As the American experiment with democracy which is based on the premise that power is vested in its people, perhaps a new global identity is emerging: from the ashes of the old, a new way of thinking—about network versus hierarchy, about collaboration versus conformation, and about membership privilege for profiteering versus participation for value gained—a new alternative in “We the peoples of the United Nations.”

Saturday, October 29, 2016

Passing Ships in the Night

We are a nation of disconnected people. We pass each other on the street without acknowledging one another. We pride ourselves on our Twitter followers and Facebook friends, but those have made our lives more narcissistic at best. We share not to be connected but to be ‘liked’ or ‘retwitted’—such is a nation divided, and “we pass each other with our lights out as ships in the night.”[1]

This ‘culture’ of ours is a disease. A cancer. It creates an experience of loneliness similar to patients in hospitals feel: supposedly there to be healed, but their isolation from the world undermines their will to live. Many people live their lives this way, sharing homes, jobs, and even families with others, but not connecting—a profound seclusion gets in the way and we are each alone.

Confronting this ‘super connected culture of digital send’ we have to begin to listen and ‘receive’ one another; in real places where we are genuinely met and heard. These places are of great importance to us. Being there reminds us of our strength and our value in ways that many other places we may pass through do not. These are holy places, churches, schools, bus stops, funeral homes, etc. They remind us we are each human and together a community; mortal at best but forever in each other’s presence. They give us the strength to grow and eventually help us to transform pain into wisdom that we can pass on.

No more of living and sending disconnected messages of ourselves. It is time to tell stories about who we are and where we call home, time to be connected and live to let live in one another’s world.


1.  Achel Naomi Remen, M.D., KITCHEN TABLE WISDOM, A Way of Life, (“We all influence one another. We are part of each other’s reality There is no such thing as passing someone and not acknowledging your moment of connection, not letting others know their effect on you and seeing yours on them. . .”).

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Blockchain for Change?

Blockchain has been tossed around as the next great disruption and THE tech revolution. It has been referred to as a public ledger, an open database, an unhackable consensus platform, and people have gone as far as to claim “all is possible” to change the world with blockchain.

But what exactly is it and why the hype?

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Trust and Involve - by Lauren Campbell-Kong

“Tell me, and I will Forget. Show me, and I may Remember. Involve me, and I will Understand.” -Chinese Proverb
Belief and trust is of growing importance in the world of business. Authenticity and transparency are key drivers in client development. Long gone are the days of nickel and diming, as well as developing client reliance on your services or maximizing profit through unethical economics. In an era of social purpose and social enterprise, transparency and activism have combined to create a business equation around fulfillment.