Solutions: Conflict Mitigation (Boko Haram)

Conflict is a major impedance on the efforts of development practice and has to be analyzed when discussing the issue. This post is a continuation and case study on solutions to development issues, using the Boko Haram in Nigeria as my subject. For background and additional information on the Boko Haram, see further readings such as this analysis of the ideology behind the Boko Haram, or this brief chronicle of their presence in Nigeria. There's a plethora of further readings that can be found online as well. The purpose of this post is to introduce detailed and plausible solutions to the discourse of this issue.

For this discussion, I will divide conflict mitigation strategies into two categories, direct and indirect approach.

Direct Approach

Direct approach in this discussion refers to the direct intervention and opposition of a conflicting group (Boko Haram) by another party (Nigerian government.) 

I believe that an active approach is necessary in the mitigation of this issue because of the uncompromising and violent stance taken by the Boko Haram. It is stated in the Al Qaeda training manual found online that Islam calls for a hostile confrontation with nonbelievers. I am uncertain of the legitimacy of this manual, but if it is factual, such threats should not be met lightly. I believe that the Nigerian government needs to have a zero tolerance agenda to match the uncompromising stance of the Boko Haram. Any encounter with the Boko Haram or its affiliates needs to be met with lethal force. You can't compromise with someone who sees contention as the only plausible resolve and embraces death, you can only grant them that wish. It is unfortunate that the conflict has to escalate to such levels threatening more lives, but a long term perspective has to be taken when approaching this situation. It is more practical to set and control the intensity of the situation at a level manageable by the government early on, than allowing these groups to continue operating discretely until they grow to an uncontrollable size. They have stated that they are unwilling to compromise and will not stop their terror until the country is under Islamic law and oppositions are extinguished. This will surely be the fate of Nigeria if this issue is not properly addressed at the moment. Stopping the momentum of this group right now is the most effective direct approach that will limit casualties, cost, and time. 

Specific measures must be taken in order for a direct approach to be effective; mainly, there needs to be sound infrastructure and capable governmental agencies in place.

For infrastructure, this means sound roads, good energy structures, and land surveillance. It is no secret that the road situation is bad in Nigeria. The lack of adequate road access presents a hindrance to the efforts of military mobilization and monitoring. It also makes rural areas more vulnerable to attacks. Usage of geographic information systems, GIS, techniques will be beneficial in providing the government with land information. Other geographic analysis tools can be coupled with GIS technology to provide government agencies with land usage data. Better monitoring systems and geospatial information will in turn allow for government agencies, as well as local parties, to effectively monitor civilian activities. Local leaders and police should also be involved in this operation in order to set up tactics for on site overseers. I believe that having a capable infrastructure system like this will leave the Boko Haram with few places to hide.

The government also needs to curate a capable team to lead and utilize these strategies. As discussed earlier, the Boko Haram needs to be confronted in an urgent and non compliant manner that will seize their operation before it becomes uncontrollable. In order for this to occur, there needs to be a clear and uniform understanding amongst government personnel on the application and implication of such measures. This uniformity will give structure to the agenda, while reducing wasted efforts on strategies not catered towards achieving this goal. Infantries also need to be trained on specific counter-terrorism tactics and civilian protection.

Although it may seem that these measures are extreme, I think it would be beneficial in the long run. Also, some of the work and policies that will be put in place in solving this issue will be beneficial for future conflict mitigation in the country, creating a standard of operation against terrorist groups, improving the security in certain areas, GIS techniques can be applied to improve use of vacant land, and built infrastructure will be beneficial in the long run. There's also potential for economic benefits by creating jobs.

Indirect Approach

Indirect approach in this discussion refers to strategies not directly involving the opposing groups. The Boko Haram has been functioning mainly in the northeastern part of Nigeria, as seen in this map. For this approach, these areas and local governments/residents need to be the focal point when constructing strategies. Strategic goals should aim to isolate the Boko Haram and starve them from receiving any form of support outside the country and prevent them from acquiring any resources internally, whether that be financial, artillery, human capital, or intel.

The monitoring and tracking tools discussed earlier should be utilized for this approach as well. Data from these tools can be compiled to learn more about where the Boko Haram is operating and how to appropriately allocate resources.

As far as recruitment goes, I am uncertain of the tactics used by the Boko Haram. It is a common trend for groups to go after the youth when recruiting members. I feel that the Boko Haram might be operating in a similar fashion. This method is usually effective because this age group is easier to manipulate, through fear tactics and brainwashing, and enticing promises. Other possible groups are poor or unemployed persons. Due to their conditions, these groups are more vulnerable and easier to persuade. Working on strategies that will give these groups alternatives and educate them on facts that will allow them to make sounder decisions will be beneficial in starving the Boko Haram of new members.

For the youth, intervention programs need to be put in place. Giving this group extracuricular activities will occupy their time and possibly reduce their vulnerability. Some of the surveillance and monitoring tasks can be put in their hands to empower them and give them employment opportunities. This goes for the older groups as well. Education programs should also be put in place to educate residents on the issue. Islamic leaders that practice the true nature of the religion should be brought to educate locals. The government also needs to find the outlets with which these groups operate and block them, whether it is social or political.

Conclusion

Underdevelopment is crippling and hinders the efforts of conflict remediation. A countries capacity to effectively manage conflict is dependent on the presence of sound infrastructure and competent governmental personnel. Once these are in place, direct and indirect strategies can then be designed and implemented. In the case of the Boko Haram, this will involve; improving the monitoring of target regions using GIS and geographical analysis tools, training authoritative forces on responding to direct confrontation and emergency civilian mobilization, curbing the recruiting process by giving vulnerable groups alternatives, and implementing educational programs that will nullify the manipulative teachings of the Boko Haram.
As it is right now, the Boko Haram is not a significant threat based on their size. This will not be the case if the issue is not attacked aggressively through serious discussions and the progressive implementation of mitigation tactics. It will behoove the Nigerian government to begin seriously investing in measures that will address the issue and snip the problem in the bud, no matter how drastic or excessive it may seem.

One love

Sources:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/boko-haram.htm

http://lordedon.blogspot.com/2014/03/understanding-ideology-of-boko-haram.html

http://leadership.ng/features/343890/fct-forest-reserves-becoming-haven-criminal-activities

$100 prosthetic for war victims in Sudan

I love seeing stories like this! People using their talents and skills simply to better the lives of their neighbors. No talent is too small to have large impacts. Whatever skills you may have, hone it to make a difference in peoples lives.

Prosthetic for Sudan

http://inhabitat.com/100-3d-printed-prosthetics-offer-hope-to-amputees-in-war-torn-sudan/

Nigger: Demystifying the word

The use of the word nigger. This is a topic that I have pondered on in the past and figured I would write about it acknowledging its resurgence into the spotlight in American media.

First of all, let me start by listing the only three reasons a person can use the word nigger, or any of its variants:

1) You're black

2) You're racist
3) Discussing the topic, like this instance

Although susceptible to some subjectivity on my part, I believe that most people will agree on this proposition of the use of the word nigger. I base this assumption on the historical background of the word. Nigger, historically, is a term that was used by whites to label black slaves in America. It was used in a derogatory manner that was meant to devalue slaves.
This history shows the original context and participating parties involved in the concoction of this word in American culture. Although complex and rich in its history, I will proceed with this brief historical context for the sake of simplicity and to focus the discussion on its use in modern America.

Personally I could care less about the use of the word and if given the option, would prefer if no one used it. It is not a word that I deem necessary to be in my vocabulary and can very well get by without using it. For some people this is not the case. As mentioned, nigger is a word that has a strong relationship between whites and blacks. For some, they might have grown up hearing and using this word based on their location. For this reason, the word will be more natural and embedded in their vocabulary, making it difficult to communicate without this word. This is understandable. But for a while, there has been a steady increase in the use of the word amongst people not situated in the original context of the use of the word.

For whites, saying nigger is not a real issue because the word was initially devised by them for the purpose of expressing their distaste towards blacks. For blacks, saying nigger can mean whatever they want it to be because the word is "owned" by blacks. By that, I mean that the word was used exclusively to describe blacks, sort of like a name or a nickname. The recipient of the name can in turn accept/decline that name, choose how to respond to that name, or dictate the meaning of that name. So, in this sense, blacks saying nigger is not really an issue. So what's the problem?

As mentioned, there have been increases in the use of the word amongst people not situated in this "group" (racists and blacks). White teenagers and young adults now casually refer to each other as nigger. Mexicans and other Latino groups do similar things referring to each other as nigger. And there are cases where non-blacks refer to their black comrade as nigger. The aforementioned situations cause me to scratch my head. To me, I will never see a white person calling me a nigger as a form of endearment. If blacks want to refer to each other as niggers as a term of endearment then that is fine; as mentioned, the bearer of the name dictates the value of that name. But what is it that makes people not exclusive to this "group" feel the need to say nigger so casually. White people are called crackers/honky, Mexicans and Latinos wetback/beaner. If there is such a desire for groups to have some name that they can use to refer to each other, how come these groups are not taking control of their designated terms and using it. There are plenty of racial slurs that exist for different groups but I don't go looking for them because I have no use for racial slurs in any context. I am neither a racist nor do I belong to any of those groups so it will be illogical and inefficient to incorporate such terms into my vocabulary. This doesn't make me a better person than someone who uses racial slurs.

I will acknowledge the rise in the prominence of rap music in American culture as a major player in the desensitization of the word in our culture, but it has to be more than that. I listen to rap and I am black but yet I don't get the urge to spew the word whenever I speak. So what is the real underlying reason for the casual use of the word nigger amongst out-groups? Share your thoughts on the situation. I would love to hear especially from someone in the out-group that uses the word casually.

One love

North Korea Should Have Nuclear Weapons

My first blog post! What better way to set it off than with a controversial topic, although a little late, I feel this is still relevant.

Before I start, this post will jump from a series of random topics that can be discussed in depth on their own. My hope is that these individuals pieces will be strung together by the reader allowing for a grand view of some main issues (Hegemony, freedom, violence, and hypocrisy).

Prior to the Boston bombing, the news was clamored with nuclear threats from North Korea (NK). American government officials were interviewed about their thoughts and what course of action needed to be taken.  Along with these interviews, the general consensus was that North Korea should not have nuclear weapons. Now, my sources are not extensive but rather just bits of information from various news sources, but I have yet to come across a source that says otherwise, and rightfully so. Why would anyone support North Korea having nuclear weapons? Their leader, from what we have seen tends to be somewhat erratic and unpredictable. Plus his young age makes his unpredictability even more concerning. But my point here is not to condemn their leader or list reasons why North Korea should not have nuclear weapons. I feel like there is already enough of that out there. Rather I want to analyze the situation from a detached and objective perspective and see if the critiques are justified and whether NK should have nuclear weapons....

Lets state some points:

• North Korea is a sovereign country, just like any other country. Meaning they have complete jurisdiction over their operations within their country.
• To my knowledge, Obama has not approached Kim Jong Un. In fact, last time I was watching the news there was no diplomatic tie established between both countries (U.S. & NK), and the government officials that were being interviewed were not supportive of the idea, essentially saying it would be submissive (Hmmmm?).
• Here's a video discussing this by the wonderful Christianne Amanpour. She also mentions other valuable points in this video including the dysfunctional relationship between NK and the world.
• America has nuclear weapons, so does China and other "superpowers". America/other superpowers have not made efforts to eradicate their nuclear weapon arsenal, to the best of my knowledge, and I know it can be done because S. Africa has done so. (Update: Obama has proposed a nuclear-reduction program)

Analyzing these points raises questions:

1. Who are Americans to decline North Korea the right to a nuclear program?
• The first obvious reason is the lack of diplomacy. From what I am observing, the U.S. is acting based on presumptions. Yes there is a dysfunctional history between NK and the U.S., as well as the world, but this is a new leader. This is an opportunity to refresh the dialogue between these countries and start anew. But instead of opening a new dialogue between both parties, the U.S. has decided to turn its back on this possibility and act on prejudgments. I personally feel that the stakes are too high for such antics. 
• North Korea is a sovereign country that has the right to develop a nuclear program if deemed appropriate by THEIR government. The U.S. and other countries are right to be concerned with this proposal, but the reality of the situation is that there is little they can do. Plus this leads to my second point...
2. Is it not hypocritical for superpowers to oppose other countries the right to developing a nuclear program?
• America, along with other superpowers, posses nuclear capabilities but oppose other countries from having the same capabilities (NK, Iran). Clearly you can see the hypocrisy in this proposal. In order for America and other superpowers opposition to hold any weight, they will need to discard their nuclear programs and more importantly their nuclear weapons. Now this proposal sounds much more reasonable, and is one that I personally like. Another proposal would be for America to allow North Korea as well as other countries develop their nuclear programs. This will allow everyone to be on equal playing fields. There are obvious connotations from this proposal as you can imagine, but the point here is not to dwell on the practicality but the principals behind them. 
• I will deviate to drive this point home. In America a similar problem has been heavily debated and that issue is gun control. Some people want the right to have a gun to protect themselves from a tyrannical government as well as other dangers and simply because it's an "American thing". Others oppose gun rights and want guns to be removed from society. As you can see there are some parallels between both situations, just scaled differently. America and other superpowers have a history of invading other countries and extending their reach of power a little too far (my opinion). Knowing Americas tendencies, I would be cautious as a smaller country. What I'm trying to say is that developing a nuclear program and nuclear weapons, to some of these countries, could be more of a response to this realization, because how are you going to trust someone who can just shoot you if you don't do as they request. It would be better to at least have some means of fighting back in such instances. I am aware of the potential threats associated with allowing these countries to develop nuclear programs but as I mentioned, I am not trying to validate the practicality of such notions but rather the underlying principals behind each. In a country that believes so strongly in the right of its citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government as well as other threats, it would be absolutely hypocritical to deny these same rights to other countries.    

Are the critiques on NK and other "smaller" countries like Iran justified, and should these countries be allowed to develop a nuclear program without the condemnation of other superpowers? Comment with your thoughts. I have my view and opinion on the matter and would like to see what other peoples views are as well. Please keep in mind a few things; I am NOT an expert analyst (These are random thoughts I formulated while reading and watching this news develop), these are mostly objective observations and rebuttals to some of the perspectives on the situation.

One love

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/05/obama_says_he_has_never_spoken.html