Philip Blue’s Blog

All good things.

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 00:44:00 +0000

You may have noticed that this space has not been renewed lately.

That hasn’t been at all deliberate. So much to say: a move to Liberia, goodbye to Syria, learning new things, reading new books, potential war in Cote d’Ivoire, revolution in Tunisia and Egypt, plenty of news to comment on. Especially in the past few days, I’ve thought about what I could write about Egypt. After all, as someone who has lived in the Middle East for two years, surely I might have some expertise to bring to bear? Surely some worthwhile, pithy and witty comments to make? But beyond chanting support for the protesters, I found that I didn’t.

I stopped writing on here by accident, really. A large mountain of things to do in a new job ended up squeezing this space out. Through that I discovered three things. First, that I don’t really miss writing on here. It’s more essential that I talk to people close to me about things, than putting my thoughts up here.

Second, if I want to share articles, links, opinions, etc., Facebook is a much better way to do so, and ends up reaching many more people. After all, this blog’s readership does not stretch too far.

Finally, there are so many people out there whose views, expertise and opinions are so much more worthwhile than mine. If you want to read about politics, Stephen Walt is a better bet. For British politics, Bagehot and Blighty take some beating. For development, Roving Bandit and Aid Thoughts are good places to start, as well as my bossman’s blog. For international law, try Opinio Juris. On the Middle East, Hybrid States, Syria Comment and the Arabist. If you like Twitter, try @saifedean, too. For posts of a theological / philosophical bent, the Kouya Chronicle and Shiny Ginger Thoughts are much more thoughtful than I ever am.

I’ve written a few things that I’m proud of, and those words will hang around for as long as Google decides they will host this thing. I’ve had some interesting debates here and there with commenters, and I’ve noticed that obscure things you write can end up being pounced upon and twisted by unscrupulous folks out in the blogosphere. But mostly the debate has been fun.

I’ve no regrets, but it’s time to move on. Thanks for reading.

Liberia deals with Vulture Funds

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 18:10:00 +0000

So, Liberia has settled its debts with two ‘Vulture Funds’. In 1978 the government borrowed $6.5 million which has now ballooned into $43 million. However, they will pay only around $1.5 million to settle.

Two quick thoughts:

Isn’t it great when foolish investors lose money? Wouldn’t it have been great if some of those bank shareholders had had the same fate?
Are vulture funds really such a bad thing if they allow a poor government to settle debts (as opposed to simply refusing to pay and having it hang over them) at a much reduced rate?

Aid workers check into The Priory

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:24:00 +0000

One of the things I puzzle about in the world of development is the word ‘rehabilitation’ which seems to crop up all over the place. Initially I thought that this was to do with being in Syria. After all, with no USAID or DfiD, one might imagine that organisations hailing from non-English speaking countries might slip when it comes to the nuances of the language. Renovation of the Aleppo Citadel can easily become Rehabilitation of the Aleppo Citadel.

So imagine my surprise here in Liberia when I see USAID billboards proclaiming projects for the Rehabilitation of Apprenticeships and such things. Which in my mind brings to mind the programming team checking into a detox programme at The Priory. Which, now I come to think of it...

On Néstor Kirchner

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:48:00 +0000

I heard yesterday that Néstor Kirchner had died from an unexpected heart attack. I know only too well what a tragedy that will be for his family, and wish them well in their grief.

The Guardian had a paean to Kirchner today, where he is described as Argentina’s independence hero. Now, obviously this is an exaggeration at best; Argentina won its independence 200 years ago. Even allowing leeway for exaggeration, though, it’s a highly contentious article.

I agree that Kirchner was right to defy the IMF back in 2003 and to default. Those who lent money to an irresponsible government engaging in dodgy fiscal policy and foolish attempts to maintain a fixed exchange rate deserved to lose it, just as bank shareholders deserved to lose theirs (if only Obama and Brown had shown the backbone of Kirchner).

But Kirchner also presided over a centralisation of power on his family, and perpetuated the damaging cult of personality that has been too prevalent in Argentine politics over the years. The elevation of people of stable rules contributed in large part to the de-development of Argentina in the twentieth century. It is not a route to future prosperity.

Like almost everyone, Kirchner’s record was mixed, with some good and some bad. A shame the Grauniad couldn’t portray that complexity. The Economist does a better job of doing so, here and here.

Innovation as exceeding perceptions

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:36:00 +0000

When Apple took the iPhone prototype to Verizon, for a possible network deal, the carrier rejected it.

In early 1990s, Diamond Bank introduced the first integrated banking system in Nigeria, enabling customers to operate their accounts from any of its branches. Before then, it was usual for customers to travel hundreds of miles, from one city to another, just to withdraw their money.

Apple and Diamond were disruptive in their respective markets. Their offerings are quite different, but they have one similar characteristic: they pursue Customer Perception.

Ndubuisi Ekekwe in the Harvard Business Review on innovation.

Education and innovation (and migration?)

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:57:00 +0000

Developing countries face a chicken and egg problem in education policy. Until there is a highly educated stratum in a nation’s population, there will not be an adequate pool from which to draw teachers of technical subjects. But without such teachers the nation will be unable to create such a stratum—internally. Presumably the way for a developing country to proceed, therefore, is to send its brightest young people abroad for advanced education. Some will remain abroad but those who return to their native country will supply the elite teachers of the next generation.

So argues Richard Posner, in a piece about higher education and innovation driving development. Gary Becker’s response (mostly agreeing) is here. I completely agree that education and innovation are important drivers in what helps a country (and companies and people) become richer. Higher productivity means higher wages, after all.

But there’s a question about whether the policy described above would work. Is it true that people return after being given the opportunity to go abroad and study will return? In the former Soviet bloc, countries used to send people to the Soviet Union to study. In Syria, a large number of university academics earned their degrees at Soviet universities. But even in a country that has a significant ability to coerce people to come back, many, if not most, stayed abroad.

Perhaps even more importantly, though, isn’t it an overly nationalistic approach to the problem. Why should countries rely on their own nationals returning? Why not encourage foreigners to take up teaching posts? Why not encourage collaboration with overseas universities? Why not allow universities with expertise from abroad to set up campuses in your country?

I know some countries are doing this (especially in the Gulf and the Far East), I know also that there are issues at stake such as perceived (or real?) imperialism, and I know that there is a risk that underperforming or end-of-career academics would see it is a chance to relax in the tropics on a good wage. And I realise, too, that for some countries would find it hard to attract such exchanges and that therefore it may be sensible to rely on the ties of a person’s home and family to come back. These are all challenges that would need to be addressed.

In the debate about migration we often discuss the benefits of so-called south-north migration. But north-south migration surely has its merits, too? I presume a lot of aid workers would find it hard to disagree.

Is religion such a bad thing?

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 09:40:00 +0000

It doesn’t seem, then, that religiously-motivated terrorism is qualitatively more virulent than the secular variety. This shouldn’t be a surprise. Terrorism can be motivated by many factors. Some religious beliefs encourage terrorism, but so do some secular ideologies. The key thing is the terrorist psychology: the terrorist’s emotional conviction that his goals, whether in this world or the next, justify violence against the people who oppose him. Society obviously needs to defend itself against such violence and I agree with Professor Guiora that religiously-motivated violence shouldn’t get a free pass. (Who argues that it should?) But focusing on “religious” terrorism distorts the nature of the problem.

More at Opinio Juris. It was in response to this post, arguing that religious terrorism presents a unique threat to society, as part of a discussion on a new book by Amos Guiora. The full discussion is here. I may comment further once the discussion reaches an end.

Are all remittances created equal?

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 14:51:00 +0000

Remittances, a bit like immigration, using the diaspora and microfinance, is one of those development silver bullets. But did you know: remittances can work better depending on the banking system? And did you know: the banking sector depends a lot on old colonial ties?

Sanou Mbaye, a Senegalese banker, outlines the different strategies:

Anglosphere. Relies on competition and low regulation, reducing costs and increasing volumes
Hispanic. Highly tailored financial products for the needs of migrants, delivered with low charge
Francophone. Favours monopoly providers with high charges and poor distribution mechanism for capital

Obviously, the first two are preferable to the last. Now, there will naturally be more possible models for making sure money gets to where the senders want it than outlined here. But clearly, there is a problem in Francophone countries, which means that remittances go to the folks at Western Union instead of ordinary people. I'm all for businesses making money, but not when they have a monopoly.

So, support remittances, they are one of the biggest sources of money for poor people in the world today. But make sure that remittances reach people.

Can we please stop complaining about Delhi?

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 13:26:00 +0000

On the Today Programme this morning, the Delhi Commonwealth Games was a topic of discussion. For those out of the loop, the story is essentially that they haven’t finished getting the ‘athlete’s village’ ready. Basically, it looks a bit like a building site.

‘It’s a national disgrace!’ says the Indian media. The country teams are having urgent discussions to see what can be done about it. Some refuse to travel until things have improved, while some athletes seem to have pulled out altogether.

Now, I understand that people want to be able to run quickly and throw things long distances, and have a modicum of comfort to relax in. I understand that being away from home with media pressure on you can be difficult. And I understand that the Indian government does not seem to be able to organise things particularly well. (Hint: it’s a government!) But, can we not just have a bit of perspective here?

Some thoughts:

India’s average yearly income is $1,040 per year
A lot of people’s homes were demolished to make way for Games venues
Most of the people building these facilities could never hope to stay in such luxury
It’s only a game!

Here’s a reminder from Ana Pastor of what daily life looks like for a lot of people.

Interesting links

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:07:00 +0000

1. If the government spends more on aid, will individuals give less?

2. Are you suffering from MDG blues?

3. The difference between pro-market and pro-business

4. Dictators and their fashion choices (ok, some of them aren’t dictators, but Gaddafi, who is a dictator, surely wins the best-dressed award)

5. The anti-competitiveness of frequent traveler schemes

6. Abandon rural life for the big city? Not such a stupid choice for developing country farmers

‘Progressive’ and misanthropic

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:43:00 +0000

Readers may know that I have a soft spot for the Liberal Democrats. They could be a great party, but they have a little way to go.

As you can see from Bagehot’s observations at the conference:

In short, this room was packed with people who are (I am sure) brimming with the milk of human kindness, but who simultaneously seem to believe that individuals are wicked and selfish if they are not constrained by collective, communitarian oversight. I must admit, this is a brand of liberalism I had not come across before. It was also novel to find myself surrounded by people who think Britain's current education system is such a howling success that it should be preserved from serious reform.

This makes me glad we didn’t end up with a ‘progressive’ coalition.

Los ODM en América Latina

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 07:42:00 +0000

En general, la situación en Centroamérica y en zonas andinas es donde le evolución para lograr los ODM deja más que desear. En cuanto a la población, siguen siendo la infancia, las mujeres y las poblaciones indígenas los sectores más perjudicados o donde más incidencia, donde más daño hace el subdesarrollo.

Fran Sevilla da noticias sobre la falta de progreso hacia los ODM en América Latina. En Vagamundo.

Taxes, rules, population and the public interest

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:23:00 +0000

In an article on the Guardian’s website, Brian Whitaker notes that Middle Easterners don’t like to pay their taxes. In fact, it’s not just that they don’t like to, it’s that they often just don’t.

Whitaker thinks that the reason for this reluctance is that Middle Eastern countries aren’t used to high taxes. Mostly because they get their income from other sources, especially oil. Since people don’t pay much in taxes they don’t get much out of their governments. It also works the other way round: people’s low expectations of their governments make them reluctant to pay taxes.

At the same time, Middle Eastern states’ power is much weaker than is often perceived. In another article, he points that while Egypt is able to round up political dissidents very easily, they haven’t been able to get people to wear seat-belts after ten years of trying. This phenomenon is explained by a lack of participatory politics and a perception that government rules are not in the public interest.

I think those observations are true, but reflecting on Syria a little, I think there is another explanation, too. (Caveat alert: my opinion is highly subjective, and a gross generalisation…)

Basically, Syrians seem sometimes to be unaware that there are other people around them and that these other peopel matter. For me this explains a range of phenomena: bumping into people in the street, talking loudly (shouting?) late at night outside my window, a lack of restraint with car horns, chucking litter everywhere. In April a smoking ban was introduced for public places: offices, restaurants, cafés, etc. At first people respected the law, but gradually it’s fallen by the wayside. The people at the forefront of undermining it have been the rich, well-educated (often in Europe or the US) and young. The standard method is to offer to pay the fine for the restaurant / café if one is levied. The idea that there could be other people in the establishment who might like a smoke-free environment appears to be anathema. Even when an irate foreigner asks them to stop, it’s as though that person’s concerns didn’t matter. It’s not so much that the rules aren’t in the public interest, it’s that the public interest doesn’t exist.

My explanation for this I’m-the-only-person-in-the-world-who-matters-and-rules-don’t-apply-to-me phenomenon is rapid population growth. Between 1982 and 2007 the population doubled to just under 20 million. Today it’s probably more than 20 million. Syria went from being a relatively sparsely-populated place to a densely-populated one. The cultural norms that you need for a densely-populated to function well (namely, consideration of others) haven’t yet been created. Other parts of the world, where density has been a fact of life for much longer, have had a head-start.

The positive aspect of this is that, in time, things will get better. I look forward to returning to Damascus in 20 years and seeing whether that’s the case.

In the meantime, good luck to the Syrian government as they try to bring in the VAT that they’ve been delaying for the past 2 years…

(Photo credit: Damascus from above, by upyernoz.)

A shortened journey

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:20:00 +0000

If only Iraq had been that simple. I know there are some of you out there who want me to apologise, but life isn’t that simple when there’s a war crimes indictment at stake. Look, I feel the deaths of our servicemen every bit as keenly as if the bullets had pierced me like stigmata, but sometimes one has to just stand up and do the right thing even if the evidence isn’t there. OK, I will admit I did have a bit of a wobbly—Cherie had to give me big cuddles, know what I mean!—when it turned out Saddam didn’t have WMD, but I honestly never lied about them. It was just one, small, teeny mistake and everyone tore me to pieces! Give us a break! And for the record I didn’t always have a plan to go to war. The first I heard of it was when Statesman George—Top bloke! Top thinker!—phoned to say US troops were going in!

John Crace digests Tony Blair’s memoirs.

It’s good, but doesn’t quite scale the heights of his digest of Jamie Oliver.

When bad habits rub off

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:09:00 +0000

At a recent meeting with a local NGO, I was assured that the organisation was now set up for success.

They had a new vision, a strategy paper, even an action plan.

Concept papers, action plans, quarterly reviews, logframes, national plans, indicative proposals, ad infinitum.

I realise I may not be the first to think this, but: can we not just do something instead of sitting around writing documents? And can international NGOs and institutions not teach local ones good practices instead of bad ones? I sometimes feel as though the Syrian government and NGOs are being run like junior versions of UNDP.

Fisk lets fly

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:00:00 +0000

Robert Fisk answers the question, has Syria changed in the past ten years?

Syria is not the police state it was under Uncle Hafez. You can make jokes about the regime in government ministries, private banks are creeping into the market, a critical remark about Bashar does not encourage a visit from the mukhabarat plain-clothes guys.

All this is true: Syria is getting better. And you can also get sushi in Damascus (£) these days. I’ll be interested to see the place in ten or twenty years’ time.

The thing about Fisk is that he sometimes finds it difficult for him to realise that the story is not always about him. But he also has an extraordinary knowledge of what’s happened in the Middle East in the past forty years. And he’s very fair. He has a keen sense of right and wrong which guides his take on events—today he let fly with full moral indignation, which was quite a spectacle.

Some interesting excerpts:

On London’s more interesting residents: ‘Does the British Government advertise the fact that the Butcher of Hama—for so he was known to the survivors—now lives not very far from where his son sits with me in Marble Arch?’

On peace prospects: ‘Damascus is the West’s gate to Iran, Bashar is the middle-man between Washington and Tehran. Without Iran, Syria will be weak enough to make peace with Israel—like Egypt and, later, Jordan and Yasser Arafat. This would be a peace of the weak rather than a peace of the just.’

On the economy: ‘the Soviet Union still exists in Syria, despite all the economic changes.’

Interesting links

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:17:00 +0000

1. Even Fidel Castro is catching the austerity spirit

2. How do those international organisations come up with their numbers?

3. Is African music actually like physics?

4. The politics of university league tables

5. Beautiful pictures of Cataluña’s last bullring

A positive take on Syrian food

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:00:00 +0000

I’ve been snobbish about Syrian food in the past. In my defence, my main problem is not with the food per se, but with the contemporary dining out scene, which has an aversion to experimentation and variety.

In Damascus, for example, only three or four restaurants can really claim to be very good restaurants serving Syrian food: Naranj, al Khawali, Perle d’Orient and the Oriental. Grape Leaves, as a place that serves good authentic home-cooked fare could be another, but I need to visit a few more times to be sure.

It really is a shame, because Syrian, and indeed Levantine and Middle Eastern, food can be outstanding, as a restaurant like Moro in London shows, probably my favourite restaurant in the world.

But anyway, to make up for my earlier snootiness, here are three blogs I recently discovered that do credit to Syrian and Middle Eastern food:

Anissa Helou grew up in Syria but now lives in London where she is a professional chef, writer and culinary tour guide, all of which she blogs about here
Joumana lives in the US but grew up in 60s and 70s Lebanon. Taste of Beirut seeks to rediscover old recipes, and to show how varied Levantine cuisine really is
Kano runs Syrian Foodie in London, with a project to document one hundred and one mezze

Try them!

More thoughts on language

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:16:00 +0000

Two interesting pieces on language, to be read in conjunction with my recent piece on language and development:

The Economist’s Johnson wonders whether it’s easy to make big changes to a language, concluding that even when the costs of not doing so are apparent, the costs of changing prove difficult to overcome. The only examples of successful language reforms, he says, have occurred under dictatorships: in Turkey, China and Russia
The BBC reports on efforts by groups to preserve minority languages. On the one hand, we shouldn’t worry about change in language and ‘losing’ languages; after all, they’re only a tool that people adapt to and use as a means to communicate. On the other hand, language does represent a facet of cultural identity, which is an important part of human existence

Do easy languages make for faster development?

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:01:00 +0000

As a relatively competent Arabic speaker, I was gratified to see this recent article on the BBC News website. It reports on a study, explaining that Arabic is actually much harder for the brain than other languages, largely because of the script it is written in.* Apart from inflating my self-esteem, this also got me thinking. Given that some languages are harder for the brain, whether language affects other things in society significantly? Or in other words, does language have an impact on development? Do some languages enable the societies that use them to leap (or gradually pull) ahead?

Is this controversial? Language is something that Jared Diamond picks up on in his epic Guns, Germs and Steel. He says that language is essentially a technology that allows people to communicate and therefore cooperate better, he says. Language develops from being signed, to spoken, to written, each time becoming a more effective method of communication. As language develops, people cooperate more effectively and the capacity of society to achieve, build and do more expands. The causality can go both ways: more advanced language leads to more advanced societies; and more advanced societies develop more advanced languages. More effective communication seems to pave the way for more development.

But the study on the BBC report raises a slightly different point, which is that as well there being more effective languages, we also have more efficient languages, ie, languages that are easier on the brain.

Back to Arabic: I am a relatively competent Arabic speaker. I speak it better than I do French but not as well as English or Spanish. But while I can speak Arabic better than French, and though I can read Arabic script comfortably, I can actually read French more quickly. That’s because it’s written in Roman script. When I look at a street sign in French, I can immediately recognise it and read it. The shapes of the letters and the familiarity of the sounds make it much faster for me to read.

In my case, the speed at which I can read the different scripts is almost entirely due to what is familiar. For a native Arabic-speaker, reading Arabic is much easier. All this really tells you is that I am much less familiar with Arabic than I am with the Roman alphabet. Do the test on a native Arabic-speaker and you would probably get the opposite result (though they would probably be much better at the Roman alphabet than I am with the Arabic one—it’s a matter of familiarity). Conceptually, though, one script must be easier than others. Are Arabic characters, joined-up as they are, objectively more difficult to read? I don’t know. But it’s very likely that languages vary in how easy they are for people to master and to communicate with. Logically that means that a ranking must exist, and that some are more efficient and some less efficient.

You can think of it as a computer application. If Arabic is harder for the brain, then it uses up more computing power, more memory. If I have an application running on my computer that uses up a lot of memory or overworks my processor, it limits what other applications I can run at the same time. A more efficient programme will use, ceteris paribus less memory. A language that is harder will have a similar effect on the efficiency, and therefore productivity, of a human being.

So some languages are more effective and efficient ways for people to communicate. But are some languages better than others from the point of view of allowing societies to develop? Does having a particular language mean that a society will find it harder to attain a given level of development?

It seems likely that the answer is yes. If development is driven by technological growth and communication is a type of technology then language, as a type of communication technology, will have an impact on development by increasing people’s effectiveness and efficiency, even if it is only one (small) variable among others.

Should we do anything about this? Does this mean we should identify the ‘best’ (ie, most efficient and effective) language in the world and then make sure everyone uses it? I would say not. First, if we could find a language that was so hopelessly bad that it is obviously impeding the development of the people using it, then there might be case. I’m not convinced that any language in the world fits into this category. All languages are pretty advanced, in the sense that Jared Diamond talks about.

Second, there are issues around identification and planning. We simply can’t know which language is ‘best’ and therefore any coordinated intervention is likely to be bad. It’s also anticompetitive. If, conceptually, a ‘best’ language in fact exists, it’s better for it to be selected competitively rather than imposed top-down.

Third, the cost of a switchover will in all likelihood out-weigh the (probably very small) benefits, especially when there are already benefits to having language specialisations and aptitudes to particular languages, and positive externalities that already exist from language similarities in particular regions. This means that there is a case for an overarching lingua franca (or perhaps a few of them) that allows people to communicate with people from other societies more easily, but not for a complete switchover. And in fact, the custom of learning a second language, usually English (though frequently French or Spanish), is already well-established.

The trend towards multilingualism is well-established, and it seems to mix the best of all worlds. It allows people to benefit from local positive externalities while at the same time gives people the ability to tap into other languages and cultures, and provides a competitive market for a lingua franca. And as a trip to somewhere like Beirut demonstrates, perhaps most importantly it is remarkably impressive to see people conversing comfortably in multiple languages. A world with lots of languages is a lot more fun that a world with only a few.

* Sample size: 40. How do people get published with this kind of thing?

Whatever happened to Mercury?

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:52:00 +0000

For Brits of a certain age, some telecommunications nostalgia:

The xx may still be basking in the glory of taking home the Mercury Prize 2010—one of Britain’s most prestigious music awards. But what of the company it was named after?

[...] When the first Mercury Prize was carried off by Primal Scream in 1992, its sponsor was at the cutting edge of the rapidly-expanding telecoms sector.

Formed in 1981, Mercury Communications was one of the early products of the Thatcher government’s introduction of competition to state-owned utilities

Why don’t we hear more about Latin America?

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 13:00:00 +0000

From yesterday’s Guardian:

Other parts of the world boom, or fail, or starve and in Europe we tend to know about it. But in Latin America dozens of countries and millions of people exist almost as if on a private planet. More than anywhere else of similar size and importance, it is mysterious and overlooked. There are no big wars to concern us, no extreme famines (though much suffering), no crazy dictators, no nuclear bombs, no internationally threatening terrorists, indeed no unavoidable call on our attention at all other than the consequences of environmental destruction in the Amazon. We can be drawn to Latin America or ignore it as we choose.

By and large, in Britain, we do the latter. It is symbolic that our lavishly funded development department neglects South America entirely, writing it off as a problem or opportunity for others, our small but craven contribution to the idea that Latin America is really a protectorate of the US.

Is what’s true of British foreign policy true of the development blogosphere? My own meagre output on Latin America is a case in point (and I have more reason than most to highlight the region). I can see that development bloggers might focus on Africa, what with it being the most economically needy continent. But why the collective silence on Latin America? Or am I being unfair?

On becoming a randomista

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 12:42:00 +0000

So, I’m about to become a randomista and leave Syria for Liberia. (The country, not the sleepy Costa Rican provincial capital.) More to follow.

First important news from my perspective is that Delta have started operating a flight to Monrovia. Bring on trade, commerce, cultural exchange and more competition among airlines.

(Picture credit: Malaine.)

Reasons to involve Hamas in the peace process

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 14:09:00 +0000

Lexington supports George Mitchell’s argument that Hamas shouldn’t be allowed into the peace negotiations until it has met the ‘preconditions’. The same was required of Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland, he tells us.

Of course there will be no final deal on Palestine without the acquiescence of Hamas, which represents at least half of the Palestinian movement and controls the Gaza Strip. Of course it should be at the table at some point. But Hamas has so far locked itself out of the talks by its refusal to accept the three conditions laid down by the international community: a ceasefire, recognising Israel and abiding by previous agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinians. I understand why agreeing to these conditions is difficult for a movement with Hamas’s history. But, please, no more IRA comparisons.

I think he’s wrong, for what it’s worth. For two reasons.

First, the comparison is wrong. John Major’s government was talking to the IRA long before Sinn Féin were at the negotiating table. Yes, it was all kept under wraps, and they were not allowed into an official peace conference, but nevertheless, if the parties hadn’t started talking when the IRA passed its message to the British government at the start of the 90s, then the whole peace process would never have started. Perhaps the Israeli government is negotiating with Hamas quietly without the rest of us knowing about it. If they are, then that’s great and necessary. If not, I don’t see how the peace process can get started.

My second reason is that while a ceasefire is a reasonable precondition, the others are not. What the peace process is asking Hamas to do is to give away its chief negotiating position and trump card before the talks have actually started. And with no quid pro quo. Perhaps Hamas would never negotiate away this demand. But I find it hard to believe, as do many quite close observers of the organisation. Either way, to expect Hamas to give up this position before negotiations have started is unfair and seems likely to end in failure.

Hamas have hardly covered themselves in glory in the past few days, with the murder of four Israelis. Indeed, as Stephen Walt notes, they are probably trying to spoil the talks, given that they have an interest in their failure. It might be that by negotiating with Hamas, an agreement would not be reached. Fine, but we still need to try it. By not giving Hamas a chance the peace process seems bound to fail. By talking to Hamas there’s a chance that it won’t.

Update. Issandr El Amrani at The Arabist provides more explanation as to why the conditions are unfair.

Disability and development in Syria

noreply@blogger.com (Philip) — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:18:00 +0000

Following on from my post about disability and development, I spotted a piece the NYT has done a piece on the topic in Syria. I should declare an interest: I know the individual profiled and worked on the Open Hands project. But it’s still absolutely worth reading. The nuance of the situation is well-captured.

For five years, Chavia Ali’s attempts to start a disability rights group were thwarted—by prejudice, a lack of money and the Syrian government’s stranglehold on civic life. The government gave her a license, but prevented the group from meeting because of what Ms Ali believes was a whisper campaign against her, a Kurd with a growing profile.

Then everything changed.

Last year, Ms Ali was told that a third of her budget would be paid by a group led by Asma al-Assad, the wife of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. Now Ms Ali, 29, is everywhere, giving television interviews, speaking at ministry conferences and having her picture taken with the first lady.

The reversal of her group’s fortunes is part of an overture that government officials have described as a new embrace of civil society.

But the embrace is complicated...

More here.