Official and unofficial dialogue is the name of the game. Which can become official and unofficial negotiation. We all need to understand the English terms ‘dialogue’ and ‘negotiation’.
‘dialogue’ is between two parties, individuals or groups, who are talking and listening to one another, and willing to take some points from this kind of dialogue, to enrich the society, culture etc.
Negotiation could be understood as used in a time of conflict, when we disagree on the same issue as our opinions are far away from one another. We sit down as 2, 3, 5, 10 groups or parties to negotiate together because if we do not negotiate, we will not be able to live in peace.
Negotiation and dialogue need a beginning and an end, a concept and result, a vision and power to implement. Negotiation and dialogue without and end or power to implement is an absolute waste of time. And it could lead to what we become afraid of: radicalism, extremism, terrorism.
This would create a status quo of despair amongst nations - particularly the youth of such nations which will lose faith in us. Let us respect the value of our civilisation, of our religions and of our neighbourhoods and give in on our dialogue and negotiations so the other party might believe that they have won. We make them happy, and then we ourselves can be happy – not all of us are not looking at our own interests but at the interests of the community.
To create a win-win situation, we have to be bold enough to risk losing – to take the first step down.
Tuesday, 18 May 2010
The industry of life and death
Life and death are facts. We observe them every day, but quite often we do not learn from the experience as much as we should. It’s very easy for a child to cut a flower or break a window, or for a man to uproot a tree, or demolish a building. It’s very easy for a careless driver to knock down a bystander with their car or for a gunman to shoot haphazardly into a crowd and kill unsuspecting victims, or plan to destroy a building, bridge, house or people. Sometimes a process of destruction only takes seconds; sometimes an hour or two.
If we look at the industry of death, we find its goals are very easily achieved. What we build in years, decades and centuries is often destroyed in minutes, hours, days. But while it takes seconds to destroy, it takes lifetimes to protect and preserve. The industriousness of living is what God has created us to develop, so we can struggle together, work collectively, compliment one another and salute the achievement of every being.
Somebody wants to take his life: why should he take his neighbour’s life with him? Not only that, why should he take his own life? We need to preserve life, to prevent this waste. We need to change the mindset and philosophy of those destructive people, from that of the industry of death to the industriousness of living.
Some people think that when they get killed they are martyred. But martyrdom is beyond being killed by, or killing others, and if we look back at the history of mankind, who came to the planet as messengers or prophets, we can see that God through his wisdom did not make them war-bringers: to be killed on the battlefield. God in his wisdom wanted them to become the founders of the industriousness of living, not of death. Every day, we count the number of innocent dead who have been blown up by a suicide bomber in different parts of the world. But if you go to the little girl whose father and mother happened to be passing through the market at the time the incident happened, and ask her why she is crying, she will say ‘daddy and mummy will never come back’. What fault did this little one, and her daddy and mummy have, to be punished in such a merciless way? Is this really what God wants of his messengers?
Religions, prophecies, messages and messengers are not about killing innocent people or promoting the industry of death. It is about saving, preserving and bettering the lives of others; producing the industriousness of living. This is what God wants from all of us. Let us guide, advise the death industrialists, and take them by the hand to show them how we can together produce the industry of living.
If we look at the industry of death, we find its goals are very easily achieved. What we build in years, decades and centuries is often destroyed in minutes, hours, days. But while it takes seconds to destroy, it takes lifetimes to protect and preserve. The industriousness of living is what God has created us to develop, so we can struggle together, work collectively, compliment one another and salute the achievement of every being.
Somebody wants to take his life: why should he take his neighbour’s life with him? Not only that, why should he take his own life? We need to preserve life, to prevent this waste. We need to change the mindset and philosophy of those destructive people, from that of the industry of death to the industriousness of living.
Some people think that when they get killed they are martyred. But martyrdom is beyond being killed by, or killing others, and if we look back at the history of mankind, who came to the planet as messengers or prophets, we can see that God through his wisdom did not make them war-bringers: to be killed on the battlefield. God in his wisdom wanted them to become the founders of the industriousness of living, not of death. Every day, we count the number of innocent dead who have been blown up by a suicide bomber in different parts of the world. But if you go to the little girl whose father and mother happened to be passing through the market at the time the incident happened, and ask her why she is crying, she will say ‘daddy and mummy will never come back’. What fault did this little one, and her daddy and mummy have, to be punished in such a merciless way? Is this really what God wants of his messengers?
Religions, prophecies, messages and messengers are not about killing innocent people or promoting the industry of death. It is about saving, preserving and bettering the lives of others; producing the industriousness of living. This is what God wants from all of us. Let us guide, advise the death industrialists, and take them by the hand to show them how we can together produce the industry of living.
The Unanswered Questions
Every day, new questions arise for us to answer – us, our politicians, communities, and leaders. But the unanswered questions people have been raising for the last century remain. I’m wondering who will have the courage to put the answers on the table of humanity.
Once upon a time, the world woke up to find a crisis which I call the ‘OFF’ crisis: a crisis of Oil, Food and Fuel. These three components have shaken the whole world, particularly the silent majority of the poor and the most marginalised, who don’t suffer from the loss of the equity value, but rather from every cent added to their daily living expenses.
We are still witnessing appalling catastrophes in DRC and Somalia, and nobody claims to have the solution; the answers to the question of why the gap between the rich and poor has become a chasm. Is this the result of free market economy? Global economy? Transnational and multinational businesses? Why should we have more poor when we are becoming richer?
What is fuelling the flames of the world’s conflicts? Is it war lords and arms manufacturers? Or is it the international community? Who’s paying for the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Is it the Afghani and Iraqi people? The neighbouring countries and the region? Or is it the countries in the west – the taxpayers who are funding the defence budgets?
Is the solution to ideological, theological and cultural problems military action or security measures? What solution can we find on our humanitarian menu?
Many humanitarians adopt a ‘do no harm’ policy – but this can often mean inaction in the face of crisis. Does a ‘do no harm’ policy actually cause harm? Does it mean we fail to stop agressors and wrongdoers through not interfering? Indeed, should a ‘do no harm’ policy call our humanitarian neutrality and impartiality into question?
Who is responsible for the world now? Who is governing the world? And are the policies and actions of global government bodies upholding the rights of humanity and humanitarian principles or degrading them? Are our governments driven by the economy or by the needs of their people? We talk about respect, equality and fairness, but we need to believe in them, even if it means a material loss to ourselves.
Why is there so much conflict between different faiths and belief systems? Aren’t we ultimately all striving for the same goals? Can’t we make space for each others’ faith and beliefs? Are we trying to create a new global system to replace the existing one, or are we interested only in our own desires? The most precious being is the human being who is losing his or her life – millions every day. Who amongst us is responsible for the daily loss of innocent life?
HIV/AIDS has become not just a medical problem, but a social issue too. Is our policy just to live with it? Or to eradicate it, and how can we protect our children from contracting it?
What are the real causes of climate change? Is it our ignorance or our partners who share the planet – birds, animals, trees etc? Or is it the industrial drive which only serves its own interests?
Nobody knows how many billions or trillions of dollars are spent on curbing the newly created monster that is terrorism, but what is becoming all too clear is that we cannot meet the millennium development goals because we haven’t enough resources. But who’s deciding where resources are spent?
Are we fuelling conflict or are we diminishing its fire? What is our role as individuals leading governments and global institutions, when the plethora of conflicts is on the rise by the second? Can we really call natural disasters by that name, or are they at least to some degree man made? When it rains, are we a part of the flood, the tsunami, the hurricane? We need to redefine what we mean by natural disaster, by climate change, by global warming, and pollution. What are the root causes and where will it take us?
I don’t believe God makes people suffer. I believe that we need to take responsibility for our actions and inaction, and for the consequences: for conflict, for illness and hunger, for violence against women and abused and abandoned children. At the very beginning of the new millennium, we should have the courage to find real answers to these questions instead of fighting the fires that we ourselves have lit.
There are too many ‘why’s, ‘how’s ‘who’s. But while we’re looking at all these questions, we don’t pinpoint the real solutions– we need a champion who will say ‘I will’ or ‘we will’.
Are our Millenium Development Goals complete, fulfilling the needs, or do they need to be revised? Or is it our other goals which need revision: those more self-interested goals which do not look out into the world, but can’t see past our own advancement?
My last question is one that keeps many of us awake at night. What is the value of our life if we fail to value the lives of others? Valuing human life cannot be a passive activity. I wish one day that our subconscious will be more aware that ‘do no harm’ can be very harmful. ‘Do nothing’ does not reflect neutrality, but rather indifference to suffering and putting our interests in the security of the few before the survival of many. Humanity does not need a new religion or a new messiah, but it does need new believers in humanity. Let us all believe together in shared common humanitarian values that can save all of us before it’s too late for us and our children.
Once upon a time, the world woke up to find a crisis which I call the ‘OFF’ crisis: a crisis of Oil, Food and Fuel. These three components have shaken the whole world, particularly the silent majority of the poor and the most marginalised, who don’t suffer from the loss of the equity value, but rather from every cent added to their daily living expenses.
We are still witnessing appalling catastrophes in DRC and Somalia, and nobody claims to have the solution; the answers to the question of why the gap between the rich and poor has become a chasm. Is this the result of free market economy? Global economy? Transnational and multinational businesses? Why should we have more poor when we are becoming richer?
What is fuelling the flames of the world’s conflicts? Is it war lords and arms manufacturers? Or is it the international community? Who’s paying for the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Is it the Afghani and Iraqi people? The neighbouring countries and the region? Or is it the countries in the west – the taxpayers who are funding the defence budgets?
Is the solution to ideological, theological and cultural problems military action or security measures? What solution can we find on our humanitarian menu?
Many humanitarians adopt a ‘do no harm’ policy – but this can often mean inaction in the face of crisis. Does a ‘do no harm’ policy actually cause harm? Does it mean we fail to stop agressors and wrongdoers through not interfering? Indeed, should a ‘do no harm’ policy call our humanitarian neutrality and impartiality into question?
Who is responsible for the world now? Who is governing the world? And are the policies and actions of global government bodies upholding the rights of humanity and humanitarian principles or degrading them? Are our governments driven by the economy or by the needs of their people? We talk about respect, equality and fairness, but we need to believe in them, even if it means a material loss to ourselves.
Why is there so much conflict between different faiths and belief systems? Aren’t we ultimately all striving for the same goals? Can’t we make space for each others’ faith and beliefs? Are we trying to create a new global system to replace the existing one, or are we interested only in our own desires? The most precious being is the human being who is losing his or her life – millions every day. Who amongst us is responsible for the daily loss of innocent life?
HIV/AIDS has become not just a medical problem, but a social issue too. Is our policy just to live with it? Or to eradicate it, and how can we protect our children from contracting it?
What are the real causes of climate change? Is it our ignorance or our partners who share the planet – birds, animals, trees etc? Or is it the industrial drive which only serves its own interests?
Nobody knows how many billions or trillions of dollars are spent on curbing the newly created monster that is terrorism, but what is becoming all too clear is that we cannot meet the millennium development goals because we haven’t enough resources. But who’s deciding where resources are spent?
Are we fuelling conflict or are we diminishing its fire? What is our role as individuals leading governments and global institutions, when the plethora of conflicts is on the rise by the second? Can we really call natural disasters by that name, or are they at least to some degree man made? When it rains, are we a part of the flood, the tsunami, the hurricane? We need to redefine what we mean by natural disaster, by climate change, by global warming, and pollution. What are the root causes and where will it take us?
I don’t believe God makes people suffer. I believe that we need to take responsibility for our actions and inaction, and for the consequences: for conflict, for illness and hunger, for violence against women and abused and abandoned children. At the very beginning of the new millennium, we should have the courage to find real answers to these questions instead of fighting the fires that we ourselves have lit.
There are too many ‘why’s, ‘how’s ‘who’s. But while we’re looking at all these questions, we don’t pinpoint the real solutions– we need a champion who will say ‘I will’ or ‘we will’.
Are our Millenium Development Goals complete, fulfilling the needs, or do they need to be revised? Or is it our other goals which need revision: those more self-interested goals which do not look out into the world, but can’t see past our own advancement?
My last question is one that keeps many of us awake at night. What is the value of our life if we fail to value the lives of others? Valuing human life cannot be a passive activity. I wish one day that our subconscious will be more aware that ‘do no harm’ can be very harmful. ‘Do nothing’ does not reflect neutrality, but rather indifference to suffering and putting our interests in the security of the few before the survival of many. Humanity does not need a new religion or a new messiah, but it does need new believers in humanity. Let us all believe together in shared common humanitarian values that can save all of us before it’s too late for us and our children.
Thursday, 6 May 2010
The biggest challenge: preserving issues or serving interests?
Quite often, God inspires us to have a magnificent idea: one that can serve our community or even the whole of humanity. When someone has such an idea, they call upon their closest friends to discuss it with them. If the group accepts the idea they will change it into a small project which they can look after.
In a year or two the group will start thinking about developing the project, to make it more organised and structured. The group will collectively decide to change the project into an organisation, because the capacity of the organisation is now wider than the scope of the project that the organisation is serving. In the following years the group will think again and then again about institutionalising their organisation and it will change from a small community based enterprise to a national organisation.
To move from the inception of the idea to the making of the institution, we have to go through a bottleneck. And the most difficult challenge to overcome is to continue to serve the idea – to remember the issue and to preserve our community product, rather than to serve the organisation, its structure and quite often the individuals who run it.
If the organisation fails to focus on the original idea as it grows, it will fail in its objective and will suffer a downfall. This is the problem we face nowadays with political parties, groups, movements and structured organisations, who quite often forget the great idea which led to their existence and instead begin to focus on the group, the party, or individual interests. It is the big challenge facing all of us at times of election or change because all these parties’ interests are not compatible. They don’t compliment each other, but rather each would like to uproot the others, forgetting that the resources they have are national, communal resources, and each community needs to see the resources working.
Unfortunately I have seen this happening not only in political parties, but also inside humanitarian organisations which still claim to champion humanity. But if we are really looking to preserve and grow our civilisation, we have to ensure our organisations and institutions keep serving humanity by being true to their ideals. Only then can they develop it and change it into ideology and global community culture. This won’t happen if they are serving the organisations’ interests.
I hope this will be – for me as well as others – a wakeup call to keep serving the cause of our existence, which is to serve God, through serving his people.
In a year or two the group will start thinking about developing the project, to make it more organised and structured. The group will collectively decide to change the project into an organisation, because the capacity of the organisation is now wider than the scope of the project that the organisation is serving. In the following years the group will think again and then again about institutionalising their organisation and it will change from a small community based enterprise to a national organisation.
To move from the inception of the idea to the making of the institution, we have to go through a bottleneck. And the most difficult challenge to overcome is to continue to serve the idea – to remember the issue and to preserve our community product, rather than to serve the organisation, its structure and quite often the individuals who run it.
If the organisation fails to focus on the original idea as it grows, it will fail in its objective and will suffer a downfall. This is the problem we face nowadays with political parties, groups, movements and structured organisations, who quite often forget the great idea which led to their existence and instead begin to focus on the group, the party, or individual interests. It is the big challenge facing all of us at times of election or change because all these parties’ interests are not compatible. They don’t compliment each other, but rather each would like to uproot the others, forgetting that the resources they have are national, communal resources, and each community needs to see the resources working.
Unfortunately I have seen this happening not only in political parties, but also inside humanitarian organisations which still claim to champion humanity. But if we are really looking to preserve and grow our civilisation, we have to ensure our organisations and institutions keep serving humanity by being true to their ideals. Only then can they develop it and change it into ideology and global community culture. This won’t happen if they are serving the organisations’ interests.
I hope this will be – for me as well as others – a wakeup call to keep serving the cause of our existence, which is to serve God, through serving his people.
Tuesday, 4 May 2010
Finding new energy : poverty alleviation through technology
Last week, I attended an extremely interesting and inspiring meeting: the Powerful Initiative Meeting, hosted by Practical Action at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. This meeting brought together stakeholders from businesses, foundations, think tanks, the UN, NGO and INGOs to discuss access to energy and energy services in the developing world and at the alleviation of energy poverty.
I was very moved by the wealth of discussion during the meeting. My relationship with Practical Action began 3 months ago when we met in Clarence House, hosted by HRH the Prince of Wales. The Prince’s Start Initiative is a new plan to introduce citizens of the UK to new energy initiatives and show where we can all save energy and become friendly user of our valuable resources for life.
For somebody like myself with no background in energy poverty, I thought poverty only hit humans in the more well documented forms - of food, housing, finance and health – and as such was eager to learn from the experts. But it soon became clear to me that in an increasingly industrialised world, a lack of access to energy – energy poverty – is increasingly a big problem for the world’s poorest.
The question which came to me was: what are the consequences of energy poverty compared with absolute poverty humans suffer from? What are the scales of both of them? If we are truly serious about eradicating poverty, then where does the need for energy sit in the big picture? The most important conclusion was that we need to transfer our technology to the poor countries, rather than export our product. Many emerging economies are based on reverse engineering and copying technologies. The new patent laws which have emerged in recent years have safeguarded the inventors, but often put a stranglehold on poor nations who have no chance to develop their industries.
Exporting our technology to poor countries might provide a short term solution, but when we leave, we take the technology with us. Only technology transfer enables poor communities to build social industry which in turn will enable them to be financially independent in the long term. Our Corporate Social Responsibility to them should not only be a financial contribution, but should be the sharing of our technology to build the industrial social fabric of their societies. This should not only be used for energy but for any field in which we can empower people by the technology we have.
There has to be positive technology transfer and skillshare, not just moving the factory to poorer countries, without safeguards or proper partnership. There must be gatekeepers: Government, civil society, local businesses, INGOs and CSR can help to ensure that technology transfer is effective and sustainable.
Our advances in technology and energy research should be used to train, empower and build capacity – all too often they instead lead to exploitation, ruin and societal disintegration.
Friday, 30 April 2010
Macedonia: A dream coming true.
‘Balkan’ is a word which is made up of two components, meaning ‘honey’ and ‘blood’. It is perhaps a fitting name for a region in which there is so much that is sweet and good, but where there has also been so much bloodshed.
During our recent conference in Skiopje, Macedonia, one Bosnian participant suggested a new name: ‘Balhan’ which would mean ‘honey’ and ‘water’. The participant was expressing a deep wish – a dream that all citizens of the Balkans need to see become a reality: a future of peace and a break with the violence of the past.
The Humanitarian Forum had to fight with that great natural/supernatural force – Iceland’s volcano – to reach skopje, capital of Macedonia. It was a question of travelling through the ashes which were preventing thousands of people from going home. Many of our members from Europe and the Middle East couldn’t make it in person, and there was a time when we had to think seriously about cancelling this long-awaited event.
But in the end, we decided to go ahead – and I am very glad we did. Fifty representatives came together, from the local Civil Society Organisations of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Serbia, Kosovo and Albania. Our ‘Balkano’ meeting seemed like a challenge to the volcano – we were saying ‘you can’t deter us!’ Some of our members still managed to get there from Turkey, Kenya and Iran – I myself took a ten hour car ride from Istanbul with a colleague in order to make the meetings.
The most important aspect of the A HOPE for the Balkans conference was the spirit of dynamic discussion between different ethnic and religious groups. Here was Natasha, a Serbian from Belgrade, leading a mixed group of Muslims from Macedonia and Albania. Jason, who represented World Vision, led another group of Bosnian, Macedonian and Kosovan participants. Amer from ICRC lead another, equally diverse group.
This spirited and dynamic dialogue was most encouraging. To see so many actors from so many areas meet the challenges facing the development of a regional civil society together – to find both collective solutions and answers to the common problems – was inspiring.
One participant told his colleague that this was the first time in his life that they had met together with so many different people. A second representative wondered that he had travelled all the way from Tehran ‘to meet his neighbours’. It seems that for us the continuous process of communication is the foundation of confidence building, which leads to operational engagement of different CSOs from different cities and countries. This communication and operational engagement will be the bedrock of humanitarian partnership – not only in the Balkans but anywhere in the world.
We want to create A HOPE for the Balkans: an Alternative Humanitarian Operational Partnership Engagement between CSOs representing different ethnic and religious groups. This is really the dream that we can make a reality – a new ‘Balhan’ region.
So let the volcano bring ashes – we’ll bring the fire of unity. Let the sky be shadowed with dark clouds – we’ll bring the light of partnership. When the wind competes with us at breakneck speed, our steady determination will win through.
Our Balkano meeting was more dynamic than the Volcano!
Monday, 26 April 2010
Breaking old habits, forging new paths in Somalia
I’ve just returned from a marathon trip. I was away for a month and in that time, I visited (amongst other places) The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Balkans, and Nairobi and Somaliland, where I spent sixteen days with a range of stakeholders, discussing the challenges, successes and obstacles for the humanitarian sector in Somalia. These days, humanitarian actors are struggling to reach those in need in Somalia; conflict and crisis make access difficult. This was why many of our meetings were held in Nairobi, and many organisations working in the area expressed concerns about the security issues.
One problem seems to be that there’s a set way of working in Somalia: a status quo, which has become a habit. It’s not just there: it's easy for all of us to fall into a comfortable pattern in our humanitarian work: we work a certain way because we’ve always done it that way. It can be comfortable, but it’s not always what’s best for the people in dire need. We need to address this issue before we can jump into creating a comprehensive humanitarian sector.
Over the sixteen days, I attended more than thirty meetings. Participants came from embassies, governments, UN agencies, INGOs, local organisations, and the business sector, to name a few. But we came to this conclusion: still more dialogue is needed if we want to include everyone, in the issue of humanitarian access.
Participants were Muslim and non-Muslim, and we welcomed the participation of local and grass-roots organisations. Many were concerned with personal safety; all accepted that a discussion with all stakeholders - without excluding anyone – was needed in order to ensure humanitarian aid to everyone.
We consider these 16 days the second round of extensive consultations with most of the stakeholders – the first round was our conference in October. In the third round, which will be soon, Insha’Allah, we’ll expand our reach again, this time hoping to reach all stakeholders: to enable more humanitarian organisations to deliver aid material to different and remote areas of Somalia where the need is dire.
We were carrying a purely humanitarian message, to everyone, including governments, organisations, businesses, groups and the international community. We don’t want to be misunderstood or misread. The human need in Somalia is more than the imagination of decision makers can understand. We need to put our humanitarian spirit to the test; to balance our impartiality. If we really claim that we are the champions of the needy, we must take on board that the championship is won by delivering on people’s expectations, not by talking and doing nothing. We must give hope, and remove the conditions that breed radicalisation.
The message of humanitarianism is beyond the scope of politics, tribalism, sectarianism and ‘groupism’, not to mention the religious ‘isms’ that can abound. Since we believe the message of humanitarianism is far more universal than all of these, we have to work collectively to a sustainable solution for the humanitarian catastrophe in Somalia, as well as everywhere else.
The answer is a collective comprehensive effort by all of us, even if some of us will need to implement it on behalf of all. The time for working as individuals is past: all individuals must come together in a common cause, setting aside their differences to address the need collectively, as a community.
Let us discuss serious issues. What do we mean when we talk about security and insecurity? Do we mean the security of the vulnerable community? Do we mean the security of our national field staff? Our international field staff? Do we mean the security of our organisations? Or is it the security of our funds we worry about the most? We need to be very honest about our interests when we claim to be champions of vulnerable people – to go beyond our own partialities, and put local civil society organisations at the centre of our operations. Our first responsibility is not to ourselves, but to the local community.
So we should not give up striving –however many rounds it takes – to create sustainable, ongoing security in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)