Food for Thought: #Nuclearban's Network Character

Global Connectivity

I have written quite a bit encouraging people to be interested in the network aspect of our joint peace promotion endeavors - particularly as it relates to a truly global peace activism community.

I continue to believe that there is a great leap forward that is available to us if we devote more attention to the network character of what we are doing.

It is so close, we can practically taste it. The current work on a global nuclear weapons ban treaty -- particularly connected via social media and #nuclearban hashtag -- brings these network dimensions tangibly close.

In the course of any one individual's activism efforts, they inevitably bump up against the realization that each of us -- even the most prolific, even the most creative -- is limited. But there truly is power in the network: a strong network just keeps getting bigger and stronger and more effective, even as individual nodes (er, people) wax and wane.

What should this realization lead us to do?

Here are three recommendations:


(1) Laboratory Approach

I believe there is a lot that could be learned by putting some of the recent activity (e.g. with respect to #nuclearban) under a microscope.

Activists may not be inclined to sift through several weeks or months of social media communication, but there are lots of talented people who could contribute to this. Data mining and #peacetech are growing areas of interest.

There are existing apps, such as Bluenod, that can be used to take a first stab at this. And there is readily-available data on the major social media platforms -- there for the analyzing by anyone comfortable using a little code. (See Matthew A. Russell, Mining the Social Web: Data Mining Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+, GitHub, and More)

#nuclearban Twitter community on Bluenod

(2) Actionable Research Output

Just about every activist and activist organization engages in social media communication. Most organizations (and even some individuals) have an explicit plan to "up their social media game." Some even have staff devoting substantial amounts of their time to just doing social media campaigns.

It seems reasonable that the laboratory approach suggested in (1) above have as a near-term objective communicating its discoveries to organizations (and individuals) that have a real commitment to using them to become more effective.

That naturally points to the desirability of starting the conversation as soon as possible. If people digging into the true face of the social web-driven global peace community know what activist organizations are already observing and conjecturing, and what they wish they know and what they hope they will someday be able to accomplish, they can be that much more alert in their researches.

For instance, in my very limited experience in this area, it seems to me that the evolving global nature of network raises the question for every activist organization, "How much of our effort should be directed at communicating with people who are already part of our audience? How much to people we are not currently reaching? How do we decide the amount of resources to spend on various approaches? How do we gauge return on investment?" In other words, should we be thinking Montana? or Mongolia?

Mongolia: lots of #nuclear ban supporters
(Please share this message on Twitter.)

(3) Expand the Conversation

As someone who not-so-long ago moved to the Bay Area I'm having an epiphany . . . .

The technology and social media tools we are using today were, in many cases, conceived by people who are profoundly interested in how these (or next stage) applications can help society be better.

Evan Williams

For instance, this article made me think, "Here's someone who's spending his days asking the same questions I am asking!": "'The Internet Is Broken': @ev Is Trying to Salvage It." "'I thought once everybody could speak freely and exchange information and ideas, the world is automatically going to be a better place,' Evan Williams says. 'I was wrong about that.'" By the way, Williams created Blogger (on which this blog is published), was one of the founders of Twitter, and has a new project called Medium.

People like Ev Williams may or may not identify themselves as "peace activists," but they and we share some major concerns, and they have enormous resources to contribute.

Resolved: I will meet some new people . . . and have some conversations . . . even if I have to (gulp) leave the East Bay to do it!


The #nuclearban effort on the ground is surging ahead. Now is the perfect time to explore the network character of #nuclearban -- a little measurement and analysis, a little actionable research output, and some scintillating conversation.


To be continued . . . .


Please share this post . . . .

Food for Thought: Global Markets, Global Brands, and the #Nuclearban

The negotiations on a global nuclear weapons ban are moving inexorably to conclusion at the United Nations.

By coincidence, the US -- the great #nuclearban refusenik -- will celebrate Independence Day this week, just as the negotiations are wrapping up. So it seems like a good moment to remember what Independence Day is all about . . . .

Consumers saying NO!: The Boston Tea Party

Scholars have recently begun to stress that the real revolutionary power of the American Revolution lay in the organized action of consumers in North America who hit their imperial rulers where it hurt: in their trading businesses. (See, for instance, The Marketplace of Revolution: How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence, by H.T. Breen)

As someone who had a long career in international trade, I look at the map of all the #nuclearban-supporting countries from the standpoint of a US-based global marketer, and I think, "Uh-oh ...."

Interactive #nuclearban map from @icanaustria.
(Please share this message on Twitter.)

People ask, "Even if all the #nuclearban-supporting countries enter into a treaty, what difference does it make if countries like the US remain outside the treaty? Where is the leverage to make the US change?"

I suspect that we have an enormous amount of leverage . . . !

Top 100 Global Brands ... including Coca-Cola, IBM, Microsoft, Google,
GE, McDonald's, Intel, Apple, Disney, HP, and more ...

Everything that is happening in the US right now -- really, a state of political chaos -- is a function of how rapidly our economy is changing, and our inability to understand where we sit relative to the global economy. We are the beneficiaries of our integration with global markets . . . and we don't seem to realize how good we've got it, or how quickly we could lose the benefits of that integration.

One thing that I learned during my years traveling around the world as a US business person: people in other countries don't actually love us that much.  I'm not saying that people in other countries have anything against people in the US, but we often float through life in a kind of trance in which we imagine that everything about the US is great! and people everywhere are filled with warm feelings about the US. The truth is that there is a lot of ambivalence.

And that means the US -- the government, the people, the businesses -- don't get a free pass for bad behavior.

I was very intrigued by the actions of Apple CEO Tim Cook several weeks ago. When Donald Trump rejected US participation in the Paris climate accord, Cook hastened to reassure the community of Apple stakeholders:

I know many of you share my disappointment with the White House's decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. I spoke with President Trump on Tuesday and tried to persuade him to keep the U.S. in the agreement. But it wasn't enough.

Climate change is real and we all share a responsibility to fight it. I want to reassure you that today's developments will have no impact on Apple's efforts to protect the environment. We power nearly all of our operations with renewable energy, which we believe is an example of something that's good for our planet and makes good business sense as well.

We will keep working toward the ambitious goals of a closed-loop supply chain, and to eventually stop mining new materials altogether. Of course, we're going to keep working with our suppliers to help them do more to power their businesses with clean energy. And we will keep challenging ourselves to do even more. Knowing the good work that we and countless others around the world are doing, there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic about our planet's future.

Our mission has always been to leave the world better than we found it. We will never waver, because we know that future generations depend on us.

(See "Tim Cook emails Apple employees after failing to change Donald Trump’s mind about the Paris climate deal")

I believe business leaders like Tim Cook are gravely concerned about the political risk to their brands. They understand that their wildly popular brands may be tarred by association with the US - the country where they just happen to be domiciled. In the case of climate, there is a world consensus on the problem, and a daily-growing awareness that those who stand to be hurt the most by the problem are in the Global South. The problem for Tim Cook and Apple (and many other global brands based in the US) is: how can we let our customers throughout the world know that we're good guys -- that we're the ones wearing white hats -- despite the fact that we live in painfully close proximity to a practically outlaw regime?

In the days and weeks ahead, we will likely have a global consensus on outlawing nuclear weapons. And in boardrooms across this country, heated discussion of a new kind of political risk will begin . . . .

RELATED POST: Is there a relationship between #nuclearban and #G20?


Please share this post . . . .

Network Power and the Movement to Ban Nuclear Weapons

The majority of the world's nations voted to bring about a ban on nuclear weapons through negotiations in 2017.

The negotiations will be happening at the United Nations. But make no mistake: the real action will need to be out among the people. Because if we sleep through this, the political will to get to the finish line may just evaporate.

Here's how you can dive in . . . .

Activists worldwide . . .

(1) It's all about the network(s).

We're really not alone in this!

You can instantly access the global network by going to #nuclearban on Twitter.

But our ability to achieve critical mass will depend upon how creatively and thoroughly we build and make use of multiple, intersecting networks of influence.

One small example: this list of activists worldwide helping to advance the cause of the nuclear ban.

Each person on the list connects you to their huge network of activists and thinkers.

Give them your attention for ten minutes a day: they'll give you phenomenal resources.

And then think: how can you add the leverage of your network to this effort?


(2) The central campaign.

Here are your core tools for working on the nuclear ban: nuclearban.org.

The site is provided by ICAN - the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

There's a rich stream of real-time updates on the campaign blog.

And be sure to sign up for the campaign updates and activities.


(3) Many threads.

George Takei on Twitter:
Trump wants to expand our nuclear arsenal.
I think of my aunt and baby cousin,
found burnt in a ditch in Hiroshima.
These weapons must go.

It may sound simple -- ban nuclear weapons -- but it is a massive problem and will call on people from all walks of life, in every country in the world to help get the message across.

Diplomats
Celebrities
Musicians
Journalists
Speech-makers
Memoirists
Campaigners
Scientists
Students
Bloggers
Artists
Teachers
Pastors
Philanthropists
Fundraisers
Analysts
Organizers
Politicians
Physicians
Protesters
 . . . and many, many more . . .

Don't wait for someone to tell you your role. Decide how you can help and dive in!


(4) Anything can happen.

Donald Trump becomes the US president shortly.

As it stands today, the US (together with Russia) is the principal obstacle to global nuclear disarmament. That must change.

Activists and advocates should be prepared to be agile in the face of sudden (and possibly surprising) developments.

(See Messrs. Trump and Putin: CHANGE THIS MAP!)


(5) Show up.

A lot of power is in the hands of a few political powerholders - unfortunately.

 . . . AND . . .

The ultimate power is in the hands of the people. A massive popular outpouring will be necessary to move the US (and Russia) forward.

New York City, Central Park:  No Nukes Mobilization, 1982

UPDATE January 24, 2017: It's on! June 17 in New York City . . . .
 

There's a #nuclearban on the horizon: let's take it to the streets!
(Please share this message on Twitter.)

Please share this post . . . .

A Globally-Connected Peace Movement: What's Stopping Us?

The biggest obstacle to a truly global peace movement may actually be the structures upon which we've leaned for so long . . . .

A globally connected peace movement?

I wrote several weeks ago suggesting that the "Internet of Things" could be a useful framework for thinking about how to network the global peace movement.

To accomplish this, I think we will need to take a step back from things (devices) and even programs and data structures, and begin with the question: what is the problem we might hope to solve?

I was reminded of this in a community organizing meeting recently, when the participants quickly got off and running with talk of websites and databases and user accounts and administrators, and lots of ideas about what we could do, until we realized we were all talking about different things because we had not yet reached a shared statement of what the problem was that needed to be solved.

In my earlier post, I referred to the nuts and bolts of peace work -- the conceptual components, or what computer science people sometimes call "objects." For a long time, much movement activity -- at least the most organized parts of it -- has centered around a few objects: organizations, campaigns, supporters, actions. For a long time, these were the objects that the available technology could best support. (To a person with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.)

I have noticed that more and more people are finding the strength in peace and justice work that is found in affinity groups. That seems to me to be a reminder that the formal attributes of (often rigid and relatively static) organization are actually less important than the powerful benefits that people get from informal, flexible (and often highly dynamic) affinity.  I think there's a lot more to be said on this subject.

For now, I'll tee up a proposal for what is the problem we might hope to solve:

Given the size, global spread, and enormous diversity

of the community of peace advocates worldwide,

how might we help people to

maximize the benefits of affinity,

while minimizing possible costs or burdens?

(Put another way: how can our work for peace go viral, without getting bogged down in national or organizational or other differences?)

Vote on resolution to negotiate a ban on nuclear weapons in 2017 (L-41)
Green - Yes (123, 76%)
Red - No (38, 24%)
Beige - Abstained

Here's a practical example: peace advocates in every country in the world have the opportunity to work for global nuclear disarmament in 2017. How can we harness the available technology to get everyone plugged into what will necessarily be a massive effort? Many people will channel their efforts through the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and its partner organizations. But I think that's just the tip of the iceberg . . .

To be continued.

Please share this post . . .

WAR: Headed for the junkheap, yes . . . but how quickly?

John Lennon would have been delighted to be remembered for provoking people to get serious about moving to a world beyond war -- fast!

Yoko Ono and John Lennon: "War Is Over!"

John Lennon was born on this day in 1940.

When he and Yoko Ono held up a sign saying "War Is Over!" the Vietnam War was raging and theirs was a voice in the wilderness.

Today, more and more people are realizing that war is going away. Society is moving in the direction of rejecting war, just as it has already rejected slavery, just as it has already rejected men-only voting.

There is a growing movement of people focused on the "world beyond war."

To many of these people, the question is not "if" but "when?" They share a conviction that the world will get there, and they see that it makes a difference how quickly (and in what manner) the world gets there.

Think about it: it's easy to imagine a world beyond war a thousand years from now. It even seems likely that a hundred years from now we will look back and say, "People in 2016 sat by while war raged in Syria - can you believe it?"

Would it make a difference if the change happened within 50 years, instead of a hundred?

Could it happen faster?

(What might cause it to happen faster?)

Check out Doing Good Better by William McAskill. He is a leader in the "effective altruism" movement and he stresses exactly this kind of thinking. McAskill urges us to identify some world-changing development that is on track to happening, and make it happen faster.  (More resources at https://www.effectivealtruism.org/resources/#books )


So . . . three questions for people who find this approach inspiring vis-a-vis ending war:

What is different when you adopt this new frame -- "war is going away; the question for me is how fast"?  In other words: a lot of people are opposed to war, but what might look different when a group of people approach war as a soon-to-be-obsolete institution?

     ... for more see The Mind of the "World Beyond War" Activist

How might adopting this new frame enable people to see more clearly the strategic points of impact to cause the more rapid disappearance of war? In other words: there are dozens of tremendously important ways to engage in peace work; but which ways might have the greatest impact on the rapidity with which war becomes a no-go?

     ... for more see Where to Put Effort for a World Beyond War

How could we use organizational power in the pursuit of this work? If we had a clear view of what's different about this approach, and we had prioritized strategic points of impact, the question would then become: how could we throw organized money and organized people into the effort?

(To be continued . . . )

Global Peace Movement: Big, Networked, Diverse

The global peace movement: We're big. We're getting networked. We're diverse (and therein lies our strength).

"Peace is Universal" - shared on Twitter V @marianoGROVETON

Last year I paused to reflect after Peace Day (September 21) and identified 10 aspects of the peace movement that I thought were (and are) important.

This year I'm getting even leaner.

I think there are three (3) things we in the movement need to pay attention to. Everything else follows from that.


(1) We're BIG!

We tend to bemoan the fact that "there aren't enough of us."

In fact, there are COUNTLESS people out there devoting themselves to peace work of various kinds.

They're in every country.

They're of every gender. They're of every age.

They do it in their jobs and they do it as volunteers.

Do you doubt it? Scroll through some of the peace workers I follow on Twitter.

A big moment for me came when I realized that not everyone doing great peace work lives where I live, or looks like me, or is even doing the kind of work I'm doing. Once I started to explore the real extent of the movement, what I found surprised me!


(2) We need to be networked

"Sure," I hear you saying, "there are huge numbers of people working for peace. But how do we connect with each other?"

I'll be writing more about this. For now, I'll just put forward a couple of observations:

(a) I think we need to view "connecting" as a central and ongoing task. Each of us needs to make it a daily discipline, and I think we need to devote a significant percentage of our time to making connections.

(b) The low cost of connecting via the Internet works to our advantage.

Setting some goals is the first step.

(Here's an idea: Using social media, try to notice one new person doing peace work each day. Take a few minutes to look at the work they are doing, think about it, and bring them and their work to the attention of others. This morning, I shared information about Japanese peace activist Kozue Akibayashi.)


(3) Our diversity is our strength

We are diverse: that's a fact.

Working on A Global Security System: An Alternative to War helped me recognize the many threads in any attempt to describe the peace movement. In a given day, I might be tuning in to communities focusing on nuclear disarmament, counter-recruitment in schools, the connection of development to peace, the occupation of Palestine, faith-based activism, the use of technology for peace work, general antiwar activism, and more . . . .

Now, the peace movement is subject to self-criticism that says, "We're not united enough" and or "We're not focused enough on the main thing."

The strategic challenge we face is to wake up to the fact that -- globally -- we are pursuing peace work in diverse ways . . . and then figure out a way to take advantage of the inherent strength in the existence of these diverse approaches.


I'll be talking more about this, you can be sure!


Related posts

September is a big month for peace work organizing - the UN International Day for Peace is September 21. As you plan your peace work for September, consider how you will directly and/or indirectly participate in and support of these activities taking place around the world.

(See Make Your Plans for #PeaceWork in September)










Twitter is certainly a powerful way to quickly form connections with others in the movement.

(See Suggestions for Successful Twitter Activism)














Yesterday was the UN International Day of Peace (2015). The day nudged me to think about what -- if anything -- I feel I really know about peace and the movement for peace. Here are 10 things that are true for me . . . .

(See #PeaceDay 2015 - Ten Thoughts on Peace)

PEACE DAY 2016: What comes first? Demilitarization? or Development?

Sustainable Development Goals

According to the official UN site, this year's #PeaceDay theme is: "Sustainable Development Goals: Building Blocks for Peace."

This caught my attention because of the (close but not total) overlap between the Sustainable Development Goals and the elements of the "Alternative Global Security System" proposed by World Beyond War.

Moreover, in recent weeks, I have been putting more and more effort into interacting with the Twitter streams with peace activists in countries all over the world, and I see a strong interest in the Sustainable Development Goals. 

The Sustainable Development Goals are:

(1) No Poverty
(2) No Hunger
(3) Good Health
(4) Quality Education (See Education for Peace? or "Education IS Peace"?)
(5) Gender Equality (See Gender Equity and Peace: Let's ALL have a say in conflict resolution)
(6) Clean Water and Sanitation
(7) Renewable Energy
(8) Good Jobs and Economic Growth
(9) Innovation and Infrastructure (See SOLAR PANELS: A Force for Peace in Africa?)
(10) Reduced Inequalities
(11) Sustainable Cities/Communities
(12) Responsible Consumption
(13) Climate Action (See Peace Day 2016: 3 Ways Climate Action is Vital)
(14) Life Below Water (See Pacific Fisheries' Futile Conflict: How about sharing?)
(15) Life On Land (See SDG 15 and Peace: "We are but one thread ... ")
(16) Peace and Justice (See SDGs: Does US Militarism Harm "Peace and Justice" (and Other) Efforts?)
(17) Partnerships for the Goals

My hypothesis is that it will benefit us antiwar activists in the US to attend to and reflect upon the importance of these Sustainable Development Goals to achieving the goal of ending war.

Goal #10 -- reduced inequalities -- is one I've already made some effort to think about -- but I need to go deeper.

Moreover, I plan to spend time each week between now and September looking closely at each of the specific goals, and inviting comment on how they might fit into a unified global effort to put a stop to armed conflict and move toward peaceful development for everyone.


Related posts

In 2015, the UN International Day of Peace on September 21 nudged me to think about what -- if anything -- I feel I really know about peace and the movement for peace. Here are 10 things that are true for me . . . .

(See #PeaceDay 2015 - Ten Thoughts on Peace)







How might an uprising against inequality and dismantling the military-industrial complex dovetail?

(See WHERE'S MINE? Inequality in the US and the Military-Industrial Complex )







What value might be obtained by having a really high quality "channel" on social media that people can tune in to for news and ideas about war abolition?

(See #NOwar - Permanently Trending on Twitter? YES!)