WYLT… Attend to this public lecture?

What Happens to the Hillary Doctrine in a Trump Administration?
Visiting professor Valerie Hudson will discuss the Hillary Doctrine and gender in US foreign policy. Professor Hudson will explore the implications for the Women, Peace and Security agenda under the Trump administration and the future of gender perspectives in US politics and policy.
Dr. Hudson is a professor from The Bush School of Government and Public Service, and Director of the Women, Peace and Security Program at Texas A&M University. Dr. Hudson is an expert on international security and foreign policy analysis, as well as gender and security. Her publications include, Bare Branches: Security Implications of Asia’s Surplus Male Population, Sex and World Peace, and her most recent book, The Hilary Doctrine: Sex and American Foreign Policy
Thu. 9 March 2017
6:00 pm – 8:00 pm AEDT
Monash University Law Chambers
555 Lonsdale Street
Melbourne, VIC 3000

The Importance of Storytelling


After a well-deserved break, the MIDPAssociation Blog Team are back and winding up for an exciting year to come. Our new Content Editor kicks us into the New Year with this timely piece on storytelling… 

For me, storytelling is one of the most complex forms of empathy that human beings possess. It just so happens that one of my favourite authors Ursula K. Le Guin wrote a critical piece on communication where she explains that the act of telling and listening to a story is not as simple or as passive as we assume. In sharing a story, we become part of something bigger than ourselves. Both storyteller and recipient become connected by something intangible; both parties become part of a whole. It does not matter if the story is not about you. The ability to feel empathy for a stranger is what redeems human beings.

Take for instance, this incisive article on The Guardian about the power of memory and the importance of context and cultural sensitivity in visual arts. What I found so enlightening about this production is that Angelina Jolie herself explicitly says: “This is not my story”. The fact that the Khmer-language film boasts of an all Cambodian cast and crew seems to reinforce the idea that the target audience would indeed be Cambodians. This is not a Hollywood blockbuster set in China but featuring a white Caucasian male as its hero or protagonist, or another film about a particularly daunting episode in a developing country’s history that is conveniently narrated in English and features an all-star American/British cast.


Every story has an intended audience

As the superb Uma Kothari reminded us in her talk last year on Visual Solidarity and Everyday Humanitarianism, when it comes to presenting narratives, the media is never unbiased. As a matter of fact, media often encodes ideology and underlying perceptions of those running the story. This is precisely why storytelling is so important. If we consider the impact we can have – not just telling a story, but by HOW we tell that story – it becomes evident. We are not the passive spectators we would like to believe.

Therefore, stories can also be dangerous. If we look at events from these past few weeks, the term ‘doublespeak’ has been repeated incessantly with regards to Trump’s Press Secretary’s accusations that the pictures released from his Inauguration were indeed false and meant to harm Trump’s image. Stories can be used to belittle a mostly all-female movement that shook the world but was ironically analysed and discussed by a mostly all-male panel on CNN. Stories can be used to divide. Stories can be used to justify the unjustifiable.

Therefore, we should always be aware that the stories we tell or the posts we share on Facebook will likely have an impact. It is important to be mindful of what you are writing and for whom, and what the consequences can be. This is of particular importance in the development sector, as the manner we narrate development efforts can affect how marginalised people are perceived. We need to ask ourselves: is this my story to tell? Am I contributing in a positive way or am I just perpetuating existing power imbalances? Am I contributing towards stereotyping and marginalising the voiceless?


Storytelling as an act of defiance

While this piece might be grim enough to be narrated by Lemony Snicket, there is one positive thing I would like to highlight. The most wonderful trait of stories is that they connect us to one another. Yes, stories are responsible for shaping our thoughts and ideas on a certain topic, but they are also responsible for generating empathy. Indeed, what we need now more than ever is empathy. This is why storytelling can be a powerful act of defiance.

Here at the MIDPAssociation, whilst being wary of how the next four years may unfold, we remain excited for this fresh academic year. Through all the uncertainty, there is one crucial point we can hold on to: our peers will continue to inspire us. Few things are more motivating than being surrounded by incredible human beings. We are looking forward to a year full of new surprises, new faces, and new challenges.

So come on, stand up, be defiant, share your story.


Democracy ominously repeats itself: what happened in Colombia?


A Colombian friend has offered their take on the referendum and what it all means. Is there hope? Will the conflict ever end? What will Colombia do now? Contributing to this, our Editor first offers reflections on public referendums generally and what they mean for democracy, peacebuilding and beyond…

2016 will be remembered, if at all, as a strange dark year.


A British Perspective

“Democracy is sick” a close Colombian friend declared when their Peace Referendum was announced. I could not quite fault them, as a victim of Brexit myself. For I too had silently come to a conclusion that full public referendums were not the enlightened acts of truly democratic states idealists may have hyped them up to be. They were in fact, purely in my opinion (of course), susceptible to scare-mongering and fact-manipulation on all sides.

How could the general public truly vote with clear heads, clear hearts? We elect politicians to make the complicated decisions on our behalf, why should we then suddenly consider ourselves experts on whether the UK should remain or leave? I still do not understand the finer intricacies because I certainly never received an education on what the European Union meant to Britain, what our membership entailed. But as a recent student of human rights, I certainly did not wish to relinquish the UK’s membership to one of, if not the only, world’s shining example of an effective human rights court.


“Britain votes to leave the EU”

I will never forget where I was June 24th when the Brexit result surfaced: newly arrived in Beijing, my first ever trip to China. Fresh off the Trans-Mongolian railway from UlaanBaatar, I was checking into my hostel tired, in need of a shower and a good bed. Connecting to the WiFi my phone went nuts “Britain votes to leave the EU“. My heart stopped, yelling too loudly “What the…” I was in shock for at least 5 minutes. Immediately after recovering my senses, I inundated my family’s WhatsApp group with the result, not realising that my message would be the first they read upon waking up, before seeing the news themselves.

Perhaps it is because I am British and therefore subjective that I still cannot fully comprehend how the Leave Vote won at Brexit. Perhaps it is in part because I left the country in February and did not witness the mayhem of the final weeks: the articles, TV spots, Obama (well I witnessed that, but from afar). One thing I do comprehend is the nature of the referendum, it was important and will shape generations to come but my friends felt able to tease me mercilessly: the jokes poured in, Memes, GIFs, puns, my European friends spared me not an ounce of sympathy…and they could because really it was not personal.


Déjà vu

Two weeks ago however, sitting at work in the early morning, it was an entirely different situation. Covertly watching a Live Colombian news channel, my friends haphazardly translating over WhatsApp for me, the results were announced and it felt like Déjà vu, except it wasn’t. October 2nd was about ending a conflict and unsurprisingly no jokes popped into my head, no puns, no mirth, no sarcasm. A country had voted no to Peace, what next?


A Colombian Perspective

On the 2nd of October a referendum took place asking the people of Colombia if they were or were not in favour of the agreement signed between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the government. Just over 4 months earlier, on June 23rd, this agreement was published and released to the general public, initiating a massive campaign by the government to demonstrate the work of four long years of negotiations.

The signed agreement is based on six points: rural reform, political participation, ceasefire, the drug problem, justice and how to implement the agreement. I had the opportunity to read the whole agreement and in my understanding it was a way to find a solution for more than 50 years of war, it was not perfect but it was a beginning to change. The agreement focused on trying to stop war as fast as possible, giving chances to FARC to adapt itself to the political system and stop using violence as a method to gain political power.

Arguably, the main problem with the agreement is that a huge percentage of Colombians do not believe it brings justice, that FARC members will not get the punishment they deserve for atrocities committed during the last years. This situation raises the question of what is more important: justice or peace?

The Colombian government made a reference that voting not in favour of the agreement was to be in favour of perpetuating war and that those in favour of voting no maintained the discourse that voting to be in favour of the agreement was to promote terrorists getting into power. These two discourses created a highly polarised population at the polls on October 2nd, the results were Yes 49.7% and for No 50.2% with this only representing 37% of the voting population.

Most of the people I know feel upset with the results. As I see it, a no vote is a way to bring all political factions together and create a better agreement. Those political leaders proclaiming for the No should now bring solutions to the table and a way to construct a real durable peace.

This is the moment for all Colombians to really understand what peace and justice are, together finding a balance that is desperately needed, to find a solution to decades of war.

How would you balance peace and justice?