How was the biggest ever online Security Jam?

What's that? Well, it is explained here - about 5000 registered participants from 124 countries, 4.000 comments and ideas about the security of the future. Open for everyone who registered and logged in with their own identity between February 4 and 9, 2010.

The main convenor was the Security and Defence Agenda. Its roots go back to early 2002. Under the patronage of Javier Solana, Chris Patten and George Robertson, the new Brussels-based think tank was launched to provide a neutral meeting point for defence and security specialists from NATO and the EU.

The Jam partner were institutes and think tanks such as Chatham House, SIPRI, Carnegie Europe, the Munich Security Conference, the Bertelsmann Stiftung and Europe's World, to mention some. It was officially supported by the EU, NATO and by France, Sweden and the United States.

The invited VIPs who had been asked to introduce a series of themes were high-level EU and NATO people - military and diplomatic - think tank leaders, some politicians, ministers, media and a few civil society leaders.

The Jam was divided into forums where themes were discussed - political context, capabilities and budgets, crisis preparedness, security and human rights, environmental security and what was called the comprehensive approach. Everybody could start their own thread and take up whatever issues they felt important.

This is how the organizers expressed the aims of it all:

"The best ideas will feature as key recommendations in a report which will be presented to the leaderships of the EU and NATO, amongst others, at an official event in April 2010. This influential report will also be sent to 50,000 people worldwide. At a time when a great deal of strategic thinking is taking place, these decision makers are eager to hear your views. Make your voice heard."

In and of itself this was a fascinating initiative. It indicates also the totally new global dialogue possiblities that are now opening up thanks to technological developments, in this case brought to us by IBM and InnovationJam.

While the Jam officially was to focus on security, the overall aim, everybody emphasized, is peace and stability. Sadly, virtually no one discussed what peace could be and few could be said to be experts on that subject, let alone subjects such as conflict-analysis, reconciliation, negotiations, mediation, forgiveness, etc.

You will already have gathered from the above info that this was an event where mainstream people and institutions thought they were really doing a daring, explorative, free-thinking thing. Quite a few made solemn statements about the importance of thinking in new ways and meet 'the challenges of the future' without saying a single innovative word themselves.

The great trap in these elite circles is that the generalised - but unfortunately outdated- understanding remains that security with a dominant military component leads to peace. The opposite idea - that peace policies could lead to security and have to do with intelligent conflict understanding - seems to be too advanced to be grasped by more than a handful of the participants.

In addition - would you believe it? - there were no discussion of nuclear weapons as such, only the repetitive and largely irrelevant reference to nuclear proliferation. Only within very thick walls, roofs and floors would it be possible to not see nuclear weapons as a threat in today's world.

Oh, holy self censorship!

Happily, the convenors themselves seem to have sensed the winds of change. They sent out a mail towards the end in which it is stated:

"The Security Jam is in its final phase and if there's one question that it raises amongst all others, it is what can civilians contribute to shaping global security in the 21st century? More importantly, it asks what will be the role of civilian groups and individuals in defining, influencing and helping carry out the security policies we need to make the world safer, and to ensure all our futures."

How interesting and promising: What some of us have been saying for decades is now dawning upon mainstream, namely that the world needs more civilian approaches!

The question is to which extent the involved institutions and their staff will be able and willing to hear that their thinking is slightly outdated and act upon it by inviting people from outside their boxes?

I am looking forward with excitement to the final Jam report, to see how well the things we, the small minority of peace people, said will be reflected. Let's hope that the mainstream security elite will listen and take action in the right - civilianising - direction. If sent to 50.000 it could indeed have an impact.

But, to be honest, perhaps I remain enthusiastic about the Jam more because of the technological possibilities than because of the discussions. Many of us ought to do similar jams on peace and collaborative development, etc.

Will IBM give us this free of charge because we have less funds than these institutions and the EU and NATO but have a few important things to say that could even benefit IBM?

As you may know, one of its first leaders, the visionary Thomas Watson Sr., felt so strongly about the connection between business and peace that he had his slogan “World Peace Through World Trade” carved into the exterior of IBM’s new World Headquarters (1938) in New York City.



Jan Oberg
February 11, 2010