No cake for the Working Class

I just finished baking my “friendship cake” as passed on to me by my best friend last week and as I stirred the remaining batter into the greasy pan, I was outraged by the series of police sirens that wailed down the street into Stratford, East London. London is bracing itself for one of the worst riots and it all began after a man was shot by armed police yesterday. A second riot kicked off later this afternoon as a young woman claimed to have been assaulted by a police officer. Police cars, buildings and public transports have been set alight by disgruntled youths, and ordinary citizens have turned their hands to crime, breaking through window shops to loot everyday goods that are otherwise affordable. While an exemplary modern city that attracts thousands of foreign visitors, London is just another illustration of the unsaid divide.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg promised to put aside their party differences when the Coalition Government was formed but all we have seen is the Tories strangled hold on its power over the Liberal Democrats. In April 2010 Nick Clegg warned that Tory cuts would lead to riots. Now he's a Tory Minister himself he sees no connection. People are angry with the growing gap between the treatment of the rich and the poor. In the news, police and politicians blame criminal thugs and undisciplined youths for the violence that London is experiencing but the real damage was done when the government implemented its dividing policies upon the British people. There are no jobs, education is three times as expensive and social welfare has taken a backseat in the political hub, it is no wonder that the youth – once again – are revolting for change.

Development begins with the nurturing of young minds but when young people are not given the chance to thrive, they will turn their hands to areas that may otherwise seem illicit. How are parents supposed to support their children through school when the welfare system is riddled with heavy bureaucracy that even an educated person struggles to worm through? How can a young couple be expected to start their life when jobs are sparse and the price tags on homes are beyond reach? How is the government expected to understand social problems when politicians keep themselves so out of reach from ordinary citizens that they no longer know what is real? The divide is no longer a gap but a valley filled with the lost and disenchanted. And this divide is appearing in almost every country as we witnessed in the United States and the Middle East.

Grassroot politics is required at a time when grassroots movements are growing. A new system of governance needs to be administered where people from diverse backgrounds, beliefs and social orientation need to be pulled together to form a united understanding to the unsaid divide. It is no longer acceptable that inner city families and young people are expected to keep to their side of town. Government officials need to take with them a thick pad of paper and pen, open up their ears to all the voices that are screaming around them and be brave on taking on board policy changes from the ground. Politics should never be about party interests. It should always, and remain to be, about the people it promised to take care of. Maybe politicians should cut through the riot with a friendship cake. 

Translating Policy into Practice

Back in March 2011, the Gender Action for Peace and Security (GAPS) held an interesting event on Women, Peace and Security. The event looked into translating policy into practice based on the book edited by Dr. Karen Barnes, Eka Ipke, Njoki Wamai and Dr. Funmi Olonisakin and emphasising how turning concepts into reality is harder to do after its inception. A former diplomat once said that “policies are like fashions - they come and go.” If so, then what is the point of negotiating a policy if its implementation is weak and ineffective? Organisations like GAPS exist to keep the spirit of certain policies alive but we must unite the work of diplomacy, grassroots and policy-makers in order to generate new insights and remove barriers to effectiveness.

The purpose of the event was to reflect on the strength of the UN Security Council Resolution 1325, which was the first global resolution that took into account the role of women in peace and security issues. More than ten years since its creation, the resolution is still struggling to make a full impact in many countries and one of the problems is the lack of monitoring and accountability made by the state. Policies, for the most part, are created for change but for change to appear there must be a willingness to change behaviour.  Much of this change must be tackled and mobilised on the ground but those in powerful positions have the tools and influence to make change a reality. Translating policy into practice is subject to multiple layers of implementation and each layer may challenge the effectiveness of this process. For instance, countries and organisations must challenge the status quo so that policies are incorporated in agendas and is embedded within the social norm for any change to take into effect. There may be a problem of power distribution, matters of corruption over privileges or lack of political will for change.

Grassroot Diplomat recommends that diplomats tap into local NGO expertise and support them to upscale their efforts. This is to ensure that there is easy flow of information between ground mobilisation and top policy-makers and to avoid an overlap of reoccurring mistakes. We could also draw lessons from other countries to reflect on why other countries under-perform when implementing policy.

Here are a few reasons why policies fail and challenges in implementing policies effectively:

Why Policies Fail

1. No clear link between project and strategic priorities

2. Lack of top level ownership and leadership

3. Lack of effective stakeholder engagement

4. Project and risk management not applied

5. Poor senior level understanding of supply industry

6. Evaluation driven by price not long term value

7. Implementation not broken into manageable steps

8. Inadequate resources and skills to deliver

Why Policies Aren’t Put Into Practice

1. An inadequate understanding of the issues to be addressed  

2. Lack of clear ownership and well-focused leadership

3. Failure to define appropriate measures of success

4. An inadequate analysis of changes in the external environment

5. Lack of realism about how the policy will work in practice 

6. Failure to secure buy-in from those affected and those responsible for service delivery

7. Failure to secure or develop the capacity and capability for successful delivery

8. Failure to identify and manage risks and plan for unforeseen events

9. Failure to establish an effective framework for monitoring and evaluating performance

10. Poor management of the policy making process itself 

Diplomatic Loyalties

Imagine this. You are a diplomat representing your birth country, but your heritage lies with two other states from your parents and you are married to a non-native national. You are proud of your heritage, you love your family, and you are a strong supporter of the country you declared yourself to. One day, your country starts a fight with your partner's country, and you have to lead the negotiations which may split the country, create political refugees, and potentially turn to war. Where does your loyalty lie?

This is quite an intricate question that many diplomats have to struggle with. As a British woman from Bangladeshi origin married to an American, I wonder what I would do in that situation and find myself thinking hard for quite some time in silence. Of course, my obligation would be to my country but this would lead problems within my personal life too. How does one separate such loyalty? This thought process was spurred on by an interesting article I found written by former UK Ambassador Charles Crawford, published in the June 2011 edition of Diplomat, which I have abridged and edited below to share with you. I feel that I will need to clarify my self-identity and fully prepare myself into the diplomatic world where my personal and professional loyalty may one day conflict.

In his article, Charles Crawford highlighted the case of Anwar Choudhury, a senior British diplomat of Bangladeshi origin who joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office after working for the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Office. He served as High Commissioner to Bangladesh but was subjected to an attempted assassination in 2004 by local extremists enraged by Mr Choudhury's sense of 'belonging' to the UK.

Crawford then highlighted how "the double agent who did the most damage to British intelligence operations was George Blake, another person with ambiguous private loyalties: his mother was Dutch, his father a naturalised British subject of Turkish/Jewish origin. Blake ruthlessly betrayed dozens of agents who were working for the UK against the Soviet Union, many of whom were believed to have been executed. Sentenced to 42 years imprisonment for his treasonable activities, Blake famously escaped from prison in 1966 and made his way to Moscow where he lived in comfort and honour. He insisted that he had never felt British: 'To betray, you first have to belong. I never belonged,' he said."

"All this suggest that central to the idea of loyalty is self-identity. Few diplomats go through a career without having grave doubts at different points about the morality or wisdom of the instructions coming from HQ." Yet Crawford notes that only a small number of diplomats resign from instructions coming from HQ. I instantly think of former British diplomat Carne Ross, who resigned during UN negotiations for the Iraq War and has since set up his own organisation Independent Diplomat to help territories and groups become formally recognised as states. 
Crawford goes on to say that - "Different reasons and rationalisations are found for staying loyal even under extreme circumstances (for example when the leadership of the state the diplomat represents is busy brutalising its own people)." To this, Crawford brings up the fate of Danish diplomat Paul Bang-Jensen who took his own life in 1959. Accordingly, "Bang-Jensen refused to hand over to his superiors at the UN a list of names of Hungarians who in strict confidence had testified against communist atrocities in Hungary. Bang-Jensen feared (not without reason) that top UN processes had been infiltrated by communists who wanted to retaliate against the relatives of those who sought to publicise the truth. His unwavering loyalty to honesty rather than the demands of the UN hierarchy cost him his job and led to his tragic end."

The emergence of Bangladesh as an independent state in 1971/72 gives a striking of what happens when one state splits in two. As Bangladesh's struggle to break from Pakistan intensified, Pakistan's diplomat Abul Fateh faced a painful dilemma in deciding whether to stay on as Pakistan's Ambassador to Iraq, or choose an uncertain future with his native land. Fateh decided to join Bangladesh which caused the Pakistani government to furiously denounce his defection. However, in Fateh's decision, he went on to play a distinguished role in establishing Bangladesh's new diplomatic service and represented his country in Paris, London and Algiers. That said, the current Libya case has given rise to a spectacular number of high profile diplomatic changes of side, with one Libyan ambassador after another denouncing support for the opposition forces struggling to bring down the Gaddafi regime. 

Crawford surmised, "...unwelcome problems quickly arise if some diplomats in an embassy switch sides but others don't. Who is running the local Libyan embassy for the purpose of carrying on routine diplomatic business? Who gets invited to which functions? Does a Libyan diplomat who has announced a switch of loyalty still get diplomatic immunity? What about the official embassy care? What if the uprising fails and Gaddafi wins - must we throw these people out of the Libyan embassy? How these questions and many others are answered will depend upon local circumstances and, perhaps, the personalities concerned."

Crawford notes that the worst outcome would be if the violence has no obvious end in sight, which makes us question the outcomes of the Arab Spring. Until now, the Middle East has yet to have its own revelation so there are bound to be political resistance. The Gaddafi elite are clinging on to power despite NATO forces blowing up significant quantities of military equipment. The Libya drama exemplifies the greatest challenge to any diplomat's loyalty to his/her country: what to do if the country slumps into civil war or even disappears altogether?


So, what would you do in such position? What would British diplomats do if Scotland holds a referendum and opts for independence? How do diplomats cope with the instructions of HQ if every nerve in their body rebels against it? Would you rather trust the government you work for, or the family that have always been by your side? It's not an easy question to answer, but it is one that all diplomats must one day be prepared for. 


Full article: http://tinyurl.com/6hs6vjm

Conflict within Conflicts

To celebrate the 10^th anniversary of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom organised a special autumn seminar in 2010 to analyse the objectives and successes of the resolution.

For the first time, a UN resolution provided women worldwide with a legal tool of empowerment which helps to assert their demands against violence and injustice. In a major conference in Beijing 1994, women challenged the realist concept of security by renegotiating gender at the heart of peace and conflict policy-making. UNSCR 1325 puts women squarely in the centre of security issues, promising gender mainstreaming into institutional structures that is otherwise male-dominated, and encouraging governments to be represented by women in key political positions as a means to achieve equality and gender neutrality.

Ten years on, and the progress for gender equality is slow due to a lack of political integrity and resources. At this seminar, Professor Nicola Pratt of Warwick University highlighted how the resolution fails to factor in the gender stereotypes of victims and peace-builders, and does not address imperialist and capitalist ideologies that guarantee national sovereignty. The language fostered in the resolution also does not rightly condemn war, nor does it prosecute gender violence created by armed conflict and military activities. The resolution does not explicitly define the meaning of ‘conflict’, which is probably why countries, such as the United Kingdom has only adapted the resolution to its foreign policy.

When we think of the word ‘conflict’ within an international political context, countries in the Middle East or Central America may pop up in reference to drug cartels, dictator regimes, or internal repression. But when thinking of conflict issues in politically stable countries, I think of youth gangs, gun crimes, racial and sexual discrimination, and political ideology.

For the most part, Britain is a relatively safe country with a democratic and diverse society that adheres to strict national laws. But like many other metropolitan cities, London isn’t without its fair share of trouble. Conflict in the UK exists in the form of forced marriages, rape, domestic violence, living with firearms, gender oppression, and gang violence, all of which are prevalent in British news and policies.

Three years ago, the Metropolitan Police started a massive crackdown against youth gang violence in inner London areas, stating clearly that anyone harbouring weapons like knives or guns would be sent straight to jail. According to Carlene Firmin of Race on the Agenda, applying UNSCR 1325 into these forms of violence creates problems of integration because domestic or gang violence is not formally recognised as a ‘conflict’. Carlene notes that birth and association is a determinant of victimisation for girls and women associated with serious youth violence and criminal gangs across the country and are often made scapegoats in police investigations. For example, when the Metropolitan Police started its anti-weapons campaign, gang girlfriends would be prosecuted for harbouring weapons that were forced onto them in the first place. Race on the Agenda found that girlfriends of gang leaders were subjected to threats, violence and domestic abuse, and were pressured into joining gangs by her partner without any safe exit strategy. If we adapt this scenario into the Democratic Republic of Congo, UNSCR 1325 will instantly apply, but the same cannot be said for the UK despite apparent gender injustice. As a type of conflict, gang violence deals with shifting control and power in relationship in the same way as violence is created in less urban surroundings.

Like many resolutions, UNSCR 1325 is critiqued for speaking for all women and has a ‘one size fits all’ bandage in resolving all types of conflict, ignoring different political systems, culture and economies. When framing UNSCR 1325 into British social conflicts, a high level of disillusionment is apparent in our political system. Young women are invisible when developing, testing and implementing policies and will continue to be excluded if the definition of ‘conflict’ remains as vague and aloof to urban conditions as it is now.

Recommendation: Domestic law should not override international policies but be considered in sync with domestic consultations and policy framework.

Britain's love for arms trade

A country without trade is like a person without friends. Dialogue becomes unnecessary. Communication is non-existent. Amicability ranks second best. With all this, diplomacy has no justification without trade. For Britain, commercial diplomacy has historically provided investment, stability, security and alliances and such a strategy still applies to contemporary diplomatic governance.

Commenting on the February White Paper, British Foreign Secretary William Hague addressed that “business is part of our commitment to inject a new commercialism into the Foreign Office, using our international influence to help British businesses secure new trade opportunities.” To this, he refers to high technology defence exports including the sale of arms, aerospace and security equipment to overseas markets that do not have their own defence industry.

Defence export accounts for about 3% of Britain’s manufacturing exports with a 20% market share in partnership with the US. The arms trade has an annual sale of above £17billion with the biggest customers placing orders worth £13bn. Although these figures are not as big as it was during the Cold War, Britain is seeking to become more competitive by broadening out its capacity to selling defence and security equipment to countries that clearly violate human rights policies.

Under the Coalition Programme, the UK Trade and Investment Defence and Security Organisation (UK TIDSO) reasserts that the government will only permit responsible defence exports that are used for “legitimate purposes, not internal repression”. This policy is based on the EU Common Position on Arms Export adopted in June 1998, which states that export licenses will be refused if there is a risk that defence equipment will be used:

-        -   for aggression and internal repression

-        -  to provoke or prolong an armed conflict

-        -  to assert territorial claim which may lead to war

Unfortunately, there is growing evidence that Britain has and continues to misjudge the risks appropriated to selling arms to allies and partners who break the promise to uphold their end of the bargain. Since the 80s, the UK has dealt extensively with Saudi Arabia totalling £1.7bn with the Al-Yamamah contract considered to be the largest deal made. According to the Financial Times, British export licenses since 2009 have covered submachine guns and tear gas in Bahrain, military components for helicopters in Algeria, hand grenades to Jordan, and machine guns to Egypt. Reports have also uncovered evidence that British defence contractors BAE Systems have sold shotguns to Morocco, tear gas and hand grenades to Saudi Arabia, night vision goggles and body armour to Yemen, and small arms ammunition to Syria.

The UK purposefully attempts to plug the gap in domestic sales in the Middle East as UK TIDSO regards oil-rich states of Algeria and Libya as their priority markets in the region. The agreement to supply Hawk, Tornado and other aircraft and support systems was the UK’s biggest ever export agreements, so the market gap is clearly evident. However, these Middle Eastern countries only elaborate the level of hypocrisy exercised by the government because such licences breach policies to the protection of civilians against internal threats. Official reports show that the British government approved £6.1million in arms export to Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. Yet, we have seen Gaddafi declare war on his own people, using weapons supplied by Britain against civilians and journalists. The UK was surprised that a former ally had broken the lease of their contract but has argued that there was no evidence that British tear gas was used against peaceful demonstrators. To make matters worse, Prime Minister David Cameron was forced to explain why he and his delegation were seen promoting the sale of arms to post-Mubarak Egypt instead of endorsing democracy.

In line with the EU Common Position on Arms Export, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) revoked more than 50 arms licenses from Bahrain and Libya since the uprising as a means to protect civilians from aggression and war. However is it not too late to revoke licenses when uprisings and aggression has already begun? Apparently not, because during Tony Blair’s tenure, the government approved military licenses to human rights violators including Sri Lanka, Algeria, Zimbabwe, and Columbia which only exposed the hypocrisy to Robin Cook’s ‘ethical foreign policy’ strategy. In the Human Rights and Democracy Report published in March 2011, the FCO recorded 26 countries with serious human rights concerns including the ones stated above. So why does the government not learn from its mistakes?

As set out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review, the government will promote defence and security exports for ‘good’ commercial reasons which help to build the capacity of British partners and allies, potentially reduce their own acquisition costs and gain comparative advantage in key technologies, skills and know-how. Business seems to take the lead over the moral high ground particularly when considering its national interest and objective. 
According to a government dossier, the UK security export is calculated at £1.5 billion with the value of defence contracts to be £7.2 billion. This makes UK TIDSO one of the leading defence and security industries having licenses with over 96 overseas markets, which helps to secure 300,000 jobs for British people. This means 1.2 million people rely on the arms trade to make a living. 

In his interview with Total Politics, William Hague noted how important it is for Britain to retain a global presence, by using diplomatic networks to support UK business. He said that, “…the expansion of world trade, including our trade with growing economies, is one of our most fundamentally important national objectives… Good trading links and expanding economic links can often go along human rights and rule of law [which is why] …the commercial emphasis that we place in our foreign policy… is fundamentally important”.

In short, defence and security trade is important in connecting Britain to markets in key regions and will continue to be an investment to Britain’s trading infrastructure. Hague says: “You have to have a good legal reason to stop people exporting things…we can’t, just on a whim, say that there’s a whole list of things that we’re not exporting [just because] we don’t like the look of you. We have among the toughest criteria in the world for exports under successive governments”.

The government believe that its trading policy and restrictions are rigorous and fair as it complies with international commitments, but even government ministers have ordered a review into the issuing of arms export licenses. There is no doubt that the government needs to set out how it intends to reconcile potential conflict of interest between promoting arms export and upholding human rights but tighter regulations are required to minimise risk and errors of judgment. Trade is at the heart of diplomatic missions, but the danger of trading defence and security equipment is not knowing who you can trust.

Understanding the Oil Market

With the Middle East and North Africa uprising, the prices of oil in many developed countries have spiked, with critics urging for countries like Saudi Arabia to turn the taps on its oil reserves in order to keep prices reasonable. Others have argued that the world would be a better place without a commodity that pollutes the Earth and causes wars to erupt over vulnerable and scarce resource with only thoughts of capitalist greed and corruption amongst ruling families and political elites. While I agree with both, I read an interesting commentary from Alan Duncan - International Development Minister and adviser on oil supply - in a parliamentarian magazine (The House), which I wanted to share as a means to better educate readers on the complexities of the global oil market.

In his commentary, Alan Duncan addressed how dependent we are on oil in running our daily life, for without the supply of oil, "the world simply would not go round". Amidst the current upheaval in Libya, commentators are looking towards Saudi Arabia to solve the supply problem, but switching from Libyan oil to Saudi oil isn't as simple as possible. Duncan states that there is no such thing as 'the oil market', rather that there are many markets within it, each with their different significance. According to Duncan, there are well over a hundred different qualities of crude oil, each with different characteristics affecting the diet of an oil refinery. Some crudes are heavy and good for making bitumen, others are light and better for making petrol. Some are full of sulphur, whereas others share the runny consistency of washing liquid or hardens like butter. Libyan oil is made up of lighter low-sulphur which cannot easily be substituted for Saudi crude that does not share the same property. Also, many factors - such as shipping costs, insurance rates, demurrage rates (price paid for a ship's delay at port) - affect the prices of crude rather than straightforward supply volumes.

In closing, Duncan warns that we are living in dangerous times and the factors which could influence the price of oil, and hence the unwelcome cost of filling our car at the petrol station, are affected by much more than scarce resource and conflict in the originating countries. And such factors complicate the nature of a simple switch over from one type of oil to another.

From Home to House

When on a job search, you should have a plan. The plan should consist of the goal of finding a job, without wasting time in wandering aimlessly and hoping to land the next job you see, despite it not being your ideal role. When I noticed how slim the pickings were for a paid job in the field of government relations, it made me realise that I should not limit myself to unpaid work - only if it meant moving forward to something extremely fulfilling in the near future.

This leads me to state that I have my foot firmly in the door of political relations - a position that aligns me with the work of central government and policy processes of political parties in the United Kingdom. Just a week ago, I was appointed the intern position of Policy and Casework for Member of Parliament (MP) Lynne Featherstone, who is the nation's Minister for Equalities since the Liberal Democrats joined forces to form a coalition government with the Conservative Party in May 2010. This is an extremely exciting opportunity for me, not only because I will gain first-hand experience on how to deal with British politics, but being mentored by the Minister for Equalities falls neatly into my advocacy work for women's rights and youth empowerment.

As the Policy and Caseworker, I will be responsible for drafting and corresponding to problems and policy queries of constituents on a range of social and national issues, assist with constituency-related policy research, and produce reports of enquiries. While the work is based at the constituency office in North London, this internship truly fulfils the mission of Grassroot Diplomat, as it allows me to wedge myself between grassroot advocacy and central government bureaucracy. Once this internship is complete in three months' time, I will surmise how this internship has helped me move forward to the next step.

Exciting times!

"Women in Diplomacy" published

I have the pleasure to announce my postgraduate dissertation has been published by American Diplomacy. The paper entitled, "Women in Diplomacy, 1990-2010" examines the role of British female diplomats on overcoming gender hierarchy.

As summarised by American Diplomacy, this assessment of the role of women in the British diplomatic service and the difficulties they have faced and can still face in breaking through the "glass ceiling" may be echoed in most of the world' diplomatic corps.

I focused the research on identifying entry points, approaches, methodologies and tools to support gender mainstreaming at the local, national, and regional levels of the diplomatic structure. Through gender analysis, I identified potentials, good practice and remaining challenges in increasing the participation of women in high-level politics and diplomacy in national and local development.

Here is the link: Women in Diplomacy, 1990-2010

Save Prof. Yunus from the smear campaign

Professor Muhammad Yunus – Bangladesh’s Nobel Peace Laureate who utilised the concept of micro-financing to support the work of women in his country. He was once a man who was a celebrated national hero, earning the love and respect of many across the world. But caught in a political vendetta with Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, Yunus is being forced to resign from his own company, the Grameen Group, with Bangladeshi news reporters insisting that the Founder and CEO had been embezzling aid money for personal use. Certainly, this claim was fortified when a Norwegian documentary built upon this allegation. However, Norwegian government officials found no indication that this was done. 

This news was first shared to me by my mother, who in near tears, spoke of how Yunus became a corrupt figure. Money drives people to power, and those with power instantaneously become corrupt. I had met and befriended Prof. Yunus in February 2010, and I found it incredibly hard to believe that a man so soft-spoken, so polite, and so passionate about his work would be stealing money away from the people he had been working tirelessly to help. As someone from Bangladeshi origin, I feel truly passionate about the work Prof. Yunus had started, and fully endorse him and his efforts to anyone that is willing to listen. Naturally, it hurts to see what some are doing to tarnish his image.

With £50 in his pocket, Prof. Yunus started the bank by lending to the country’s poorest and most vulnerable. For once, women were able to seek funds to start up small projects of their own, without permission from their husbands or having to turn to banks that were charging insane amounts of interest. Everyone is now aware of the role of micro-financing in the empowerment of women. The same model has been replicated in countries all over the world with similar positive results, and any tools of female empowerment - I strongly support.

In an effort to stop this smear campaign against Prof. Yunus, I call upon you all to sign the petition below and revive his reputation amongst the Bangladeshi community. We sincerely hope that the Government of Bangladesh and its leaders will take necessary action to stop this smear campaign and give Prof. Yunus the respect he deserves. Show your support and do what you can.

http://www.petitiononline.com/a110115z/petition.html 

Jobseekers: Are you too good for them?

Faithful to my mission, this blog was originally set-up to document the journey into the "real world" straight after graduating from my Bachelors degree. As my followers have witnessed, I kept up with the fast moving pace of politics and international relations by attending international summits, putting my heart into volunteer projects, and establishing fantastic contacts which pushed my career foresight to completing a postgraduate degree in Diplomacy.

Two months since graduating, I can't help but ponder how I managed to establish a brand for myself with great credentials and good professional experience, but still finding it incredibly difficult to compete in the marketplace. Not only was I unlucky to graduate at a time when the economic crisis showed its ugly face in 2008, but one would have thought that two years later, the economy would have picked up just a little bit! This is far from the truth. Unlike the United States which is steadily moving out of high rates of unemployment, the United Kingdom seems to be taking two steps back in pulling itself out from this economic depression. Unless you are a labourer or a senior anything, you're bang out of luck in the UK. Not only is there a recruitment freeze in all government sectors - local and central - but even an unpaid internship is not an option for me. Sourcing from feedback I received from a London-based embassy, my credentials and experience was too strong for an internship because they believed I would not have gained anything remarkably valuable from the experience. Another source told me that my resume was "impressive" and I was an incredibly strong candidate, but there was a "high calibre of excellent candidates that made the mark better". What does this mean exactly? Perhaps I shouldn't have bothered to pay for my postgraduate or UN training if in hindsight I knew I would be turned away for my credentials. Political professions seem to think that I have my "foot in the door" already, but I shake my head vehemently at that remark, living at home and being too afraid to spend what little money I have to my name. 

From my short experience in the hunt, I have one advice for jobseekers: don't sulk! Keep your skills sharp and read up on the area you claim to specialise in, because once you do get your big break, you need to stand out and know what you're saying. As one of my strongest skills, I am still networking, HARD, and have managed to set-up 'informational interviews' with career diplomats and the like as a means to get my name out and establish relationships for future endeavours. Working out is a great way to keep your mind from getting cluttered by a dark stormy cloud, and constant interaction with friends is a great fluff-buster of thoughts that may ordinarily stop you from sleeping due to stress. Here I sit, writing these thought with a cup of McFlurry, and hope that everyone who has a job that they love are thankful every day for it. I know for a fact that if I managed to get my foot into the sector of my choice right now, I would excel in that role at every capacity possible because I would want to prove to teammates that I am extremely glad to be there with them!