International learning as it happens

The Libya drama has afforded me a glimpse of learning, as it happens, in international relations.

In blockbuster movies we are trained to expect the lead actor to make the big moves, but this script can get stale, and right now, we the media audience, are looking for a bit more than this in the Libyan situation. It appears that the regular lead, the USA, is attempting to surprise us by not simply swashbuckling their way into the lead role. The world waited for a big move from the USA, but they made us wait. Their actions appear to be informed by recent history, and their involvement is now conditional on the full approval of their international peers.

America was even slow to comment, and in the story linked to above, the Sun newspaper is quoted saying, that had America listened (to what the British PM was saying about a no-fly zone), Libya might already be liberated. Commentary like this suggests a belief that a complete, final, and decisive action is almost obligatory once America finally gets into its head what the ‘rest’ of the world understands. As if resolving conflicts too difficult for everyone else, is as simple as flicking a switch in their military basement. Not this time! US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said this conflict will be resolved by Libyans themselves.   

In Learning by watching teachers are recommended to set a ten minute timer, and count at each interval the students not actively engaged in learning. At the end of the lesson they should average the number of non-engaged students, and multiply this against a separate figure that represents the amount of uninterrupted learning time during the class. The resulting measure provides an indication of the amount of learning taking place during the class.

I propose a similar measure to determine the learning occurring in international relations. At the outset of an international crisis we note down the major players, and we consider down time as the time until one of the players declares their official position. To consider whether players are really engaged and giving their best towards a solution, we have to consider the quality of their engagement. Are their ideas just work that they have handed in before, or is there some improvement in their submission? Remember, turning in the same work is self-plagiarism, and could be considered ‘smart-alecky’ at this level. Excuses like, ‘Not my business’ = not engaged.

Now if the main leads can step back once the momentum is seen to belong with them, and others step up to take on more, then that really would demonstrate an international learning culture.