Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
They have that while some agencies, funds and programs have kept their distance from C/PVE (OCHA, UNICEF, UNFPA) -- most have ultimately participated in the agenda and implemented some sort of C/PVE programming
They outline a fairly damning list of seven issues, from allowing member states to ‘blue-wash’ (!) their abusive, corrupt, exclusionary, discriminatory governmental practices, to failing to manage risk and fueling threat inflation
The key conclusion is a kicker: "Continuing on this trajectory appears likely to lessen the UN’s ability to help solve the most pressing global challenges in just and lasting ways, and could gravely diminish the UN in the eyes of future generations"
On armed groups, they talk about a core, long-standing problem (below). This issues transcends CVE. This type of stuff is notoriously difficult to generate “evidence” on that convinces sceptics, but the anecdotal/common sense links are hard to ignorepic.twitter.com/6P6MORI0Pb
There are solid recs: systemwide learning exercise, systemwide review of terrorism language... Yet I wonder if any of these standard solutions will lead to change. How do you actually effectively firewall this, given the risks described? Can we even walk it back at this point?
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
