The orphan of Whitehall

May 16, 2008 | Charlie Edwards | More on Global economy, Leadership, News, UK politics | Leave a Comment

I’ve got a short piece about organised crime on the Guardian’s blog Comment is Free. From the intro:

The annual report from the Serious Organised Crime Agency, published yesterday, is a mix of self-congratulation and spectacular underachievement. While the rhetoric from politicians has been to get tough on organised crime, the reality is more humbling: we still don’t have a clear idea of the scale and nature of the problem. Read the rest here

Pretty much everyone is unhappy with the agency. Sean O’Neill, The Times’ Crime Editor has been trailing the publication of the annual report for the past week. According to his sources police officers have been leaving in ‘droves’, while the agency’s hit list has been shelved. The allegations were swiftly dismissed in a letter to The Times by Bill Hughes, SOCA’s Director General. He is now having to manage some internal strife at the Agency and has rounded on some officers who have chosen to take their problems to the media and not the management (which is odd given the top heavy nature of the organisation).

Elsewhere Alison Saunders, head of the Crown Prosecution Service’s Organised Crime Division is arguing that expectations of Soca had been too high at its inception. She has a point. Meanwhile the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are standing back and basking in the Government’s and the Agency’s incompetence and ineptitude.

Safe sex for money

May 16, 2008 | Mark Weston | More on News | Comments Off

A post I wrote last week described a “push” approach to AIDS prevention - circumcise men, tell people to use condoms, encourage them not to sleep around too much etc. The World Bank is trying a different tack, using a “pull” method instead: pay people not to get infected and let them work out for themselves how to stay safe. The Bank will pay 3,000 Tanzanians $45 - good money in Tanzania - if they regularly test negative for sexually transmitted infections (though not HIV, which is more expensive to test for but for which diseases like gonorrhoea are a good proxy). “Reverse prostitution,” they call it, rather alarmingly.

Conditional cash transfers are the new new thing in the development world. The success of Mexico’s Oportunidades scheme, which gives cash to poor families if they participate in health programmes, has sparked a wave of imitations in both developing and developed countries - even New York has got in on the act. A randomised controlled study of Oportunidades found that it reduced illness among children in the programme by 23% compared to a control group. The children’s height increased by 1-4%, and the health of adults also improved. Similar programmes to reduce drug dependency in the US by giving cash to cocaine and methamphetamine abusers in return for clean urine samples have cut stimulant use.

The World Bank scheme relies on a crucial insight, which LSE AIDS guru Tony Barnett and I discuss in a paper to be published in ‘AIDS‘ this summer. In order to take decisions now that will benefit them in the future, people need to value that future. In other words, they need hope:

People with hope for the future are less likely to engage in activities that put them at risk of illness or death in the present…Without future goals, there is little reason to avoid actions that may cause harm in the future but do not do so in the present. People may therefore forfeit future gains in favour of present benefits.

Studies of hope have found strong effects on quality of life. Hopeful children do better in skills tests; adults who have goals have better mental health; and those without hope of career advancement have higher rates of mortality. And it’s not just about money; drug users in the US programmes reported that having something to aim for and receiving rewards for achievement spurred them to quit.

In much of Africa, where HIV is rife, people lack hope and therefore take risks. They exchange safety for pleasure by having unprotected sex with multiple sexual partners. They know they might one day die as a result of this, but the concerns of the present are too pressing, the future too remote. Cash can make a difference - a study in South Africa found that poor women women who received small loans in return for participating in HIV and gender programmes reported increased hope and reduced violence at the hands of their partners.

You might think that not dying of AIDS would be reward enough for practising safe sex. In an environment where people have little to hope for, however, and thus no reason to make plans, you’d be wrong.

Viagra for the brain

May 16, 2008 | Alex Evans | More on Technology | 1 Comment

Via Kevin Drum, this vignette from Johann Hari about his experience taking Provigil, which (we’re told) college students describe as “viagra for the brain”:

I picked up a book about quantum physics and super-string theory I have been meaning to read for ages, for a column I’m thinking of writing. It had been hanging over me, daring me to read it. Five hours later, I realised I had hit the last page. I looked up. It was getting dark outside. I was hungry. I hadn’t noticed anything, except the words I was reading, and they came in cool, clear passages; I didn’t stop or stumble once.

Perplexed, I got up, made a sandwich — and I was overcome with the urge to write an article that had been kicking around my subconscious for months. It rushed out of me in a few hours, and it was better than usual….The next morning I woke up and felt immediately alert. Normally it takes a coffee and an hour to kick-start my brain; today I’m ready to go from the second I rise. And so it continues like this, for five days: I inhale books and exhale articles effortlessly. My friends all say I seem more contemplative, less rushed — which is odd, because I’m doing more than normal. One sixty-something journalist friend says she remembers taking Benzadrine in the sixties to get through marathon articles, but she’d collapse after four or five says and need a long, long sleep. I don’t feel like that. I keep waiting for an exhausted crash, and it doesn’t seem to come.

Tempting to agree with Kevin, who says he wants some - though you can’t help wondering about the general rarity of free lunches, as well as the implications for social equity (c.f. Jules on transhumanism)….

Soldiering and European society

May 15, 2008 | Daniel Korski | More on Conflict and security, Europe, Leadership | Comments Off

General Richard Dannat, the head of the British army, once remarked that the British Armed Forces are less understood and less honoured for their commitment and sacrifice by ordinary Britons than in comparable societies, like United States, and probably even less than in earlier periods.

But this is not unique to Britain. And it is part of two broader inter-related trends; the disappearance of sacrifice as an element of Europe’s development and, as a result, the divorce of the institution most knows for sacrifice – the military - from European society.

The most obvious example is the disappearance of ex-military officers from politics. The appointment of Admiral Sir Alan West, the decorated former head of the Royal Navy, to a junior ministerial post in Gordon Brown’s government is remarkable precisely because it’s rare. Military experience has similarly become less important for reaching reach high office; no Ministers in the current Cabinet have served in the armed forces.

Few European countries appoint general officers to civilian positions; none serve at the top of the European Union’s bureaucracy, the Commission or the Council Secretariat. Of seven hundred European parliamentarians, only one was a former high-ranking officer: Philippe Morrilon, the former French UN general.

Contrast this with the United States, where, from George Washington onwards, military officers have regularly shed their uniforms to take high office.

Read more

Food security in Britain: time to head for the hills?

May 15, 2008 | Alex Evans | More on Cities, Food prices, Resilience, Scarcity | Leave a Comment

How much should people in Britain worry about food security?  Here’s a starter for ten, taken from a recent Guardian article by Harriet Green:

For three years, my husband has talked about taking to the hills. About buying a smallholding on Exmoor where, with our four-year-old daughter, we can safely survive the coming storm - famine, pestilence and a total breakdown of society. I would wait for his lectures to finish, then return to my own interests. I had no time for the end of civilisation. As an editor on a glossy magazine until a few months ago, I was too busy. There was always a new Anya Hindmarch bag to buy, or a George Clooney premiere to attend.

But recently, I’ve wavered. Much of what he has been predicting has come true: global economic meltdown, looming environmental disaster, a sharp rise in oil and food prices that has already led to the rationing of rice in the US, and riots in dozens of countries worldwide. This week, the details got scarier. The UN warned of a global food crisis, like a “silent tsunami”, while Opec predicts that oil, which broke through $100 (£50) a barrel for the first time a few weeks ago, may soon top $200.

In one sense, it’s no surprise that food figures so prominently in her list of concerns: along with shelter and water, after all, food is about as basic as human needs get.  But on the other hand, you have to wonder: if you can afford Anya Hindmarch bags, do you really have anything to worry about on food prices?  Isn’t the problem actually the converse - namely that as the global middle class grows, its appetite for meat and dairy products (and handbags too) also grows - taking staple grains out of the purchasing power reach of poorer consumers in the process?

Still, the fact remains: people in developed countries who think about resilience a lot are worried about food.  John Robb, for instance, sees food as a critical dimension of his concept of the Resilient Community.  Or look at the Transition Towns movement in Totnes, who are going nuts about food security  (literally):

… the idea is to use town-wide plantings [of nut trees] to create a stock of healthy, productive trees that can serve as a great source of local food, and a buffer in times of scarcity. The reason that the group is concentrating on nut trees is their potential to outgrow cereal crops in terms of carbohydrates, and to utilise poorer soils with fewer inputs. The group has already planted hazelnuts, walnuts and almonds across the town …

So: how worried should we be in Britain, the US or other developed countries?  Is it time to head for the hills?  Read more

De Mello died, Bush lied

May 14, 2008 | David Steven | More on Off topic, US politics | Comments Off

Earlier today, I noted George Bush’s cretinous and insulting claim that he had given up golf in solidarity with American soldiers who are dying in Iraq. The move, he said, was prompted by the death of UN envoy, Sergio Vieira de Mello:

“I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf,” he said. “I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”

Bush said he made that decision after the August 2003 bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the top U.N. official in Iraq and the organization’s high commissioner for human rights.

“I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man’s life,” he said. “I was playing golf — I think I was in central Texas — and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, ‘It’s just not worth it anymore to do.’”

Problem is de Mello was killed in August 2003 and Bush was still playing golf in October. Coincidentally, the President also had knee problems at the time though I am sure that had nothing to do with his decision…

A shambolic response to organised crime

May 14, 2008 | Charlie Edwards | More on Global economy, Networks, UK politics | Comments Off

Tomorrow the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) will publish its annual report/ threat assessment. It will make for uncomfortable reading at the Home Office and No.10. The Agency is not living up to the great expectations officials placed upon it in 2006. In the febrile political atmosphere of Westminster you can be sure the Conservative and Lib Dems will want to scrutinize the organisation’s failings and the Government’s wider policy on organised crime (ironically called One Step Ahead). Failure to lower crime is still the political weapon of choice.

For a sense of what is to come its worth reading the transcript from Stephen Lander’s (former DG Security Service) and William (Bill) Hughes’ first visit to the Home Affairs select committee. But first the facts:

By the most conservative estimates, money laundering comprises between two and five percent of global gross domestic product (GDP).

The UNODC, roughly estimates that organised crime costs the global economy up to $1 trillion per year

In 2005, the UNODC estimated the global narcotics market at $322 billion—equivalent to a GDP ranking of roughly 30th in the world, measured against national economies, and roughly 75 percent of the total GDP of Sub-Saharan Africa

There has been a rapid expansion in the black market in counterfeit goods—now worth an estimated $400-$600 billion per year (before you stifle a yawn this includes parts for cars and areoplanes)

Preliminary research conducted by the Home Office into the economic cost of organised crime and estimated that the price could be as high as £40 billion a year – the abuse of Class A drugs estimated at £13 billion a year ‘at a highly conservative estimate’

These are serious numbers and show how big a business organised crime is. More than that it shows how organised crime acts as a cancer on society. But irrespective of how great the risk from organised crime is, the UK Government is in no position to do anything. SOCA’s budget has been frozen, resources and capabilities have been shifted elsewhere in Government to countering terorrism and enlarging the Intelligence agecnies; the MoD is focused on operational issues in Afghanistan and Iraq while the FCO recently dropped organised crime off its list of priorities. SOCA has become the orphan of Whitehall. A change of approach is needed.

No, Minister

May 14, 2008 | Daniel Korski | More on Conflict and security, Leadership | Comments Off

Last night I had dinner with a group of security experts and sat next to Chatham House’s Robin Niblett . We got to talking about the role of Ministers and how they seem to struggle with their role in overseeing today’s counter-insurgency missions i.e. operations like in Iraq. They shy away from detail, but are forced into minutiae by events. They go for headline-grabbing figures - like withdrawal numbers - that rarely materialise. They oversell missions - does anyone remember John Reid’s comment that British soldiers would not fire a shot in Helmand? You get the point.

However, is this any different from the past; and if so, why?

Even a cursory reading of Churchill’s memoirs or those of any of his wartime colleagues (like his defense chief, Lord Alanbrooke) leaves you with the impression that no detail was too small, no maneuver too inconsequential for the PM to take an interest - and, frequently, a direct role. As we know, this did not always have the intended beneficial effects, but the PM’s involvement was clear, all-pervasive – and ultimately crucial for Britain’s war-time effort. 

But in the 1950s, 60s and 70s as Britain fought countless battles against Soviet-backed, liberation movements – the heyday of counter-insurgency - the role of Whitehall seemed to decrease. Decisions were delegated to theatre level, as in the Malay campaign. It was only when the Troubles began - and the fight was brought home - that the day-to-day involvement of Whitehall began to increase.

But besides Northern Ireland, the Cold War did not include - indeed require – day-to-day ministerial oversight. Plans were laid to roll back a Red Army advance and the PM had to write a letter to submarine commanders bearing instructions for nuclear retaliation. But there was no day-today role. The Falklands War was may have been an exception to this hands-off, strategy-focused Cold War role.

In the modern world, however, wars like the Iraq War are fast-paced, cost billions of pounds, risk the lives of hundreds of soldiers and can cost ministers their careers. This drives greater ministerial involvement in decision-making than before. But, on the other hand, the complexity – and sometimes brutality - of modern counter-insurgency means many ministers are reluctant to get too involved in decisions, lest they be blamed for the choices made by a soldier in Basra or a diplomat in Kandahar. Read more

Bush gives up golf for UN, soldiers

May 14, 2008 | David Steven | More on US politics | Comments Off

No comment needed:

For the first time, Bush revealed a personal way in which he has tried to acknowledge the sacrifice of soldiers and their families: He has given up golf.

“I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf,” he said. “I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”

Bush said he made that decision after the August 2003 bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the top U.N. official in Iraq and the organization’s high commissioner for human rights.

“I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man’s life,” he said. “I was playing golf — I think I was in central Texas — and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, ‘It’s just not worth it anymore to do.’”

Starting to think through the long term food agenda

May 14, 2008 | Alex Evans | More on Food prices, Scarcity | Leave a Comment

Just back from ten gorgeous days on holiday in Cornwall - hence radio silence on the blogging front, and a much-needed break from frenetic activity on the food prices research front. 

(As I found, Cornwall is actually about the best place you could go to get some fresh perspective on food.  The Lost Gardens of Heligan have the most impressive kitchen gardens I’ve ever seen; the Eden Project fizzes with thoughts about how we’ll feed ourselves through this century; and Tim Smit - who led the construction of Eden and the restoration of Heligan - and Tony Kendle, director of the Eden Foundation, were both full of ideas about the future of food.  Plus, just over the Devon border is Totnes, home of the transition towns movement - which John Robb admires as an exemplar of the idea of the resilient community.)

So with last month’s briefing paper on food prices out of the way, I’m starting to think in earnest about the content of the main pamphlet that I’ll be writing over the summer. 

Although we’re not out of the woods yet on gearing up the humanitarian response to immediate term food price impacts, the issue is firmly on the agenda; by the time of the G8 at the start of July, most governments should have made their initial pledges of increased assistance.  Meanwhile, the UN’s new task force on food prices met for the first time on Monday, and will pull together a framework for action over the next few months.

But what about the longer term? What are the big questions we need to think through between now and the Italian G8 in 2009, by which time we’ll need to have thought through a global plan for the longer term challenge of meeting 50 per cent higher demand by 2030 - and a population of nearly ten billion by 2050? 

I’m tentatively organising my thoughts into three main clusters: questions about the future of agriculture; questions about the future of trade; and questions about the future of demand for food among wealthier consumers. Read more

Iran file re-activated

May 13, 2008 | Daniel Korski | More on News | Comments Off

After a period of silence on the “Iran file”, the P5+1 will present Tehran with a new incentive package to convince the Iranians to suspend their enrichment program and enter negotiations. This is the second time the five permanent members offer a package. The first time was in 2006, which was rejected by Tehran.

Nobody thinks Tehran will accept the new offer as it crosses its red line - suspension of enrichment - and does not give Tehran what they want most i.e. U.S non-aggression guarantees (by a new U.S president).

On Monday, Iranian Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh ruled out accepting intrusive nuclear inspections unless there was an end to “double standards” on global non-proliferation that it said benefited nuclear arms powers.

But, as a report by the NIA Council, asks: why is this offer being made now? Trita Parsi notes the “nuclear offer coincides with an escalation of rhetoric between Washington and Tehran over allegations of Iranian meddling in Iraq.”

General David Petreus, the new head of CENTCOM, is reportedly preparing a presentation of evidence showcasing Iran’s direct involvement in the violence in Iraq. He is on record as seeing Iran’s hand in Iraq. But he – and the Bush administration – may be looking to shape the autumn’s electioral discussion of Iran.

If so, they are unlikely to succeed. On Iran, there are three policy options: what can be described as 1) “the coercive option”; 2) a Denis Ross-style incremental diplomacy; or 3) a game-changing event like a major offer of a “grand bargain”, which includes security guarantees.

The EU would obviously favor the latter, but I think that all presidential candidates, including John McCain, would at some point be willing to go down this route whatever their current rhetoric. Either way, it makes the timing of the P5+1 offer peculiar.

Cause and effect

May 13, 2008 | Charlie Edwards | More on Conflict and security, Food prices, Scarcity | Comments Off

Is the global economic situation having an impact on poppy eradication in Afghanistan? Afghan farmers are capitalising on soaring food costs by growing wheat instead of poppy crops, with the fall in heroin prices further fuelling the switch. This comes at a time when the price of a tonne of wheat in Afghanistan has almost trebled this year, causing acute food shortages.

This may be the case in some regions, but Helmand may be off limits because of instability while some farmers may be put off by difficulties in getting their crops to market as roads are dangerous with bandits roaming the countryside.

McCain and climate - trouble ahead

May 12, 2008 | David Steven | More on Climate Change, US politics | Comments Off

John McCain’s out on the campaign trail today promoting his green credentials, but its clear that his climate change proposals would put a McCain administration on collision course with many, maybe most, of its international partners.

Here’s McCain’s headline promise on climate:

By the year 2012, we will seek a return to 2005 levels of emission, by 2020, a return to 1990 levels, and so on until we have achieved at least a reduction of sixty percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.

At first glance, this sounds pretty compatible with the ranges that the Kyoto countries (almost all countries bar the US) agreed to be ‘guided by’ in their side negotiation at Bali. Following the lead of the IPCC, these countries said that:

Global emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) need to peak in the next 10-15 years and be reduced to very low levels, well below half of levels in 2000 by the middle of the twenty-first century.

McCain’s 60% by 2050 is ‘well below half’ of course (especially when you note the different baseline). But that fails to take into account how Americans emit at the moment. The US will have to cut much further and faster than McCain realises, if we are going to hit the global target.

Breaking out emissions on a per capita basis shows why:

  • According to Nick Stern (pdf), per capita emissions will need to be around 2-2.5 tonnes gigatons CO2e by 2050, based on a population of 9 billion people.
  • The US government’s own stats, however, show that its per capita emissions were around 24 tonnes gigatons in 2006 (based on a population of 300 million).
  • McCain’s 60% reduction would take them down to just under 6 tonnes gigatons, based on a population that had grown to 420 million people (and obviously higher if population growth is less rapid.

In other words, the US would still be two to three times above the global average in 2050. By mid-century, under McCain’s plan, its per capita emissions would be higher than China’s - at around 5 tonnes gigatons - are today! Read more

Medvedev builds his authority

May 12, 2008 | Jules Evans | More on Europe, Influence, Leadership, Scarcity | 1 Comment

President Putin built up his authority by promoting mates of his from KGB to senior posts in the government and economy. Now president Medvedev is doing the same, but instead of promoting spooks, he’s promoting people from a legal and business background, like him.

In his first cabinet reshuffle, announced today, Medvedev began to promote members of his inner circle, including fellow St Petersburg law graduate Alexander Konovalov, who was made minister of justice; and Igor Shuvalov, one of the few senior politicians who has private sector experience, who was made deputy prime minister.

This promotion of lawyers and business people is good news for investors. Andrew Somers, head of the American Chamber of Commerce in Moscow, says: “Who’d have thought we’d be happy about a government full of lawyers, but in Russia, it’s good news.”

Medvedev has already taken the first cautious steps to define his political identity outside of Putin’s shadow. His speeches and interviews have stressed his legal background, and emphasized the need for widespread legal reform in Russia. He says Russia is still plagued by “legal nihilism” where the law only favours “whoever’s teeth are sharper”.

He has outlined a fairly daunting programme of legal and administrative reform – cutting red-tape to help small businesses, increasing the independence of the courts, slashing the number of civil servants, reducing the number of bureaucrats running state corporations, and protecting property rights from corporate raiders, whether state-owned or private.

This sort of liberal talk has encouraged foreign investors, analysts, and western politicians. But how seriously can we take it? Read more

Americans: Anxious but increasingly savvy about world affairs

May 11, 2008 | Charlie Edwards | More on News | Comments Off

According to the latest Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index (CFPI), 60% of Americans say reducing energy dependence would strengthen their nation’s security “a great deal.” The report shows that the public has begun to zero in on economic and energy issues, and believe that becoming less dependent on other countries for their supply of energy should be the first priority for the US national security strategy.

Daniel Yankelovich, Public Agenda’s Chairman suggests that the most important thing for politicians and policy makers to take away is that the public’s concerns about energy policy aren’t limited to rising gas prices, Americans are connecting energy policy to national security issues in ways that they didn’t a few years ago.

A year ago, 29 percent said Iraq was the biggest problem while the economy barely registered at three percent as a foreign policy concern. Today only 19% think Iraq is a problem, while 11% say the economy’s the biggest international problem on par with terrorism at 10 %. The report also highlights how anxious Americans are… at 132 its down 4 points from last year but is still very high since records began.

Serbia selects sanity…

May 11, 2008 | Richard Gowan | More on News | Comments Off

…or so suggest the exit polls after today’s national elections - see why here.

Total financial meltdown: you wouldn’t credit it

May 11, 2008 | Richard Gowan | More on Global economy, News, Resilience, Scarcity | Comments Off

From a piece on the credit crunch in the current London Review of Books, the sort of opening that you find yourself reading more than once…

Last November, I spent several days in the skyscrapers of Canary Wharf, in banks’ headquarters in the City and in the pale wood and glass of a hedge fund’s St James’s office trying to understand the credit crisis that had erupted over the previous four months. I became intrigued by an oddity that I came to think of as the end-of-the-world trade. The trade is the purchase of insurance against what would in effect be the failure of the modern capitalist system. It would take a cataclysm – around a third of the leading investment-grade corporations in Europe or half those in North America going bankrupt and defaulting on their debt – for the insurance to be paid out.

I asked one investment banker what might cause half of North America’s top corporations to default. No ordinary economic recession or natural disaster short of an asteroid strike could do it: no hurricane, for example, and not even ‘the big one’, a catastrophic earthquake devastating California. All he could think of was ‘a revolutionary Marxist government in Washington’. That’s not a likely scenario, yet the cost of insuring against it had shot up ten-fold. Normally one can buy $10 million of end-of-the-world insurance for between two and three thousand dollars a year. By early last November, the prices quoted were between twenty and thirty thousand, and even then it was difficult to buy in quantity – at least, said the banker, ‘not from anyone you trusted’.

The UN’s dreadful May: Cassandra reports back

May 11, 2008 | Richard Gowan | More on Africa, Conflict and security, Europe, Middle East | Comments Off

Exactly how bad has the first half of this month been for the UN? Where does one start? You could choose Burma, where the international organization’s ability to deliver aid in a hostile climate has been hurled into doubt. Or Sudan, where Darfuri rebels sallied forth to attack Khartoum, demonstrating exactly what they think of the security offered by the struggling UN forces on their patch. But the worst news of all (from an institutional rather than humanitarian point of view, given the Burmese horror) may yet prove to be that from Lebanon.

The spread of fighting between the government’s backers and Hezbollah, apparently delayed rather than halted by an attempted deal on Saturday, has highlighted a challenge for the UN that I’ve muttered about here before. The 12,000+ mainly European UN troops in South Lebanon are mandated to (i) support the army and (ii) prevent the flow of arms to Hezbollah. But it has been an open secret that the peacekeepers have a variety of understandings with Hezbollah to avoid trouble. As I pointed out in two magazine articles (here and here) it has never been clear how they would balance these ideals and deals in a full-on crisis.

One can cry wolf too often: I also predicted that such a crisis might emerge in December, along with simultaneous military set-backs for European forces in Kosovo and Chad. And I scored 0 out of 3. Or rather, all three trouble-spots stayed quiet-ish up to the start of 2008. But in the ensuing four months, it has all come to pass pretty much as predicted. In February, Chad blew up as the EU tried to deploy troops - in March, the UN and NATO had to fight it out with Serb rioters in Kosovo.

Two out of three, in this case, ain’t good. And Lebanon?

In April, there were signs that the modus vivendi between the UN and Hezbollah was starting to erode: the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that peacekeepers attempting to inspect a suspicious truck for arms were driven off by gun-toting militants. The UN denied this, but there have long been rumors that European UN units had backed off on meeting Hezbollah patrols, or refused to patrol at night.

And now Lebanon looks close to civil war, and if this starts to be felt in the UN’s operational zone in the south of the country (not yet the site of fighting) it’s hard to believe that the Lebanese government, the Israelis and the U.S. won’t demand that the peacekeepers get tough. As Global Dashboard’s Peacekeeping Cassandra, I’m also on record as saying that I fear they’ll run away instead. Let’s see.

Responsibility to protect?

May 11, 2008 | Charlie Edwards | More on Asia Pacific, Influence | Comments Off

Climate: after the euphoria

May 10, 2008 | David Steven | More on Climate Change, Europe | Comments Off

Yesterday I was at a roundtable on Europe and climate change, hosted by Jim Murphy, the UK’s minister for Europe, with his French counterpart, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, as the main speaker.

France is about to take over the EU presidency and will play a critical role on the road to Copenhagen. Two questions stand out:

  • Can the EU show that it is making credible moves towards its unilateral commitment to a 20% emissions cut by 2020?
  • How hard will the French push the idea that laggards on climate change should be punished through the global trade regime?

The first question is the most important. In Bali, the Europeans had some success in leading the negotiations from in front. I summed up their strategy as follows in my Bali wrap up:

(i) Take a unilateral commitment first. (ii) Next bring on board others prepared to move ahead of the pack. (iii) Only then bring the US - the problem player - into the thick of the action, and do so at a time [after the presidential elections] when the country will be desperate to re-engage with the wider world; (iv) And finally, persuade developed countries to do their bit, using a blend of three arguments. First, that rich countries have committed to action first. Second, that incentives are on the table, to help the switch from dirty to clean tech. And finally that not to act is unfair on countries that are poorer and more vulnerable (expect India to hear a lot from low-lying Bangladesh, for example).

But that strategy only works if Europe’s partners believe that the EU intends to keep the commitments it has freely made. At the moment, that is far from clear. The roundtable was opened by the FT’s George Parker, who argued that the UK missed half of its own green targets, public interest in the environment was on the wane, and that the EU was failing to align its budget to its green aspirations. Read more


Next page