The problem of an independent civil service

by | Apr 26, 2008 | Cooperation and coherence, Influence and networks, UK

For English policy wonks walking along Massachusetts Avenue in Washington DC, the experience is invariably bittersweet.  On one hand, they are (they must admit) slightly awed by the concentration of great engines of think tankery within a stone’s throw of where they stand: Brookings, the Carnegie Endowment, SAIS, CFR and plenty more besides.

But then their hearts sink slightly as they remember what the London think tank scene looks like.  True, there are a couple of places – like Chatham House and IISS – that have impressive HQs and large staffs.  But they’re the exception rather than the rule.  Much more the norm – particularly where think tanks focused mainly on domestic policy are concerned – is a couple of cramped rooms with dated computer equipment, fraying carpet, perhaps a slightly musty smell in the air.

How to explain the difference?  I was debating this with a British government official earlier this week, and the answer we both arrived at is Northcote-Trevelyan: the seminal report of 1854 that introduced the idea of a permanent, unified and politically neutral civil service. 

(more…)

How low can she go?

by | Apr 25, 2008 | North America

It’s not just Australia that’s been getting it in the neck this week, New Zealand’s PM, Helen Clark, has been compared to a cockroach by Hilary Clinton, in another deft display of foreign policy experience.

This from an interview with Newsweek:

You have any good jokes?
Here’s a good one. Helen Clark, former prime minister of New Zealand: her opponents have observed that in the event of a nuclear war, the two things that will emerge from the rubble are the cockroaches and Helen Clark. [Laughs]

Ho ho.

Clark has been rather good-natured about the cockroach comparison, but less impressed by the reference to her being a ‘former’ Prime Minister. She advised Hilary to have a word with her husband:

As a current prime minister I spoke with him as a former US president in London only two weeks ago.

I wonder if Clinton’s got it in for other female leaders as well – or is it just Clark she doesn’t like?

Joined up government

by | Apr 25, 2008 | Cooperation and coherence, Economics and development, UK

Nice to see an integrated approach to UK operations in Afghanistan…

When I asked the men of 3 Para what their first tour had achieved, they all fell silent. “It was very frustrating,” said [Major Paul] Blair. He believes that his men could have achieved something in the town of Gereshk, where they were first based, had they been given the funds and authority.

“I kept having meetings with local officials saying we were there to bring security and reconstruction. I’d say the same thing week after week, but then never deliver more than school packs. I felt I was giving them false promises,” he said.

He recalled visiting the local hospital, where the bedding was “filthy”, and coming across a washing machine donated by a US charity that was still in its plastic wrapping. It could not be plumbed in because there was no water supply.

Blair suggested sinking a well but the Department for International Development said that this could be done only by civilians. Because of the security problems, no aid agency had been in the area for years. “Fora couple of hundred bucks,” said Blair, “we could have given them something they could have used there and then – but we weren’t allowed to.”

National security reform, U.S-style

by | Apr 25, 2008 | Conflict and security, North America

Yesterday, Congress heard testimony from James Locher III – the head of the Project on National Security Reform and the organisational genius behind the 1986 Goldwater-Nichol defence reforms that put the “joint” into the Joint Chiefs of Staff and later the Cohen-Nunn Amendment, which created the U.S. Special Operations Command.

Bringing together an impressive array of experts from inside government and from both parties, PNSR is trying nothing less than to redesign the U.S national security system.

Speaking with Joseph Nye (Mr. Soft Power), and Richard Armitage, Colin Powell’s muscle-clad former deputy, Locher laid out the case for reform:

Since the beginning of the 21st Century, the United States has suffered a number of painful setbacks: the terrorist attacks of September 11, troubled stability operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina.

These setbacks are not coincidental; they are evidence of a system failure. Our national security system is not capable of handling the threats and challenges or exploiting the opportunities that confront us in today’s complex, fast-paced, information-age world.

These deficiencies are not about the lack of talent or commitment by our national security professionals in all departments and agencies. They are working incredibly hard and with unsurpassed dedication. In many cases, they are being crushed by their workload. The problem is that much of their hard work is wasted by a dysfunctional system.

What to do about it? The U.S needs “a 21st Century government for 21st Century challenges.” In Locher’s mind that means three sets of reforms. First, new presidential directives governing the operation of the national security system will be required. The second, a new national security act, replacing many provisions of the 1947 Act. And third, amendments to Senate and House rules to bring about necessary congressional reforms and the creation of Select Committees on Interagency Affairs in the Senate and House of Representatives.

Look out for Locher’s interim report produced on July 1 and his final report on September 1, as required in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008.