How supermarkets are worsening the credit crunch

by | Oct 31, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity, Conflict and security

Take note of the important signal of problems in store on the front of today’s FT.  Reckitt Benckiser, the consumer goods manufacturer, has broken ranks to express its outrage that Tesco (the UK supermarket group) is extending the time it takes to settle invoices from 30 to 60 days.  Reckitt’s CEO says:

The question is [if] in the long term they drive the smaller suppliers out of business, that is the key question and it might happen …  I don’t think it is reasonable – no, it is not. There is absolutely no logic to that. They turn over the inventory [in] much less [time] than 60 days, so why should they have 60 day payment terms?

For a supplier to go public with a criticism like this is very unusual, as the FT notes.  Yet Reckitt’s certainly not the only company that’s worried – I’ve heard other food groups express private fears that a serious crunch will build up in the food supply chain over the next two months.

Senior policymakers in the UK, the US and elsewhere are already underscoring their concerns about small businesses in the credit crunch, and making noises about pressuring the financial sector to do more for them. 

On the same basis, they need to focus hard on the supermarket sector – which through its sheer market power risks causing serious damage to supply chains we all depend on.  There are important questions here of shared responsibility for shared resilience in conditions of severe stress.  Governments should not be shy of reminding supermarkets of that fact.

Fighting terrorism together

by | Oct 30, 2008 | Conflict and security, North America, UK

No issue has been the source of greater trans-Atlantic division during the last eight years than international law and counter-terrorism.  The policies associated with the Bush administration’s “war on terror” — including detention of “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo Bay, coercive interrogation rising to a level that most Europeans would see as torture, the holding of prisoners in secret “black sites” or their rendition to countries that are know to use torture — have undermined the U.S reputation as a supporter of international law, alienated European publics and, arguably, worked as a recruiting sergeant for the very people the policy has aimed to defeat.

With an Obama administration now likely, many Europeans can’t wait to see Guantanamo Bay closed and for the U.S to adopt a different, less kinetic counter-terrorism policy.

But Europeans would do well not to get too ahead of themselves. The Illinois Senator has made clear that if he is elected he will continue to target terrorists where necessary. Last year, Senator Obama said he would “wage the war that has to be won”, with a strategy that includes “developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists” while also “engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism”.

In other words, his administration is likely to adopts what Anthony Dworkin of the Crimes of War Project calls a “a mix of crime and war”, a hybrid model that combines existing legal norms from American constitutional law and the laws of armed conflict. In an essay, Dworkin – son of noted American legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin – lays out what Obama’s counter-terrorism policy will likely look. For example, an Obama administration may restrict all US personnel, including CIA agents, to those interrogation techniques listed in the Army’s interrogation field manual.

But Dworkin goes further, underlining that an incoming administration is likely look to its European allies for tangible assistance. For example, if the US closes down Guantanamo Bay what should be done with those detainees – around 50 – that the US would like to release, but who cannot be returned to their home countries because they would be likely to be tortured? “The US will look to Europe to absorb some of these men”, says Dworkin. He suggests that European governments should offer to take symbolic numbers of these prisoners, for example the Uighurs, as long as the U.S takes some ex-prisoners too. This could serve as the opening of a new chapter of trans-Atlantic cooperation on counter-terrorism.

The key, though, to success is for Europe to make small positive steps rather than making unrealistic demands and expecting them to be acted on immediately, like demanding that the U.S immediately join the International Criminal Court. Instead, Dworkin suggests beginning with “a wider reaffirmation of common principles”.

This, the war-crimes fighter thinks, could include the following principles: no one can be held for an extended period without charge except in situations of national emergency or armed conflict; no prisoner should be held for an extended period without his name and place of detention being publicly confirmed; no prisoner should be subjected to torture or cruel and inhuman treatment;  no one should be transferred to any country where they face a real risk of being tortured; no one should be transferred to another country if they will be detained without due process.

Such declaration, to work, would – in my view – have to be wrapped together with a clear reaffirmation of the need to confront terrorism and not only through judicial means. But to my mind, Dworkin is beginning to do what few others have until now, namely lay out a practical way forward for trans-Atlantic counter-terrorism policy.

Where are the British body men?

by | Oct 29, 2008 | UK

In today’s Guardian there is a story about Reggie Love, the so-called “man behind the man”, Barrack Obama’s aide and confidante. Or as the U.S media has referred to him, as Obama’s “body man”. A former basketball player and Political Science major, Love manages Obama’s day, carrying the candidate’s pens, buying his snacks and drinks, sorting out the podium before Obama steps out etc.

Personal aides like Reggie Love are common in American politics. John Kerry had Marvin Nicholson and Hillary Clinton’s ”body woman” was one Huma Abedin. Wikipedia already has a description and list of such body men. However, we rarely hear about these aides, even though they exist in British politics too and can be immensely influential.

In my experience, such aides – let’s dispense with that odd, butler-sounding term “body man” – not only ensure that “their man” looks good and has what he needs, they often act as confidante, sounding-board and even gate-keeper. Like Charlie Young in the television series The West Wing.

When a senior politician needs a second opinion, after all the officials and subject-matter experts have left the room, he may turn to his personal aide. Often such aides give views not only about policy, but about people. Whom to trust, whom to be wary of etc. Equally often, officials will talk with personal aides, seek their advice, before presenting a senior politician with an issue. Personal aides often know the moods of “their” boss better than anyone else and can advise on how best to present a case.

The Civil Service does not like the notion of personal aides, preferring Ministers to have either Private Secretaries – who are officials – or Special Advisers. But personal aides – different from a secretary or an assistant – can play a very important role in the management of a minister’s work-load. No doubt their employment needs to be covered by some form of regulation. But hopefully talk of Reggie Love’s role in the Obama campaign will put attention to the British experience of such “body men”.

European politicians, No European demos

by | Oct 28, 2008 | Europe and Central Asia

A couple of weeks a go I ran into Geoffrey Nice QC, a former prosecutor in the trial of Slobodan Milosevic at The Hague. The British barrister told me why he thought the International Court of Justice had been less effective than it could have been. The reason, he said, was because it the Court was not surrounded by any other accountability mechanisms, which make sure national judicial systems worked – Parliament, bar associations, and, of course, the ever-inquisitive media.

I thought of Nice’s comments as “Yachtgate” started rolling and questions were raised about Lord Mandelson’s contacts with Oleg Deripaska. The Russian oligarch is said to stands to benefit from three decisions made at the time Lord Mandelson was a European trade commissioner.

Though it is clear that the Business Secretary has been less than forthright about his relations with Mr. Deripaska – for example when he first met the Russian – he denies any wrongdoing. And in this he is backed up by the EU’s top trade official, Irish diplomat David O’Sullivan, who insists that there had been “no political interference” from the then-Commissioner when the EU cut aluminium tariffs – saving the Russian oligarch huge sums.

But this takes me back to Nice’s comments. How come this is the first anyone hears about this? Even if, as Lord Mandelson contests, there is no improper relationship between him and Mr. Deripaska why did this not come to light before? Was it, like the problems surrounding ICTY, because the EU still has not developed the kind of accountability mechanisms require in a normal society?

Days after the British media started the story, the European ombudsman ruled that Mandelson’s office had been “wrongly blanking out the names of industry lobbyists” in documents released to the public. It went further, saying that “disclosure of names of individual lobbyists is essential”. But why was this not examined before?

I know, I know… there are no good answers to this. Or at least no answers beyond the fact that there is a European political class even though there is not yet a European “demos”. And without a “demos”, which includes a vibrant civil society and press corps, the very notion of accountability may be a mirage. But that, of course, does not explain the paucity of official oversight. The real question may be why has the EU system of governance not even been able to create the necessary oversight mimicry?