187 years of immigration to the US
[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/2424744[/vimeo]
John Robb on resilience
A few weeks back I interviewed John Robb, the military futurist and author of ‘Brave New War.’ We discussed the irruption of Latin American drug gangs into West Africa. Robb sees this as symptomatic of a broader push by “global guerrillas” – armed transnational criminal organisations – to take advantage of weaknesses in the global system:
We have a global market system that is subverting the nation state, so gaps where local control is lost are going to spring up all over the place, even in relatively developed states. There will be lapses where non-state groups like global guerrillas take control. If they’ve found a hole in West Africa, there are no barriers to their expansion.
Although they are drawn to “hollow states” like Guinea-Bissau, however, contrary to dire warnings of instability from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime the South Americans are unlikely to want to shake up the status quo too much. According to John Robb:
They don’t want warfare in West Africa – they want the maximum level of corruption and to be left alone, with bureaucratic apparatus geared towards helping them to do business. Almost across the board you’ll see that non-state groups are not trying to take over the national government. They don’t want that burden – it raises the profile, puts you on the international radar screen and leads to economic blockades. If there’s a nominal government in place they’ll keep the infrastructure up – they’re parasites off the infrastructure.
I asked Robb how Africa might deal with the problem, which got him talking about resilient communities: (more…)
The Tories and DFID
As everyone waits to see what Obama plans to do about reforming foreign assistance in the US, back here in Britain change is in the air too: the Conservatives are coming clean about what they really think about DFID, the Department for International Development.
For a while now, there have been whispers that the Tories don’t really buy into the idea of an independent DFID – and that perhaps (gasp!) they might be considering merging it back into the Foreign Office, where it resided until 1997. Well, following last week’s Independent interview with Conservative aid spokesman Andrew Mitchell, we can put that notion to rest: “We are very committed to DFID continuing as an independent department of state”, says he.
So, a ringing endorsement of DFID, then? Er, not quite. Here’s the full context:
The shadow International Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell, said DFID had begun to encroach on the work of other departments and to come “perilously close” to setting its own foreign policy, a role he said should be reserved for the Foreign Office. He said the Foreign Office will be given much greater influence over the use of overseas aid should the Tories win the next election …
“There are times when DFID comes perilously close to pursuing its own foreign policy and that is not right,” Mr Mitchell said. “Foreign policy is decided by the government and the Cabinet, led by the Foreign Office, and DFID should not be an alternative to this. We are very committed to DFID continuing as an independent department of state. But we would make it more of a specialised development department and a little less like an aid agency,” he said.
That left me wondering just which specific instances Mitchell was thinking of in arguing that DFID was coming close to having its own foreign policy. Iraq? Afghanistan? Climate change? (Thinking that Paul Wolfowitz might not be such a great idea for President of the World Bank?) Sadly, we don’t know. Earlier today I called his office to ask him to elaborate, but he declined to say more.
This is a shame, on two counts. First, because it’s a cop out. For the Opposition front bench spokesman on international development to argue that the Department he shadows has come ‘close to pursuing its own foreign policy’ is a serious claim – and one which he ought to be prepared to substantiate. To fail to do so leaves him open to accusations of offering soundbites rather than reasoned argument.
More fundamentally, though, it’s a shame that Andrew Mitchell wouldn’t elaborate because this debate needs to be had. (more…)
The wonder of being Sarkozy
Not sure who’s writing the Economist’s Charlemagne column on Europe these days, but this observation in an article on Nicolas Sarkozy made me laugh out loud:
At the end of the Brussels summit on December 11th and 12th, Mr Sarkozy declared that the meeting would “go down in European history”. In ways he found “fantastic”, he had shaken up the EU’s habits, tripling the usual number of summits, and pushing his peers towards “less talk and much more action”. The word immodest does not do justice to Mr Sarkozy on such occasions. He does not so much brag about his achievements as offer a running commentary about the wonder of being himself. Being in charge of Europe had been “fascinating, fulfilling and rather easy,” he commented at one point.
“Abolish the media” – Plumber
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJYCxj8KXjQ[/youtube]
Joe the Plumber’s made it to Israel and has come to a rapid conclusion: war reporting should be banned. Yes really:
I don’t think journalists should be anywhere allowed [near] war. You guys report where our troops are at. You report what’s happening day to day. You make a big deal out of it. I think it’s asinine. I liked back in World War I and World War II when you’d go to the theatre and you’d see your troops on the screen and everyone would be real excited and happy for them. Now everyone’s got an opinion and wants to down soldiers. You know, American soldiers or Israeli soldiers. I think media should be abolished from reporting. You know, war is hell. And if you’re gonna sit there and say: “Well look at this atrocity,”‘ well you don’t know the whole story behind it half the time, so I think the media should have no business in it.