by Andrew Pickering | Jun 10, 2009 | Africa, Climate and resource scarcity, Influence and networks
Royal Dutch Shell - Flickr User Lee Otis
After 13 years, Royal Dutch Shell has agreed to pay $15.5 million compensation to settle a court case over its alleged part in the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and other Ogoni leaders in the Niger Delta. Much of the backstory can be found here.
Now I’m no judge (not yet, anyway), but $15 million doesn’t seem a lot for a firm with 2008 revenues of $458 billion. Michael Goldhaber, who does know something about law, describes the sum as ‘nuisance value’ from Shell’s point of view.
Yet the fact that Shell settled the day before the trial was due to begin is indicative of the firm’s distaste for either the publicity that court proceedings would create, or the culpability that might be uncovered. (more…)
by Peter Hodge | Jun 10, 2009 | Conflict and security, North America
I love a gritty internet takedown. At Travels with Shiloh, Dean tears apart a Small Wars Journal article by John P Sullivan on ‘criminal insurgencies and gangs’…
“I don’t know how but Sullivan somehow manages to sucker me into reading his stuff every time and every time I’m disappointed. The paper is a motherload of unexamined assumptions, outdated information and self promotion (17 of his 24 footnotes cite himself). I don’t know Sullivan and I’m sure he’s a great guy but if this is the sort of thinking that’s driving policy…we’re in big trouble. Sullivan has been promoting essentially the same idea for over 10 years, that gangs are going to politicize and become the major threat to the nation state system as these modern day barbarians storm the gates and plunge us into a new dark age.”
This is an excellent post. Where I part company with Dean is the idea that urban counter-gang strategy should be modelled on counterinsurgency doctrine. In Dean’s words, “Restore order, establish you’re there for the long haul and rebuild infrastructure, opportunity and trust”.
In theory this sounds like a good plan. But in practice, how many American municipal authorities have the resources to do this justice? And how would they sustain progress for the long haul? Success ultimately depends on people having secure jobs in legit economies. That in turn relies on industry returning to inner cities. There are good reasons why industry left – like changing patterns of demand, new means of production, the lure of cheap offshore labour – and that will be impossible to reverse.
by Richard Gowan | Jun 9, 2009 | Economics and development, North America
The Columbia Journalism Review surveys local newspaper coverage of how the U.S. stimulus package is being spent:
The Billings Gazette takes a look at a smaller chunk of the recovery picture: three to five jobs. Flaxville, a tiny burg of just over 100 people (with a yearly budget of $36,000), in northern Montana, will get a stimulus check for $7,530 and will use it to “sand-blast and repaint the inside of the town’s 10,000-gallon water tank,” which, the mayor estimates, will create three to five jobs for the duration of three months.
Any day now, the State Energy Office in Arizona should be receiving the first installment of money to pay for the state’s weatherization plan, according to the Arizona Guardian. (Arizona was the first state to apply for the weatherization assistance grant on April 28, creating a sort of unofficial timeline of money requested and money received.) The house weatherization project—which will add insulation, seal leaks and modernize cooling equipment, among other things—will both create jobs and help consumers out with summer cooling bills. And the state likely has other allotments of money coming down the pipeline. But, in an example of bureaucratic delay, it’ll take another two or three months before the U.S. Department of Energy completes its review of one big portion of it: Arizona’s application for $55.4 million to expand the State Energy Program, which invests in renewable energy programs.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer runs the headline, “Ohio’s first stimulus construction project under way but benefits won’t be felt for years,” echoing concerns that the stimulus money isn’t making enough of an impact, quickly enough. The project involves “widening the Interstate 490 east ramp to Interstate 77 north to accommodate a second lane.” The report’s description of the news conference: “Even with no immediate benefits, the project was hailed Monday as a history-making investment.” Why the skepticism? With the money currently available, the ramp work could be finished by late October, but the public “won’t be able to use the roadway for a while because it feeds into a portion of I-77 north that needs to be upgraded.” How’s that for helpful money?
by Richard Gowan | Jun 8, 2009 | Conflict and security, Economics and development, Europe and Central Asia
In February, I published a piece entitled “Europe Retreats” arguing that, as the financial crisis bites, European countries will cut back on military operations and budgets – just as rising powers like China and India are extending their reach. Today, SIPRI published its Yearbook, which tracks such things – the data makes Europe look pretty tough:
Top 10 Military Spenders, 2008
USA $607bn
China $84.9bn
France $65.74bn
UK $65.35bn
Russia $58.6bn
Germany $46.87bn
Japan $46.38bn
Italy $40.69bn
Saudi Arabia $38.2bn
India $30.0bn
But before we all boast about Europe’s mighty armies, it’s worth checking out a first-class analysis from Tomas Valasek of the Center on European Reform, which explains why European defense spending is about to drop:
Most European governments will have to increase taxes and cut spending in order to rebalance the books. Those cuts will hit defence harder than other parts of the budget. This is because many forms of government spending – like the cost of paying interest on public debt – cannot be reduced by decree. Some non-mandatory expenditures like healthcare tend to be politically explosive: no government wants to be seen to be taking risks with people’s health. So defence budgets are an obvious target for ax-wielding finance ministers. George Osborne, the UK shadow chancellor of the exchequer, warned recently that he would cut defence spending if the Conservatives won the election (which they are widely expected to do this year or next).
The looming military budget cuts will have many salutary effects. Defence establishments, with their resistance to civilian oversight and emphasis on continuity, tend to get bloated in times of relative plenty. It often takes a crisis to force meaningful reforms. France – which suffered a defence budget meltdown in 2007, even before the economic crisis unfolded in full – at last shut many of its African bases, a legacy of its colonial years. Slovakia recently cut the number of military commands from eight to three – a long overdue step that will reduce unnecessary overheads. Other European militaries, too, will come out of the crisis with more sensible structures and budgets.
But the economic crisis presents several serious risks to European defences. The easiest portion of the defence budget to cut is the part that pays for operations. Withdrawing soldiers from faraway places plays well at home (it removes young men and women from harm’s way) and is politically easier than restructuring the militaries (no one is laid off). But European governments should resist the urge to pull back their soldiers indiscriminately; this could cause conflicts to re-flare and leave vulnerable people at risk. Instead, they should stop sending overlapping missions to the same trouble spots. Because international institutions compete to fly their flag in missions abroad, it is not unusual for western governments to have multiple operations in the same place. For example, three different forces are currently fighting piracy off the coast of Somalia. That is a wasteful use of taxpayer money. The EU, NATO, and the US should roll their Somalia operations into one or two.
Tomas goes on to point out that the downturn will also cause governments to cut back on big weapons programs, and that their decisions on what to save and what to cut will probably be driven by domestic concerns rather than security calculations. I recommend you read the whole thing closely. I’d like to stay with operations briefly, though. It’s true that “international institutions compete to fly their flag in missions abroad”. But this is also a particularly European problem, with the EU and NATO jostling for attention. As I argue in another recent piece for the CER, economic and political factors require Europeans to stop being picky and work through other mechanisms like the UN. As the downturn bites, we have to be more pragmatic about crisis management.
by Richard Gowan | Jun 8, 2009 | Conflict and security, Europe and Central Asia
I received an unexpected invitation by e-mail this morning:
We are glad to inform You that Academy of Strategic Research, Information and High Tech, Saint-Petersburg State University of Waterways Communications, Baltic State Technical University “Voenmech” named by D.F. Ustinov, Academy of geopolitical sciences, Interregional Fund of Leningrad veterans of war and military service fellow soldiers, National Youth Congress, Thin Technologies (Co. Ltd) and other universities, institutes and organizations are holding the Third International Scientific-Practical Conference “GEOPOLITICS, GEOECONOMICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS PROBLEMS. NATO AND EU EXPANSION TO THE EAST SECURITY PROBLEMS IN RUSSIA, CIS STATES, EUROPE AND ASIA” on the 22-23 of June in 2009 in Saint-Petersburg.
Oh good. Anything involving the Saint-Petersburg State University of Waterways Communications is right up my street (or canal). But wait, not only are the assembled waterways experts, war veterans and Thin Technologies hoping I may pop over, but they list roughly thirty topics I might wish to give a paper on. Here’s a sample:
Geopolitics and geo-economics of oceans, seas, rivers and waterway communications;
All very sensible. But not really my speciality. What else is there?
Nazism, fascism, racism, genocide and dual standards of Western-European civilization. Genesis and morphology. Historical, geopolitical and juristic analysis;
Oh, now I get it…
Historical, juristic, philosophical and financial aspects, military, geopolitical and geo-economic consequences of one-sided abolishment of Warsaw Treaty when saving NATO. Contemporary history, interaction of events, genesis and morphology;
Influence of Warsaw Treaty abolishment and further USSR destruction on geopolitical and geo-economic situation in the world, safety and vulnerability of Russia, CIS, Europe and Asia;
Problems and prospect of USA and NATO occupation military bases in Europe and Asia liquidation. NATO liquidation as the only way of struggle with the consequences of the World War the 2-nd, occupation fascism, struggle for freedom and democracy of European and Asian countries;
Speed-up of CIS integration in conditions of NATO and EU expansion, outer threats increase, including drug invasion from Afghanistan and other world drug regions.
Maybe I’ll stick to the waterways angle after all…
