Australian bush fire survivors
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2IdDUSrZbE[/youtube]
An American DFID?
One debate that will run and run in the coming months is on the whether, why and how of reforming US foreign assistance – a theme that Barack Obama riffed on frequently during the course of the Presidential campaign.
Over at the Center for Global Development, Sheila Herrling has just posted a Q&A on reforming the antiquated 1961 Foreign Assistance Act, which created USAID in the first place. As Herrling observes, the Act has only been overhauled fully on one occasion – and that was back in 1985. So what should reform achieve? According to Herrling, a new act should:
– clearly outline the objectives and priorities of U.S. foreign assistance programs;
– consolidate decision making and implementation functions into a single independent institutional entity;
– specify the roles and responsibilities of other government agencies where appropriate;
– clarify the coordination of oversight responsibilities and functions; adjust regulatory requirements to fit the reality of implementing assistance programs; and
– discourage to the highest degree possible political and bureaucratic constraints (such as earmarks and presidential initiatives).
However, the really big question lurking in the background is whether USAID should be hived off and made into a separate department, a la DFID in the UK: expect plenty of speculation and debate about this over the course of the spring. Me, I’m not holding my breath – for two formidable obstacles stand between here and USDFID.
One: the fact that Obama can’t just create a new department with a stroke of the pen. In the US, machinery of government changes of that magnitude need Congressional approval (many would argue that the only reason the Department for Homeland Security came into being was the determined campaign run by the 9/11 families for just this outcome).
Two: the even more challenging hurdle of one Ms Hillary Clinton. Hillary made plenty clear as soon as she arrived at State that she sees development as one of the core pillars of foreign policy. It’s very unlikely that she’d see such a significant part of her empire slip through her fingers…
New coalition on international justice: Britain + Sudan [NB: THIS IS ERRONEOUS RUBBISH.]
Having heard from people who were at this conference, I’m now convinced that the UK speaker’s remarks are misrepresented (or taken completely out of context) in the Yale News article reproduced below, and he did not endorse the Sudanese position on the ICC. One of the risks of blogging is that you see an interesting but uncorroborated story and write about it without pausing to check if it is, er, true. Which happened here…
I’ve warned a number of times of a split over international justice, and specifically the International Criminal Court, between the West (which tends to behave like judge and jury) and African leaders (who feel that they are always the defendants). So it’s good to see the UK and a prominent African government agreeing on ICC issues – or is it?
The chief attorney of the International Criminal Court on Friday called for the indictment of Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir at a Yale Law School conference on Darfur, sparking heated debate within panels stocked with international law heavyweights. “The timing could not be better,” Luis Moreno-Ocampo said of the conference. “The time to do something in Darfur is now.”
International officials involved in the Darfur peace process have skirmished over what role — if any — international criminal prosecution should play in curbing Darfur violence since Moreno-Ocampo charged al-Bashir with genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in July 2008.
Moreno-Ocampo, elected in April 2003 to a nine-year term as ICC prosecutor, focused his address on the question of whether al-Bashir’s indictment would expedite the peace-making process in Darfur. Moren0-Ocampo argued that an ICC indictment would clearly show all parties in Darfur the repercussions of violating the law. “Peace and justice have to work hand in hand,” he said. “Mr. Al-Bashir will face justice.”
Akec Achiew Khoc, the Sudanese Ambassador to the U.S., disagreed with Moreno-Ocampo’s assertion that al-Bashir’s indictment would lead to peace. Addressing the conference as a guest after the first panel discussion, Khoc argued the move would exacerbate conflict.
Michael O’Neill, the United Kingdom’s Special Representative for Sudan, agreed. He said al-Bashir’s indictment could destroy Sudanese unity and derail the peace process in Darfur.
The UK would certainly like to find a way to avoid the ICC indictment breeding new instability in Darfur and Central Africa and the Horn – it’s not clear that other EU members, and especially France, agree. Michael O’Neill has been working these issues from a number of angles for quite a while, and is well-respected for his efforts. His statement (which may not have been intended for the record?) suggests that the “peace versus justice” debate at the UN – and over African affairs more generally – may be about to heat up a few more degrees…
How to look good on top of a tank
In January, I reproduced a fine picture of Nicolas Sarkozy atop a French tank in Lebanon. Today, the NYT opens a profile of new U.S. Afghanistan-Pakistan envoy Richard Holbrooke thus:
Stashed in a drawer in his Manhattan apartment between snapshots of family vacations, a photograph shows Richard C. Holbrooke on a private visit to Afghanistan in 2006. He is mugging atop an abandoned Russian tank, flashing a sardonic V-for-victory sign and his best Nixon-style grin. The pose is a little like Mr. Holbrooke himself: looming, theatrical, passionate, indignant.
Three years later, he has inherited responsibility for the terrain he surveyed from that tank.
Now, it is fair to say that neither M. Sarkozy nor Mr. Holbrooke are scared of having their image scrutinized in the public domain. So we offer the readers the chance to compare and contrast their tank-top appearances:
Holbrooke has the edge here: (i) he has made sure that he is seen from below, accentuating his height; (ii) he is dressed for action, whereas President Sarkozy is just a little too dapper; (iii) he is surrounded by people who look like the better-dressed postgrads in a philosophy seminar, but we assume are fearless warriors.
Still, both our subjects do way better than an earlier generation of tank-top politicians.
I give you Thatcher…
…and, of course, Dukakis (whose presidential defeat is often traced to this shot):
Facing such evidence, can anyone suggest politics is not growing more sophisticated?
The British public: ‘Of Marginal Utility’
At the end of last year the UK Parliament’s Home Affairs Select Committee created a sub-committee to look at CONTEST , the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy which is based on four strands of work: Prevent, Pursue, Protect and Prepare. For some reason (I’ll try and find out) the sub-committee will only look at the last three Ps. Prevent, the most difficult of the Ps is left out. I’ve been sifting through the transcript of the sub-committee’s first oral evidence session – much of what is said won’t be a suprise to most people – though some may be intrigued as to what the three or four questions were at the end of the session which meant the committee could no longer be held in public.
The most interesting exchange is towards the end of the session. Patrick Mercer (who is the Chairman of this sub-committee) asks Tim O’Toole, the Managing Director of the London Underground, how many carry sheets/ stretchers are on each train and if the public knows that they exist:
Chairman: I am specifically referring to the trains because again, talking to the victims, many of them, as you know, had to get out and walk on to the tracks carrying casualties and they had nothing with which to carry them, yet it would appear that there were carry sheets which were available, yet nobody was told where they were, in what quantities, how to get them or how to use them. The first question: do these things exist or not?
Mr O’Toole: They do exist. They do not exist in a number that would have been able to address that situation because there just is not room for them, and the intention is that the real purpose is to deal with the one-off and the idea is that the driver or a member of station staff who responds to a situation would access it.
Chairman: Where are they kept?
Mr O’Toole: They are kept under the seat compartments.
Chairman: How many of them?
Mr O’Toole: Two on every train, I am informed.
Chairman: Two on every train rather than every carriage?
Mr O’Toole: Yes.
Chairman: Why are the public not told where they are?
Mr O’Toole: Because the public does not have access to them, the driver has to access them.
Chairman: Have you considered putting such devices in each carriage?
Mr O’Toole: Well, we consider all of these ideas as they come along, but again our emergency team had a review of how exactly would this work, would it be effective, how would people deal with that, and determined that it would be of marginal utility.
So, just to be clear, the Transport of London (TfL) emergency team decided that it would be of only marginal utility for members of the public travelling on the tube to know where emergency equipment is kept. It’s a shame that institutions/ organisations feel it necessary to wrestle responsibility away from the public – as a result society is becoming increasingly brittle – as individuals are left feeling less empowered and unable to do anything in an emergency. A Resilient Nation needs to reverse this trend sooner rather than later.