by Alex Evans | Jan 13, 2009 | Cooperation and coherence, Economics and development, Global Dashboard, UK
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…)
by Alex Evans | Jan 13, 2009 | Europe and Central Asia, Influence and networks
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.
by David Steven | Jan 12, 2009 | Influence and networks, Middle East and North Africa, North America
[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.
by Richard Gowan | Jan 12, 2009 | Europe and Central Asia, Influence and networks, Middle East and North Africa, Off topic
We have noted Nicolas Sarkozy’s attraction to large domestic appliances (first his TV, then his telephone table…). So we are not surprised to see him, third from the left, atop a very large tank in Lebanon:
by Richard Gowan | Jan 12, 2009 | Climate and resource scarcity, Cooperation and coherence, Global system, North America
From the State Department (with some explanatory notes added by GD):
Statement by Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Washington, DC
January 9, 2009
January 11 marks the 100th anniversary of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. We note with pride the century of cooperation with Canada in managing water quality, quantity, and environmental health along our 5,525-mile border. The Treaty also established the International Joint Commission, which has played a vital role as an independent steward of these shared resources. Comprised of Commissioners from both countries, the Commission has been an outstanding example of collaborative governance and stewardship *, facilitating cooperation, preventing and resolving water-related disputes, and approving and overseeing operation of several major dams and hydropower stations along the border.
Millions of Americans and Canadians depend on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system for drinking water, trade, jobs, recreation, and more. Through the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the International Joint Commission, our two nations are working diligently to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem.**
The Boundary Waters Treaty remains vibrant as it enters its second century. Recent International Joint Commission initiatives such as International Watershed Boards provide opportunities for local stakeholders to build networks that can prevent or resolve problems at the community level. The Treaty continues to be a model for managing shared resources***and a tribute to the enduring friendship between the United States and Canada.****
* The reference to “governance and stewardship” may signify a career State drafter trying out a few liberal, internationalist phrases so as to be ready for the next administration. Had this been drafted in 2003, it’d probably have referred to “the joint commitment of freedom-loving nations to God’s aquatic gift to mankind”.
** I’ve read this a number of times, but it does indeed appear to be a positive reference to international environmental regulation by the Bush administration. I assume they think Dick’s too busy burning stuff to get pissed about this one.
*** Well yes, it’d be easier to resolve resource conflicts if the opponent was always Canada.
**** This is most likely a coded reference to the fact that the Canadian Conservative government is one of the few regimes on earth that may actually be sorry to see the Republicans go…
