by Richard Gowan | May 25, 2010 | Conflict and security, Europe and Central Asia, Influence and networks, UK
Over at E!Sharp, I’ve just published a piece arguing that Catherine Ashton’s tenure as the EU’s foreign policy chief could be defined by a crisis somewhere:
Catherine Ashton needs a good crisis. While all eyes have been on the fight to save the euro, the EU’s foreign policy chief has been focused on setting up the new External Action Service. Her supporters argue that she will be judged on how well this bureaucracy works – so she should not get distracted by bad news from, say, Thailand or the Koreas.
That is true up to a point. But Ashton is canny enough to know that real foreign policy influence comes from being able to take the lead in solving a crisis that others cannot stop. Call this “Sarkozy’s First Law of International Politics”. The French president may be a bit volatile, but he won kudos for his personal diplomacy during the 2008 Georgian war.
“Hold on!” some readers will be crying, “what about Haiti, doesn’t that count?” My answer, sadly, is no: the January earthquake was a disaster and a tragedy, but I’m thinking about a political crisis. People shooting at each other and all that. So far, Ashton has been spared having to deal with that sort of thing.
Where might her first big crisis come from? Africa and the Middle East are both likely options.
There are signs of new trouble in Sudan and Congo, two countries the EU has tried to help stabilise. If either blows up, Ashton may find that European leaders – increasingly disinterested in African affairs – are all too willing to let her orchestrate their response.
The Middle East is another matter. Any crisis in the region is likely to centre on Iran, and Britain, France and Germany will all want a say in how to manage it – but may have very different solutions in mind. Ashton might find herself struggling to forge a consensus.
Harder still would be any crisis involving Russia, especially a new war in the Caucasus. Baroness Ashton would have to navigate between a bloc of member states from the eastern EU demanding a hard line on Moscow and some older members urging caution. Leaders in both camps would want to take the reins – President Sarkozy, for example, might argue that he should repeat his 2008 diplomatic dealings with Dmitry Medvedev. Ashton would find it hard to claim she represented a truly common EU foreign policy.
Isn’t this all a bit alarmist? Possibly. I’ve previously called for the EU to brace for nasty crises that never materialized – check out two of my Cassandra moments here and here. Then again, I failed to predict the 2008 Georgian crisis. But one thing is certain: at some point, Ashton will face a crisis, and have to decide whether or not to seize it. How she performs will have a decisive impact on her reputation.
by Alex Evans | May 24, 2010 | UK
So is the UK government opening central government job vacancies up to external applicants or not? That, after all, is what the new Coalition announced it would do just a week ago, when it said in its Programme for Government that:
We will open up Whitehall recruitment by publishing central government job vacancies online.
Sounds great, right? But then came this morning’s Treasury press notice with details of the government’s first £6bn of spending cuts – and news of a total freeze in civil service recruitment. Specifically, it says:
The civil service recruitment freeze will apply across Government departments, agencies and NDPBs. The only exceptions will be for: the graduate Fast Stream which is already underway; individual business critical appointments, all of which will require authorisation from the Secretary of State; and key frontline posts, which will require the authorisation of the appropriate Chief Executive, with monthly updates provided to the appropriate Secretary of State, Permanent Secretary or Head of Department.
Now you might suppose that even if there’s a civil service recruitment freeze, existing civil servants will still be able to apply for new posts within their existing departments – unless of course the plan is also to suspend promotions, staff moving to overseas posts and so on.
And indeed an official I’ve spoken today confirms that of course people will still move from one job to another within their departments.
But in that case, can someone please explain to me in what sense, exactly, the government is “opening up Whitehall recruitment”?
by Mark Weston | May 24, 2010 | Africa, Conflict and security
Having refused to testify against Charles Taylor, the thuggish former Liberian president currently being tried at the Hague for war crimes, it now seems likely that the supermodel Naomi Campbell will be subpoenaed instead.
The story goes that after a dinner party hosted by Nelson Mandela at his home in South Africa, Ms Campbell was visited in her hotel room in the middle of the night by envoys sent by Taylor, who presented her with an enormous uncut diamond. Campbell allegedly told Mia Farrow about the gift the following morning, but has since denied receiving it to anyone who asks.
Some might think this romantic, but the diamond, if it existed, was a blood diamond from Sierra Leone, Liberia’s nextdoor neighbour, and was paid for with the weapons and soldiers deployed in that country’s vicious civil war.
This, of course, could stain Campbell’s impeccable reputation. She has said she does not want to testify because ‘Taylor has done some terrible things,’ (er, I think that’s why they want you to testify dear) and because she is ‘concerned for her safety.’
By 1997, Sierra Leone’s war was already several years old and approaching its most apocalyptic stage. Already, thousands had been killed or had hands, lips, legs or noses cut off by men and boys funded and supplied with weapons and drugs by Taylor, who needed Sierra Leone’s diamonds for his own insurgency in Liberia (which itself caused a quarter of a million deaths). So Taylor had already ‘done some terrible things’ by the time he allegedly gave Campbell the diamond. Perhaps Campbell hadn’t researched his past (she is a busy woman), but what is Mandela’s excuse for inviting him to dinner?
Apparently, Campbell promised Farrow she would give the diamond to Nelson Mandela’s Children’s Fund, but the Fund denies having ever received it. This could get interesting.
by Richard Gowan | May 21, 2010 | Africa, Global system, North America
Question: what does the following sorry tale have to do with the G20?
Two gay men in Malawi, convicted this week of unnatural acts and gross indecency, were sentenced Thursday to the maximum penalty allowed by law, 14 years of hard labor in prison.
Answer: Canada recently invited Malawi (currently heading up the African Union) to join the Toronto meeting of the G20 in June, along with Ethiopia, the Netherlands, Spain and Vietnam. Cue a certain amount of embarrassment in Ottawa:
“Cases like this are cases we condemn,” Mr. Cannon said Thursday, hours after the two men were sentenced. “We will be following this case as every other case. Canada has a great reputation internationally because we stand up for human rights, and speak out on … things that need to be denounced.”
Well said, Mr Cannon. Will Canadian PM Stephen Harper and other liberally-minded G20 leaders say similar things to Malawi’s President, Bingu wa Mutharika, in Toronto? The White House has announced that it “appalled” by the ruling, so Barack Obama might mention it. Or perhaps Prime Minister Zapatero could use his guest status in Toronto to explain how gay marriage is legal in Spain, as it is in Canada?
Perhaps everyone will maintain a tactful silence. But the gay rights movement has a golden opportunity to put Malawi on the spot by creating a rumpus around the G20… which would be far more interesting than the usual anti-globalization protests.
by Richard Gowan | May 20, 2010 | Conflict and security, North America, Off topic
Global Dashboard asks hard questions about whether communities and systems are resilient enough to survive catastrophes. But I don’t think we’ve ever asked this, taken from a website for people who run laboratories:
How Can I Prepare My Animal-Research Lab for an Earthquake?
Reader Question: I am new to California and recently felt the ground shake for the first time. My colleagues seem to take it lightly and say I shouldn’t be concerned about mild tremors, but I think I should have my animal-research lab prepared for the possibility of a serious earthquake. How do I go about that?
Expert Comments:
In California and other areas at risk, earthquake preparedness is a key component of safety training. The Principal Investigator is responsible for ensuring that all laboratory staff members are adequately trained to protect themselves and the animals in their care.
A disaster plan, directed by the attending veterinarian, should be in place, covering proper food storage, electrical system backup and other preparations to safeguard animals in the aftermath of an earthquake. The plan should address what happens once buildings can be re-entered or in situations when they cannot be safely re-entered.
There must be clear instructions on how to humanely secure animals undergoing procedures when an evacuation becomes necessary. For example, no laboratory animal should leave the building in an evacuation. Animals should always be returned to their cages unless there is an immediate threat to human safety.
If an animal is undergoing surgery when an evacuation becomes necessary, good judgment must be used in deciding how to safely end the procedure or whether euthanasia is necessary.
Yep, I can absolutely imagine staff diligently guiding their lab rats back to their cages during a major earthquake. And the thoughtful discussions of whether euthanasia is an option for little Frodo the Laboratory Gerbil while the tremors hit… or maybe not. Face it, cute animals, when catastrophe comes you’re on your own.
