by Charlie Edwards | May 14, 2008 | Global system, Influence and networks, UK
Tomorrow the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) will publish its annual report/ threat assessment. It will make for uncomfortable reading at the Home Office and No.10. The Agency is not living up to the great expectations officials placed upon it in 2006. In the febrile political atmosphere of Westminster you can be sure the Conservative and Lib Dems will want to scrutinize the organisation’s failings and the Government’s wider policy on organised crime (ironically called One Step Ahead). Failure to lower crime is still the political weapon of choice.
For a sense of what is to come its worth reading the transcript from Stephen Lander’s (former DG Security Service) and William (Bill) Hughes’ first visit to the Home Affairs select committee. But first the facts:
By the most conservative estimates, money laundering comprises between two and five percent of global gross domestic product (GDP).
The UNODC, roughly estimates that organised crime costs the global economy up to $1 trillion per year
In 2005, the UNODC estimated the global narcotics market at $322 billion—equivalent to a GDP ranking of roughly 30th in the world, measured against national economies, and roughly 75 percent of the total GDP of Sub-Saharan Africa
There has been a rapid expansion in the black market in counterfeit goods—now worth an estimated $400-$600 billion per year (before you stifle a yawn this includes parts for cars and areoplanes)
Preliminary research conducted by the Home Office into the economic cost of organised crime and estimated that the price could be as high as £40 billion a year – the abuse of Class A drugs estimated at £13 billion a year ‘at a highly conservative estimate’
These are serious numbers and show how big a business organised crime is. More than that it shows how organised crime acts as a cancer on society. But irrespective of how great the risk from organised crime is, the UK Government is in no position to do anything. SOCA’s budget has been frozen, resources and capabilities have been shifted elsewhere in Government to countering terorrism and enlarging the Intelligence agecnies; the MoD is focused on operational issues in Afghanistan and Iraq while the FCO recently dropped organised crime off its list of priorities. SOCA has become the orphan of Whitehall. A change of approach is needed.
by Daniel Korski | May 14, 2008 | Conflict and security, Influence and networks
Last night I had dinner with a group of security experts and sat next to Chatham House’s Robin Niblett . We got to talking about the role of Ministers and how they seem to struggle with their role in overseeing today’s counter-insurgency missions i.e. operations like in Iraq. They shy away from detail, but are forced into minutiae by events. They go for headline-grabbing figures – like withdrawal numbers – that rarely materialise. They oversell missions – does anyone remember John Reid’s comment that British soldiers would not fire a shot in Helmand? You get the point.
However, is this any different from the past; and if so, why?
Even a cursory reading of Churchill’s memoirs or those of any of his wartime colleagues (like his defense chief, Lord Alanbrooke) leaves you with the impression that no detail was too small, no maneuver too inconsequential for the PM to take an interest – and, frequently, a direct role. As we know, this did not always have the intended beneficial effects, but the PM’s involvement was clear, all-pervasive – and ultimately crucial for Britain’s war-time effort.
But in the 1950s, 60s and 70s as Britain fought countless battles against Soviet-backed, liberation movements – the heyday of counter-insurgency – the role of Whitehall seemed to decrease. Decisions were delegated to theatre level, as in the Malay campaign. It was only when the Troubles began – and the fight was brought home – that the day-to-day involvement of Whitehall began to increase.
But besides Northern Ireland, the Cold War did not include – indeed require – day-to-day ministerial oversight. Plans were laid to roll back a Red Army advance and the PM had to write a letter to submarine commanders bearing instructions for nuclear retaliation. But there was no day-today role. The Falklands War was may have been an exception to this hands-off, strategy-focused Cold War role.
In the modern world, however, wars like the Iraq War are fast-paced, cost billions of pounds, risk the lives of hundreds of soldiers and can cost ministers their careers. This drives greater ministerial involvement in decision-making than before. But, on the other hand, the complexity – and sometimes brutality – of modern counter-insurgency means many ministers are reluctant to get too involved in decisions, lest they be blamed for the choices made by a soldier in Basra or a diplomat in Kandahar. (more…)
by David Steven | May 10, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity, Europe and Central Asia
Yesterday I was at a roundtable on Europe and climate change, hosted by Jim Murphy, the UK’s minister for Europe, with his French counterpart, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, as the main speaker.
France is about to take over the EU presidency and will play a critical role on the road to Copenhagen. Two questions stand out:
- Can the EU show that it is making credible moves towards its unilateral commitment to a 20% emissions cut by 2020?
- How hard will the French push the idea that laggards on climate change should be punished through the global trade regime?
The first question is the most important. In Bali, the Europeans had some success in leading the negotiations from in front. I summed up their strategy as follows in my Bali wrap up:
(i) Take a unilateral commitment first. (ii) Next bring on board others prepared to move ahead of the pack. (iii) Only then bring the US – the problem player – into the thick of the action, and do so at a time [after the presidential elections] when the country will be desperate to re-engage with the wider world; (iv) And finally, persuade developed countries to do their bit, using a blend of three arguments. First, that rich countries have committed to action first. Second, that incentives are on the table, to help the switch from dirty to clean tech. And finally that not to act is unfair on countries that are poorer and more vulnerable (expect India to hear a lot from low-lying Bangladesh, for example).
But that strategy only works if Europe’s partners believe that the EU intends to keep the commitments it has freely made. At the moment, that is far from clear. The roundtable was opened by the FT’s George Parker, who argued that the UK missed half of its own green targets, public interest in the environment was on the wane, and that the EU was failing to align its budget to its green aspirations. (more…)
by Alex Evans | Apr 26, 2008 | Global system, Off topic
David Miliband writes:
My visit this week to Pakistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iraq was punctuated with people describing their links to Britain. One conversation particularly sticks in the memory.
I was told by someone that they had great affection for British education. “I studied at Eton, Oxford, Nottingham and London universities”. I congratulated him and said I would not hold his Eton past against him.
He replied: “Why, did you go to Harrow?”.
by Alex Evans | Apr 23, 2008 | East Asia and Pacific
Amidst the general swooning over Kevin Rudd (to which even we at Global Dashboard are not immune), the latest convert is David Miliband, who last week penned a blog post that ran thus:
…his travels are now being put to good use as he showed in his speech in London last week, arguing for “creative middle power diplomacy”. Rudd argued that we should shape the global response to global challenges together – us because of the links to Europe, them because of their links to Asia, both of us because of our links to the USA. Now fully part of the climate, terrorism, financial regulation debates, Australia embodies the point that in a small world anyone can carve out a leadership role.
Oh dear. Australia not happy about that last bit there. Over to our friend Sam Roggeveen at The Interpreter – the blog of Australia’s premier foreign policy research centre, the Lowy Institute – who’s not best pleased about this
…rather condescending bit about how anyone can be a global leader, even tiny, insignificant Australia. What are we, The Little Engine That Could? Perhaps the next time Rudd speaks in the UK, he needs to put more emphasis on the ‘middle’ in ‘creative middle power diplomacy’.
Fair point. Let’s not forget that once you adjust for purchasing power parity, Australia has a larger GDP per capita than Britain…
