by David Steven | Nov 28, 2008 | Conflict and security, South Asia
Yesterday morning, many of us here in the UK heard from Mark Abell, a British lawyer, who spoke to British radio from the Oberoi in Mumbai, where he was barricaded in his room. Abell was extraordinarily calm – remarkably collected despite the danger he faced.
This morning it was a relief to hear that he’d been rescued, after long long hours in his room, communicating with others in the hotel using his Blackberry, and latterly with the British Council, who appear to have played some role in keeping in touch with UK hostages.
Abell is devastated by the experience – not so much by what happened to him, as by the fate suffered by others. In particular, he talks movingly of the death of the waitress who served him in the restaurant just before he went to his room, and of a Japanese businessman who he’d been chatting to (in Japanese) just before the attacks.
If you didn’t hear his interview with the Today programme, then make sure you listen. He’s a great guy.
We spent 48 hours, all but, with no food and little water, surrounded by explosions, gun shots, people running up and down the corridor screaming. It was grim, very grim…
The people here have been fantastic… the Indian authorities, the hotel people, they’ve just been incredibly good and kind…
The lobby was carnage. There was blood and guts everywhere. It was very very upsetting. Just before I went to my room, I had dinner in the Kandahar restaurant. I’ve now just found out that that was one of the places it started. Unfortunately…[he breaks down] the waitress who served me was one of the first to get shot….
It’s been a picnic for me. It’s all these other brave people who need acknowledgement and praise.
Update: I just wanted to underline my gratitude for the role played by British Council staff, and by staff from the British embassy and consulates in emergencies such as these. They tend to see some dreadful things, but do their best under immense pressure.
Update II: More heroics from hotel staff:
[Prashant] Mangeshikar, 52, told Reuters that he had been in the foyer with his wife and daughter when the attackers arrived and started firing. Hotel workers ushered guests into an upstairs service area to escape, but they then came across another gunman.”He looked young and did not speak to us. He just fired. We were in sort of a single file,” said the Mumbai gynaecologist. “The man in front of my wife shielded us. He was a maintenance staff. He took the bullets.”
Mangeshikar added that the guests managed to take shelter inside a room, dragging the injured staff member, identified only as Mr Rajan, in with them. For the next 12 hours they attempted to stop the bleeding from his stomach wound. Rajan was eventually evacuated, but it is not known whether he survived.
“I’m going out today to the hospital to find out what happened to him,” Mangeshikar said. “I owe it to that brave man.”
Update III: Apparently members of the some people visiting the British Council were caught in the Taj restaurant – but have now been freed, while another British Council staff member visitor was shot in another incident at the hotel. Adrian Bregazzi speaks to the BBC World Service:
He was shot at close range by what appears to have been a teenager with an AK-47. He was left for dead, luckily for him, and managed to crawl into some bushes. He’s suffered from a huge blood loss, but is in surgery now.
[I have clarified the above – as it seems that those injured were visiting the BC – probably from the UK (and probably to promote British education] – not staff members]
Update IV – Great quote from Mark Abell as he arrived back in the UK: “Without food, information became our sustenance.”
by Alex Evans | Nov 26, 2008 | Global system, Off topic
Bloomberg has a major exclusive:
Nov. 25 (Bloomberg) — The deal to rescue the world’s best- known bank was pieced together by regulators over Domino’s pizza in near-empty offices one block from the White House …
In the middle of the meeting, Paulson called Bernanke, telling him that he and FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, whose agency guarantees bank deposits and some debt, were still negotiating details, according to the person. Meanwhile, about 20 staffers were working at FDIC offices a block from the White House, subsisting on Domino’s pizza for dinner at around 8 p.m. and working on the deal until about 11:30 p.m., according to a person familiar with the matter.
Eh? The biggest bank failure yet, and we’re focusing on the food they orderered?
But wait – isn’t this all slightly familiar? Rewind back to the start of October, when UK officials were putting together the rescue package for Britain’s high street banks. Here’s the Guardian at the time on the key points of the deal:
In the Treasury war room overlooking St James’s Park, central London, his chancellor, Alistair Darling, was thrashing out the details of the bail-out with ministers, lawyers and executives from the eight leading banks …
Anticipating the long and tense night ahead for him and his team, Darling had taken matters in hand at 8.30pm, personally ringing one of his favourite restaurants, Gandhi’s in Kennington, south London, to order £245 worth of rice, karahi lamb, tandoori chicken, vegetable curry and aloo gobi.
What is it with this obsession over what officials or liquidators were munching (and what time they placed the order) as they put together bailout packages late at night? Well, Lucy Kellaway is on hand to explain:
Newspaper articles in these tumultuous, fatal, not-seen-since-the-Great-Depression times are so tightly packed with cliché it is hard to do anything other than join in.
To get the tone right, one needs to use clichés of four different sorts. First is the geological seam of seismic shifts, landscapes, earthquakes and meltdowns. Second is the newer, more vicious, medical imagery of injected, sharp, toxic, pumped, fatal and reeling. Third is the cliché of banal detail: what time it is, what people are eating, what their complexions look like (but only if pale) followed by another look at the clock. The only mundane cliché not to have been seen once in the last six weeks is “smoke-filled rooms” as that is now illegal. The fourth sort of cliché is to declare everything the worst since 1929 or the worst in living memory.
So there you are. Sounds like an excellent excuse for a new version of Meeting Bingo…
by Charlie Edwards | Nov 25, 2008 | Global Dashboard, Off topic
Do we need to call ‘time out’ on global risk analysis? The NIC report on global trends 2025 is one of a plethora of recent publications on global risks and security challenges from think tanks, Government departments, the defence community, NGOs, business, academia, and the media. Do we really need any more?
3 questions spring to mind:
1. Are we suffocating under the weight of all this analysis?
2. Should we consider having a period of consolidation and reflection?
3. Do we need a transformational shift from analysis to action?
How many times do we need to be told that:
- Since the end of the Cold War, the international landscape has been transformed.
- During the next 30 years, every aspect of human life will change at an unprecedented rate, throwing up new features, challenges and opportunities.
- The unprecedented transfer of wealth roughly from West to East now under way will continue for the foreseeable future.
- The formidable acceleration of information exchanges, the increased trade in goods and as well as the rapid circulation of individuals, have transformed our economic, social and political environment
- New players—Brazil, Russia, India and China will bring new stakes and rules of the game to the international high table.
- Increase in global population will put pressure on resources—particularly land, energy, food, and water—raising the spectre of scarcities emerging as demand outstrips supply.
- There are a set of interconnected set of threats and risks, including international terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, conflicts and failed states, pandemics, and trans-national crime.
Surely it is time to complement existing analytical work with some ideas for action or even, as someone suggested earlier, divert our focus to analysing potential ‘solutions’ rather than identifying the same ‘problems’ time and again. Given the vast number of reports and papers in the system, surely now is the time to consider what improvements and upgrades can and need to be made to the global system in response to the myriad of issues the international community faces.
In order to do this we need to move away from the comfortable exercise of scene setting, describing the world around us and instead take a different approach. One simple way would be to look East and see what Indian & Chinese thinkers and academics are developing. Analysis obviously plays a crucial role in thinking through issues and in policy-making but the very process of analysis can be seductive; providing us with breathing space when we actually need to be pushing on and debilitating by creating ever greater complexity which can often lead to inaction.
In the words of the King:
A little less conversation, a little more action please
All this aggravation ain’t satisfactioning me
A little more bite and a little less bark
A little less fight and a little more spark
by Alex Evans | Nov 25, 2008 | Cooperation and coherence, Europe and Central Asia, Influence and networks, London Summit
As Gideon Rachman notes, the fact that the G20 has now staged a summit at the level of leaders rather than finance ministers – which by my reckoning made it a de facto L20 – means that “the venerable old G8 has a real challenger on its hands”.
In addition to the advantages that Gideon counts off – the G20’s novelty, its inclusion of emerging economies, the fact that the G20 has the earlier summit (G20 in April vs. G8 in July), the Berlusconi factor – there’s also the fact that Gordon Brown (who’s chairing the April G20) is already gearing up for a big push to make a success of the G20 and get the ball rolling in earnest on a Bretton Woods II agenda (c.f. David and my paper on this if you missed it).
Even before you consider the G20, there are some big question marks over the G8. What has it really delivered over the past decade since it enlarged from G7 to G8? My count would go something like this: debt relief; the Proliferation Security Initiative; the Global Fund on AIDS, TB and Malaria; and the Financial Stability Forum. Four credible initiatives, yes – but not much of a tally for ten years’ worth of summits, and also notable that none of these areas really involved any serious domestic implementation commitments.
Part of the problem here is the limited bandwidth of the ‘sherpa’ system that prepares the summit agenda before heads meet in the summer. As I noted in a Guardian piece back in July, sherpas have pretty busy day jobs (like Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, or Private Secretary to the PM), which rather curtails their capacity to tee up major global deals as well. It’s a case in point of the problem with moving issues to the leaders’ level: yes, you get the big picture, but at the cost of moving issues to the most over-stretched parts of governments. Hardly surprising that you’re more likely to end up with a media-friendly ‘initiative’ rather than a comprehensive long-term framework.
And perhaps it’s here that we come to what may be the real ace up the G20’s sleeve: its roots in the world of finance ministers. Like leaders, finance ministers have the big picture. But unlike leaders, they also have big departments that already cover most of the global waterfront (apart from a few hard security areas like arms control) – and hence a great deal more analytical capacity for getting to grips with complex issues like climate change, trade and reform of the global financial system.
True, foreign ministries have big departments with lots of capacity too – but they have no way of forcing coherence on the rest of their governments when it comes to implementation. Finance ministries, on the other hand, have a decisive advantage: while herding cats may never be easy, it’s a whole lot more manageable if you control the catfood.
Admittedly, the G8 has a Finance Ministers’ variant too – which has arguably achieved more in recent years than the leaders’ G8. But co-ordination between the two G8 bodies hasn’t stood out as a strong point. With the G20, Gordon Brown has a chance to forge a different, more effective relationship between the finance ministers’ and leaders’ levels; indeed, it would be hard to imagine someone better qualified to do so, given that as well as spending a decade as Finance Minister, Brown was chair of the IMFC for so long.
