Patriotism + fighting malaria + Diddy = a piss-up

July 2, 2009 at 8:32 pm | Richard Gowan | More on Cooperation and coherence, Influence and networks, North America, Off topic | Comment

If one man can see the links between global health risks and national security, it’s Diddy:

“Official Vodka of Summer” and Diddy Celebrate Military Service with an Invitation to the Summer’s Most Exclusive Party

NEW YORK, June 24 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ – CIROC Ultra Premium Vodka, the “Official Vodka of Summer,” and Sean “Diddy” Combs today have invited Tanya Vinson of the United States Air Force to serve as Diddy’s personal guest as he celebrates our nation’s independence during his world-famous White Party on July 4, 2009 in Los Angeles, California, which this year is co-hosted by ‘Malaria No More,’ a non-profit, non-governmental organization determined to end the malaria crisis in Africa.

As a sponsor of the event, CIROC Vodka launched a program in April to honor several American service men and women with entry to this exclusive event. The grand prize winner, Tanya Vinson, has received the ultimate CIROC White Party experience for two, including round trip airfare, hotel accommodations, and transportation, in recognition of her outstanding commitment to the armed forces.

“As we celebrate Independence Day at this year’s White Party, it’s only fitting that we show our gratitude for the heroic men and women who protect our freedom every day,” said Combs, who entered into a strategic marketing alliance with the ultra-premium spirit more than one year ago. “I am proud to honor our military by personally hosting Tanya at my Fourth of July White Party.”

A staple on the celebrity party circuit, Diddy’s White Party is revered as one of the most sophisticated and stylish events of the year. Although traditionally held at the end of summer, this year’s fete - themed ‘We Are Family’ - will occur on Independence Day in honor of our nation’s independence and the historic presidential election.

Ms. Vinson, a recruiter in the United States Air Force, holds what has become one of the toughest jobs in the military. As one of the faces for this branch of service, she is tasked with replenishing the ranks of our military during one of the most challenging times in our nation’s history.

The maker’s of CIROC Vodka would like to remind all consumers to celebrate life responsibly this Fourth of July. Use a designated a driver. Those without a designated driver can text “DRIVESAFE” to 44264 from their wireless devices to receive taxi information in their area.

Diageo
Taylor PR

Tammy Thompson
Alexandra Sklansky

Tammy.Thompson@diageo.com
asklansky@taylorpr.com
203-229-4876
212-714-5702

Hat-tip: The Intoxocologist

Killer (probably not) in the rain

July 2, 2009 at 6:58 pm | Richard Gowan | More on Climate and resource scarcity, North America | Comment

Raymond Chandler got it wrong:

In fact, an analysis by The New York Times of rainfall and homicides for the last six years shows that when it rains substantially in the summertime, there are fewer homicides.

When there was no precipitation, there was an average of 17 homicides every 10 days. But when there was an inch or more of rain, the average dropped to 14.

That does not surprise Vernon J. Geberth a former Bronx homicide squad commanding officer. He said that when there was a downpour, the police would sometimes joke, “The best cop in the world is on duty tonight.”

The gap is even wider when looking just at Saturdays in the summer. Those are the days that typically post the highest number of homicides in a year. When there was no rain, the average number of homicides for every 10 Saturdays in summer jumped to 24. For every 10 Saturdays doused with at least an inch of rain, the average number was 18.

These numbers may add up to something of a bright spot for a city that officially entered summer with the second wettest June on record, according to meteorologists at Pennsylvania State University. With a little more than 200 homicides so far this year, the city is on pace for a low not seen since the early 1960s. The first few days of July promise more of the same damp weather, with a chance of rain every day.

How not to write a newspaper headline

July 2, 2009 at 4:25 pm | Richard Gowan | More on Off topic | Comment

From the Press Association, a headline to thrill the dullest reader:

UN chief to attend committee

Ants!

July 1, 2009 at 4:09 pm | Richard Gowan | More on Cooperation and coherence, Off topic | Comment

From the BBC, something to make you feel a bit icky:

A single mega-colony of ants has colonised much of the world, scientists have discovered.  Argentine ants living in vast numbers across Europe, the US and Japan belong to the same interrelated colony, and will refuse to fight one another.

The colony may be the largest of its type ever known for any insect species, and could rival humans in the scale of its world domination.  What’s more, people are unwittingly helping the mega-colony stick together.

Argentine ants (Linepithema humile) were once native to South America. But people have unintentionally introduced the ants to all continents except Antarctica.

These introduced Argentine ants are renowned for forming large colonies, and for becoming a significant pest, attacking native animals and crops.

In Europe, one vast colony of Argentine ants is thought to stretch for 6,000km (3,700 miles) along the Mediterranean coast, while another in the US, known as the ‘Californian large’, extends over 900km (560 miles) along the coast of California. A third huge colony exists on the west coast of Japan.

While ants are usually highly territorial, those living within each super-colony are tolerant of one another, even if they live tens or hundreds of kilometres apart. Each super-colony, however, was thought to be quite distinct.

But it now appears that billions of Argentine ants around the world all actually belong to one single global mega-colony.

Our broken economic system

June 30, 2009 at 3:11 pm | Jules Evans | More on Economics and development | 1 Comment

I enjoyed Andrew’s post below, though I’d dispute the assertion that Adam Smith and the other ‘great theorists’ of capitalism thought it was amoral.

That’s not true, they thought capitalism in general made us more moral, more civilised, though they also saw this wasn’t always infallibly the case. But if you read Smith, Hume, Shaftesbury and the other great theorists, you’ll see they tried to make a moral case for capitalism and commerce.

In terms of the ethical implications of the crisis, the basic ethical point, which others have discussed but which is still unaddressed by governments, is this: our present economic system is palpably unfair, in that the financial services sector is allowed to live by different rules to the rest of the economy.

The financial sector has, for the last 30 years, subjected the rest of the economy to its pitiless attention, privatizing it, stripping off assets, selling off assets, and imposing ‘market efficiency’ (ie job cuts), with an evangelical zeal.

If a company was failing, we were told, it should be carved up,  sold off, or allowed to fail. This was the efficient way.

Now, banks right across the world are failing. But we are told they are too big to fail, they are of ’systemic importance’, and so they are propped up with our money, and allowed to continue their reckless activities until the next bail out, in a few years time.

The financial sector created a whole new moral lexicon - ’shareholder value’, ‘rationalisation’, ‘market efficiency’, ‘transparency’ - which we absorbed to an extent we perhaps haven’t realised. Now, this rhetoric has been exposed as self-interested, and hypocritical.

Our societies reward bankers for gambling, often gambling badly, with the highest salaries in the economy, with the possible exception of a handful of equally juvenile Premiership footballers. Meanwhile, teachers, nurses, social workers - people who are genuinely contributing to the public good - are paid a fraction of that.

Our present economic system rewards gambling and greed, and punishes altruism and self-sacrifice.

And we let bankers get away with it - as soon as they go bust, we bail them out, get them back to the poker table, and applaud them for their pluck and acumen when the stock markets go up.

It is, as others have pointed out, a captured system, rigged to serve the interests of those in the financial sector.

A genuinely ethical economic system would value teachers, nurses and social workers as among the most important figures in a society, and they would be paid accordingly, or at the very least better than the pittance they earn today.

Thatcherism has left us a system where we hold the financial services sector up as a paradigm of excellence, a beacon leading the rest of us to  prosperity. It is not. It makes us both spiritually and literally poorer, and if we have to subsidize it because it’s of ’systemic importance’, that means our system as it presently exists is broken.

The Return of Ethics: Panglossian Banking?

June 30, 2009 at 11:51 am | Andrew Pickering | More on Economics and development, UK | 1 Comment

The financial crisis has led to a lot of talk about the failure of ethics in the banking sector. Greed overtook wisdom, we’re told. No doubt this is the case. Yet whilst bankers are to blame, it’s hopelessly naïve to suppose that a ‘return’ to some golden age of ethical business will solve all our problems.

There is a parallel with the expenses claims of British parliamentarians. Caught with their hands in the till, some cried out that the system was to blame for letting them get away with it. For all the cheek of that response, there is a lesson in it.

Individuals must take responsibility for their sins. But if we’re serious about making sure that these things cannot occur again, it really isn’t enough to call for more ethics in business. In fact, I’m beginning to suspect that this is a way to avoid having to enact any real change. As the crisis seems to be settling down, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling has shied away from significant reform of the regulatory system and chose instead to blame bosses for being irresponsible. ‘Don’t worry,’ we seem to be being told, ‘we’ll just ask bankers not to be greedy any more.’ Forgive me, but I had hoped for something more robust.

It must be conceded that in sharp contrast to the plans of the British government, Barack Obama’s planned reforms are substantive and bold. But on a global level, concerns are growing that the opportunity for broader reform that this crisis provides is being missed as optimism returns alongside talk of ‘green shoots of recovery’. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS), often described as the central bankers’ central bank, published its annual report on Monday. According to the FT, the BIS:

said it was vital that thought be given to the ongoing structure of the financial system while the patient was still on life support. Efforts so far, it concluded, had been a “messy mixture of urgent treatment designed to stem the decline, combined with an emerging agenda for comprehensive reform to set the foundations for sustainable growth”.

It highlighted two main risks: first, that not enough will be done to ensure a durable recovery from crisis; and second, that the emergency action to stabilise the financial system will undermine efforts to build a safer system.

The G8, too, is jumping on board the ‘return to ethics’ bandwagon. MBA graduates have set up their own code of ethics, taking inspiration from the medical profession’s Hippocratic Oath. This is welcome. We do need to create a public environment in which ethics and responsibility are more emphasised (and more respected), but to expect a firm whose raison d’etre is the pursuit of profit to apply the brakes is painfully naïve. Business (and politics) should be conducted on more ethical grounds. This year’s Reith Lectures, given by Michael Sandel, address this point well. But in the meantime (between now and hell freezing over), we need rules that acknowledge people’s tendency to ignore ethics, especially in the heat of the moment. The great theorists of capitalism itself, such as Adam Smith, knew well that the system wasn’t moral. But neither is capitalism immoral - it’s simply amoral. If we want a moral system, we have to bring in the morality ourselves. But to expect bankers to do so on their own is to invite a conflict of interest. We do not expect the players at Wimbledon to make line calls on their own shots and, similarly, we should not expect the financial sector to judge the morality or wisdom of its own practices.

This is an important moment, but it’s not a moment of a new ethical kingdom, or of a new form of capitalism. Instead, we need to return to an older scepticism about the role of private interests in our society and the degree to which the doctrine of self-regulation is a realistic solution.

RBS to go green?

June 30, 2009 at 11:27 am | Jules Evans | More on Climate and resource scarcity, Economics and development | Comment

News in the FT today that three environmental groups have filed a suit to make sure the Royal Bank of Scotland does more to promote renewable energy, foregoing its traditional dominance in oil and gas projects.

Ian Leggett, People & Planet’s director, said: “The government now controls RBS and has an exceptional opportunity to drive investments in low carbon jobs and infrastructure, not to repeat the recklessness of the past.”

As I’ve argued before, state-owned development banks have a key role to play in transforming our economies from a high to a low carbon footprint.

Modern project finance - particularly the use of the special purpose vehicle - was of great use in the 1970s to drive the development of the North Sea oilfields. It has been fundamental in creating the hydrocarbon society of the last 50 years.

We now need it to help us develop the post-hydrocarbon society.

While the development of the north Sea oil sector was mainly done by private oil companies and banks, although with some tax incentives from the government, I would suggest the construction of the post-hydrocarbon society is better driven by state-owned banks and retail investors than private banks, because these are capital intensive projects aimed at protecting the public good rather than private wealth.

RBS, with its expertise in project finance, is a good place to start.

Maoism’s big future in the 21st century

June 30, 2009 at 9:36 am | Peter Hodge | More on Conflict and security, South Asia | Comment

We’re so obsessed with Islamic insurgency - see Kilcullen’s The Accidental Guerrilla - that we risk ignoring other types of insurgency. Like the Naxalite Maoist revolt in central and eastern India.

Michael Spacek, at India’s Forgotten War, writes about how the Naxalites recently took control of a large district in West Bengal, albeit briefly - “the Maoists have successfully been exploiting the seething resentments against West Bengal’s communist government and have steadily been increasing their influence in the state”.

I may be going out on a limb here, but like evangelical Christianity, Maoism is going to have a big future in violent and poor places in the 21st century. Maoism and Christianity are revolutionary creeds which have successful and adaptive operating systems. Both have simple but effective messages which speak powerfully to the dispossessed in society. Both have many disciples who aggressively preach and die for the cause. Both exploit local grievances and traditions to the max.

Earth to Russia: mumbo-jumbo is not a foreign policy

June 28, 2009 at 2:15 pm | Richard Gowan | More on Conflict and security, Cooperation and coherence, Europe and Central Asia | Comment

From a new op-ed by Dmitri Rogozin, Russia’s ambassador to NATO, on the “abduction of Europa”:

Today, the identity of the west is being challenged by colossal cultural and spiritual pressure from the south. Nations conquered in the past are now invading Europe, changing dramatically not only its external but also its inner world. Europe can no longer assimilate huge inflows of alien cultures. Misinterpreting the sage principle of ‘tolerance’, the west has abandoned the fight to preserve values inherent in European civilisation. Instead of instilling European culture in their new compatriots, the west’s elites have concealed the problems in closed communities. This cowardly escape from the realities of globalisation will lead to the demise of Europe and its culture.

Western elites have sought to substitute the process of globalisation with plans of salvation for European civilisation. But new projects, such as NATO’s enlargement to the east and the Eastern Partnership, pose a greater threat to Europe than if the west took no action at all. The wider that NATO’s and the EU’s areas of responsibility become, the weaker they become. Taking up the problems and disputes of Europe’s eastern half is wearing out its spirit as a civilisation.

Whether Brussels likes it or not, Russia is becoming the centre of the European tradition. It is steadily imparting European culture to eastern territories. José Manuel Barroso and Javier Solana, who in May visited the grand European city of Khabarovsk in the Russian far east, could see for themselves how outdated is Charles de Gaulle’s slogan of a “Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals”. The Russians have expanded Europe to the shores of Alaska and the Kurile Islands.

Whatever Russia’s developmental problems, they are insignificant compared to the threat to the survival of European civilisation. The west may be procuring eastern European countries for itself, but, in a genuine cultural and spiritual sense, western Europe is shrinking rather than growing.

Thus, the paradox today is that Europe’s western half is shrivelling, while its eastern half is expanding. Russia is now Europe’s spiritual guardian, as Byzantinum prolonged the ‘cause of Rome’ for a millennium after Rome collapsed under the onslaught of barbarians. The writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky argued that, for Russians, Europe is a ‘second fatherland’. Fear of the new Russia is simply unjustified. Russia is the west’s most natural and reliable ally. The sooner the west realises that, the greater the chance of speaking of our common European fate not just in the past tense.

I know that Russia wants to be taken seriously as a great power and all, but it would help if its policy pronouncements didn’t read like they were based on a second-hand copy of the Decline of the West and half a bottle of old-time vodka.

“Spectre Force” - no managers need apply

June 27, 2009 at 3:58 am | Peter Hodge | More on Conflict and security, Influence and networks | Comment

Six years ago I wrote a thriller, “Death Ground”*. Set in a dystopian 2019, the manuscript’s protagonist was Jeff Strangford, a burnt out undercover operative who infiltrates an eco-terrorist cell. This turns out to be an al-Qaeda front operation run by a renegade but hot Frenchwoman. Along the way Strangford is aided by a gifted hacker called Alec Sulco, erstwhile member of a clandestine cyberwarfare team known as “Spectre Force”…

“Spectre was a black ops outfit, an outlandish mishmash of hackers, programmers, cryptographers, financial analysts, safe-breakers and demolitions experts - young whizz-kids and criminals who could spy and skirmish in cyberspace, hack into a satellite,  a corporate database or the computer system of a stock exchange, and take down a country’s grid or a city’s water supply in a matter of hours.”

No publisher would touch “Death Ground”. For years I wondered why. Now perhaps I’m starting to get the picture. The UK government has announced that it plans to set up an Office of Cyber Security and a Cyber Security Operations Centre, to counter cyber-attacks made by hostile regimes, terrorists and criminals. Cyber security minister Lord West said that the government is turning for help to former illegal hackers… more »

Ban Ki-moon: “noodge” or gambler?

June 26, 2009 at 10:17 pm | Richard Gowan | More on Climate and resource scarcity, Conflict and security, Cooperation and coherence, East Asia and Pacific, Global system, Influence and networks | 1 Comment

Next week, Ban Ki-moon reaches the halfway point in his term as UN Secretary-General.  There’s been a trickle of negative stories of late about his performance.  Justified or not, they’ve brought his SG-ship (and what he needs to do to win a second term) into focus.  The debate has also introduced me to the fine word “noodge”.

The trouble began with a piece in the Economist giving Mr. Ban scores out of 10 on aspects out of his tenure.  8/10 for seeing the “big picture” on climate change and food scarcity, but 3/10 for “speaking truth to power” (mainly on Sri Lanka). Then this:

Management skills: 2/10 Mr Ban cuts an isolated figure, cut off by an inner circle of mostly Korean advisers. Communication with senior staff is poor, and since Mr Ban is not a good listener, it is hard to harness their expertise. What is needed is some leadership from Mr Ban and some clear goals to aim at.

Unluckily for the SG, this article came out just before his monthly press conference, and a canny hack asked him to comment. His response (which you can see here) has been described by UN-watchers as “angry” and “robust”.   The sheer passion doesn’t really come across.  But the FT got in on the act a few days later:

The questioning of Mr Ban’s record has become a staple of conversation among staff at the UN’s New York headquarters and of diplomatic chatter among the foreign missions that crowd midtown Manhattan.

So I doubt that the SG feels that well-disposed to the British quality press (times change: Kofi had a number of former FT journalists in his executive office). The Korean press has been complaining about the articles’ apparent anti-Asian bias.  The worst was to come from the US this week. Here’s Jacob Heilbrunn at Foreign Policy on, er, “the World’s most dangerous Korean”:

It’s not that Ban has committed any particularly egregious mistakes in his 2½ years on the job. But at a time when global leadership is urgently needed, when climate change and international terrorism and the biggest financial crisis in 60 years might seem to require some-any!-response, the former South Korean foreign minister has instead been trotting the globe collecting honorary degrees, issuing utterly forgettable statements, and generally frittering away any influence he might command. He has become a kind of accidental tourist, a dilettante on the international stage.

And so on. This time, it was Ban’s Chief of Staff Vijay Nambiar who got to strike back:

Heilbrunn’s account of United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in Foreign Policy’s July- August issue abounds in innuendo and patronizing commentary instead of serious analysis. Where others have seen Ban Ki-moon’s commitment to “big picture” issues such as climate change and the global food crisis, Heilbrunn only sees smoke and mirrors. Where others see the soft-spoken but tough-minded Secretary General speak out forthrightly amidst the rubble in Gaza, the author sees a “nowhere man”, and a “dangerous Korean”.

Hm: it looks like Ban’s team has filleted the Economist’s reference to the “big picture” but let other parts of its critique drop. Well, you can’t blame them for a bit of spin. And Mr. Ban will welcome a profile in The Nation that is far more sympathetic to his style:

Ban feels most comfortable and useful in the role of global noodge and pivotal player among nations and nongovernmental actors. A genial man given to informality who has been known to break into ditties or self-deprecating humor at sedate dinners, he is neither a charismatic figure nor a spellbinding speaker. He tries to cement his position a little wonkily through issues, with the world financial crisis sharing the top of the priority list with global warming.

Admittedly, the piece does go on to criticize the SG’s management style, but the battle for his reputation remains open.  What’s striking about the entire debate is that everyone (bar Heilbrunn) accepts that Ban’s tenure will be defined by climate change, on which he’s staked a huge amount of political capital.  Stuff like Darfur, high on his agenda in 2007, is out of the equation.  If the Copenhagen negotiations go well (which Ban may affect but cannot control), he’ll be able to draw a line under a lot of criticism.  If they prove unsatisfactory, there’ll be a lot more negative stuff.  For all his wonkiness and noodgity (if that’s a word) the SG seems to be a gambler who likes big stakes…

UPDATE: Stephen Schlesinger has weighed in with a broadly favorable profile of Ban for the Huffington Post.  And Ban has responded - in a typically measured fashion - to media criticism in a weekend interview.

UPDATE #2: But it’s not over.  Inner City Press (which is pretty virulently anti-Ban) implies that the Washington Post and NYT may swing in soon.  Even Al-Jazeera has got a dig in.  But Ban has doubtless taken comfort from a poll showing him to be the world’s most trusted statesman after Obama.

Anglo-Iranian relations face new low: AKA spooks on a plane

June 26, 2009 at 10:12 pm | Andrew Pickering | More on Conflict and security, Middle East and North Africa | Comment

In the light of ongoing events in Iran (which sadly seem to be in danger of being utterly overshadowed by the other thing), various commentators have been focusing on why exactly it is that the regime reserves its greatest hatred for Britain? Surely America is the ‘great satan’? Why are we taking the flak all of a sudden? Of course, it’s historical. You can look at pretty much any world trouble spot, rogue state or basket case, and find the legacy of the British Empire behind it somehow. more »

Jackson tributes: Chavez, Marcos and 1,500 prancing prisoners

June 26, 2009 at 1:16 pm | Richard Gowan | More on Off topic | Comment

Yesterday, David picked up on a fake tribute to the late Michael Jackson from “David Miliband”. Here are some tributes, culled by the New York Times, that appear to be real:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez called the star’s death “lamentable news,” though he criticized the media for giving it so much attention.

Turns out that “Thriller” was actually pretty popular among autocrats:

The former Philippine first lady, Imelda Marcos, said she cried on hearing the news. “Michael Jackson enriched our lives, made us happy,” she said in a statement. “The accusations, the persecution caused him so much financial and mental anguish. He was vindicated in court, but the battle took his life. There is probably a lesson here for all of us.”

Which is, presumably, that the rule of law is a bad and dangerous thing? Imelda should know: she was acquitted on 32 graft charges last year, but has another ten to go. Anyway, not everyone is vindicated in court - and it can get pretty crazy in jail:

Jackson fans lit candles at a spontaneous memorial in Hong Kong, while in the Philippines, a dance tribute was planned for a prison in Cebu, where Byron Garcia, a security consultant, had 1,500 inmates join in a synchronized dance to the “Thriller” video. “My heart is heavy because my idol died,” he said.

Fair enough. My heart would get a bit heavier because I was treating 1,500 human beings as prancing automata, but that’s a matter of taste. Could a tribute come from a more depressing source? Er, yes:

Fellow singer Celine Dion said in a statement, “I am shocked. I am overwhelmed by this tragedy. Michael Jackson has been an idol for me all my life.”