by Alex Evans | Jun 13, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity, Global system
Ahead of this weekend’s G8 Finance Ministers’ meeting, the treasury secretaries of Japan, the US and the UK have launched a call for G8 countries to commit cash to two World Bank funds – one on technology transfer for major developing country emitters, and one to help finance adaptation costs. The US will apparently hold a pledging conference later this year to try to raise an initial $10 billion; the three countries have pledged $5 billion of that.
Naturally, Global Dashboard readers will immediately jump to the question: is the UK’s contribution loans or grant aid? Let’s be very clear from the outset: the word “donate”, used in briefing the FT, means “to present as a gift, grant or contribution”. The Treasury website is silent about the new initiative, but fear not: we’ll be keeping our eyes peeled on this one.
In other news, Gordon Brown has confirmed he’ll go to the Saudis’ summit conference on oil prices (where it looks like he may be the only head of state attending). The Guardian tells us he thinks that
it would be necessary to build 1,000 nuclear power stations worldwide to combat … what he described as the world’s oil addiction.
Sigh. Again: petrol and electricity ain’t the same thing, Gordon…
by Daniel Korski | Jun 13, 2008 | Europe and Central Asia
As predicted here, Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty. Over on the ECFR website I have tried to lay out what I think European leaders should now do:
To keep all options open, the remaining eight countries that have yet to ratify the Lisbon Treaty should do so. This does not amount to ignoring the Irish, but keeps the door open for a number of different solutions and respects the democratic will of those countries who have ratified the country (however they have chosen to do so).
But perhaps more importantly, if it turns out that the Lisbon Treaty – however amended and with whatever concession offered to Ireland – is dead, European leaders should ensure that one of the main ideas behind the Treaty – to make the EU a more effective foreign policy player – is saved. Read how here.
by Daniel Korski | Jun 13, 2008 | Influence and networks
The resignation of David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, in protest over the 42-day detention vote in Parliament, was followed by a number of stories about his relationship with party leader David Cameron.
Both insist they’ve not fallen out and not rowed about policy. But once the bizarre specter of David Davis running for his own seat is over, I could not help but think that one narrative would remain; namely, that David Cameron runs the Tories with a tight-nit clique of friends, which outsiders – even Shadow Cabinet Ministers – find hard to penetrate.
My point here is not to accuse the Tory leader of being a toff. He may or may not be, but I don’t really care. Rather, my point is that at a time when the Prime Minister is clearly failing to deal with the complexity and speed of modern policy-making in part because he clings to a small tight-knit clique of allies, it would seem that the Tory leader risks doing much the same.
If true, this sits uneasily with the growing complexity and rapidity of contemporary policy challenges. In today’s world, policy-makers need to find ways to open policy processes, include stakeholders, marshal governmental and non-governmental resources etc. etc. It is not just, as it once was, important to avoid Groupthink and thus bad decisions; it is key to even get the necessary information for policy-making to take place on highly complex issues like energy, food prices, non-proliferation etc.
True, acusations of this kind of “cliqueness” dogged Tony Blair as well. Remember the Sofa? But by now, politicians should see that this is not only deeply unpopular, but bad for policy-making.
by David Steven | Jun 13, 2008 | Conflict and security, North America
I have nothing against John McCain. The man is a war hero. He has carved out a distinctive career as a political maverick. And his support for the surge in Iraq showed a willingness to stake out a position that, at the time, seemed politically suicidal.
But McCain keeps saying stupid things. In March, he wasn’t clear whether condoms prevent HIV (they don’t – but that’s another story), while ten days ago, when Obama finally slayed Grendel’s wife, he gave the worst speech I have ever seen. (Fox’s reaction was priceless, while you can watch McCain’s ‘lime green’ speech here if you missed it.)
This week, McCain has been in trouble for his assertion that bringing American troops home from Iraq was “not too important.” Here’s the full quote:
Interviewer: And a lot of people say the surge is now working.
McCain: Anybody who knows the facts on the ground will say that.
Interviewer: If it’s working Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?
McCain: No. (Shrug.) But that’s not too important. What’s important are the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. That’s all fine.
All this echoes his remarks from January, when in response to a question, he advocated keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years if casualties could be eliminated – a way of controlling “a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.”
Again, McCain took US troop presence in Korea and Japan as yardstick for what the US could achieve in Iraq, echoing the Bush administration’s desire for a network of permanent bases in the country.
What’s the problem with this vision? Apart from its improbability, there’s the evidence that suggests that an enduring US presence would be highly likely to provoke an equally enduring campaign of suicide bombing.
Someone should therefore ask McCain – how many suicide attacks does he want?
(more…)
