How supermarkets are worsening the credit crunch

Posted on October 31, 2008 | Alex Evans | More on Food prices, Resilience | Comments Off

Take note of the important signal of problems in store on the front of today’s FT.  Reckitt Benckiser, the consumer goods manufacturer, has broken ranks to express its outrage that Tesco (the UK supermarket group) is extending the time it takes to settle invoices from 30 to 60 days.  Reckitt’s CEO says:

The question is [if] in the long term they drive the smaller suppliers out of business, that is the key question and it might happen …  I don’t think it is reasonable – no, it is not. There is absolutely no logic to that. They turn over the inventory [in] much less [time] than 60 days, so why should they have 60 day payment terms?

For a supplier to go public with a criticism like this is very unusual, as the FT notes.  Yet Reckitt’s certainly not the only company that’s worried - I’ve heard other food groups express private fears that a serious crunch will build up in the food supply chain over the next two months.

Senior policymakers in the UK, the US and elsewhere are already underscoring their concerns about small businesses in the credit crunch, and making noises about pressuring the financial sector to do more for them. 

On the same basis, they need to focus hard on the supermarket sector - which through its sheer market power risks causing serious damage to supply chains we all depend on.  There are important questions here of shared responsibility for shared resilience in conditions of severe stress.  Governments should not be shy of reminding supermarkets of that fact.

Fighting terrorism together

Posted on October 30, 2008 | Daniel Korski | More on Terrorism, UK politics, US politics | Comments Off

No issue has been the source of greater trans-Atlantic division during the last eight years than international law and counter-terrorism.  The policies associated with the Bush administration’s “war on terror” — including detention of “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo Bay, coercive interrogation rising to a level that most Europeans would see as torture, the holding of prisoners in secret “black sites” or their rendition to countries that are know to use torture — have undermined the U.S reputation as a supporter of international law, alienated European publics and, arguably, worked as a recruiting sergeant for the very people the policy has aimed to defeat.

With an Obama administration now likely, many Europeans can’t wait to see Guantanamo Bay closed and for the U.S to adopt a different, less kinetic counter-terrorism policy.

But Europeans would do well not to get too ahead of themselves. The Illinois Senator has made clear that if he is elected he will continue to target terrorists where necessary. Last year, Senator Obama said he would “wage the war that has to be won”, with a strategy that includes “developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists” while also “engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism”.

In other words, his administration is likely to adopts what Anthony Dworkin of the Crimes of War Project calls a “a mix of crime and war”, a hybrid model that combines existing legal norms from American constitutional law and the laws of armed conflict. In an essay, Dworkin – son of noted American legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin – lays out what Obama’s counter-terrorism policy will likely look. For example, an Obama administration may restrict all US personnel, including CIA agents, to those interrogation techniques listed in the Army’s interrogation field manual.

But Dworkin goes further, underlining that an incoming administration is likely look to its European allies for tangible assistance. For example, if the US closes down Guantanamo Bay what should be done with those detainees – around 50 - that the US would like to release, but who cannot be returned to their home countries because they would be likely to be tortured? “The US will look to Europe to absorb some of these men”, says Dworkin. He suggests that European governments should offer to take symbolic numbers of these prisoners, for example the Uighurs, as long as the U.S takes some ex-prisoners too. This could serve as the opening of a new chapter of trans-Atlantic cooperation on counter-terrorism.

The key, though, to success is for Europe to make small positive steps rather than making unrealistic demands and expecting them to be acted on immediately, like demanding that the U.S immediately join the International Criminal Court. Instead, Dworkin suggests beginning with “a wider reaffirmation of common principles”.

This, the war-crimes fighter thinks, could include the following principles: no one can be held for an extended period without charge except in situations of national emergency or armed conflict; no prisoner should be held for an extended period without his name and place of detention being publicly confirmed; no prisoner should be subjected to torture or cruel and inhuman treatment;  no one should be transferred to any country where they face a real risk of being tortured; no one should be transferred to another country if they will be detained without due process.

Such declaration, to work, would – in my view - have to be wrapped together with a clear reaffirmation of the need to confront terrorism and not only through judicial means. But to my mind, Dworkin is beginning to do what few others have until now, namely lay out a practical way forward for trans-Atlantic counter-terrorism policy.

Where are the British body men?

Posted on October 29, 2008 | Daniel Korski | More on UK politics | Comments Off

In today’s Guardian there is a story about Reggie Love, the so-called “man behind the man”, Barrack Obama’s aide and confidante. Or as the U.S media has referred to him, as Obama’s “body man”. A former basketball player and Political Science major, Love manages Obama’s day, carrying the candidate’s pens, buying his snacks and drinks, sorting out the podium before Obama steps out etc.

Personal aides like Reggie Love are common in American politics. John Kerry had Marvin Nicholson and Hillary Clinton’s ”body woman” was one Huma Abedin. Wikipedia already has a description and list of such body men. However, we rarely hear about these aides, even though they exist in British politics too and can be immensely influential.

In my experience, such aides – let’s dispense with that odd, butler-sounding term “body man” - not only ensure that “their man” looks good and has what he needs, they often act as confidante, sounding-board and even gate-keeper. Like Charlie Young in the television series The West Wing.

When a senior politician needs a second opinion, after all the officials and subject-matter experts have left the room, he may turn to his personal aide. Often such aides give views not only about policy, but about people. Whom to trust, whom to be wary of etc. Equally often, officials will talk with personal aides, seek their advice, before presenting a senior politician with an issue. Personal aides often know the moods of “their” boss better than anyone else and can advise on how best to present a case.

The Civil Service does not like the notion of personal aides, preferring Ministers to have either Private Secretaries - who are officials - or Special Advisers. But personal aides – different from a secretary or an assistant - can play a very important role in the management of a minister’s work-load. No doubt their employment needs to be covered by some form of regulation. But hopefully talk of Reggie Love’s role in the Obama campaign will put attention to the British experience of such “body men”.

European politicians, No European demos

Posted on October 28, 2008 | Daniel Korski | More on Europe | Comments Off

A couple of weeks a go I ran into Geoffrey Nice QC, a former prosecutor in the trial of Slobodan Milosevic at The Hague. The British barrister told me why he thought the International Court of Justice had been less effective than it could have been. The reason, he said, was because it the Court was not surrounded by any other accountability mechanisms, which make sure national judicial systems worked – Parliament, bar associations, and, of course, the ever-inquisitive media.

I thought of Nice’s comments as “Yachtgate” started rolling and questions were raised about Lord Mandelson’s contacts with Oleg Deripaska. The Russian oligarch is said to stands to benefit from three decisions made at the time Lord Mandelson was a European trade commissioner.

Though it is clear that the Business Secretary has been less than forthright about his relations with Mr. Deripaska – for example when he first met the Russian - he denies any wrongdoing. And in this he is backed up by the EU’s top trade official, Irish diplomat David O’Sullivan, who insists that there had been “no political interference” from the then-Commissioner when the EU cut aluminium tariffs - saving the Russian oligarch huge sums.

But this takes me back to Nice’s comments. How come this is the first anyone hears about this? Even if, as Lord Mandelson contests, there is no improper relationship between him and Mr. Deripaska why did this not come to light before? Was it, like the problems surrounding ICTY, because the EU still has not developed the kind of accountability mechanisms require in a normal society?

Days after the British media started the story, the European ombudsman ruled that Mandelson’s office had been “wrongly blanking out the names of industry lobbyists” in documents released to the public. It went further, saying that “disclosure of names of individual lobbyists is essential”. But why was this not examined before?

I know, I know… there are no good answers to this. Or at least no answers beyond the fact that there is a European political class even though there is not yet a European “demos”. And without a “demos”, which includes a vibrant civil society and press corps, the very notion of accountability may be a mirage. But that, of course, does not explain the paucity of official oversight. The real question may be why has the EU system of governance not even been able to create the necessary oversight mimicry?

Sarah’s greatest hits

Posted on October 28, 2008 | Alex Evans | More on US politics | 1 Comment

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Gnnnaaaaaaa. Bush looks positively cerebral by comparison.

Obama’s foreign policy team: a poll of pols

Posted on October 27, 2008 | Alex Evans | More on US politics | Comments Off

Since I’ve already renounced any and all claims to knowing anything about US politics, I’m happily unburdened by any pressure to predict the shape of an Obama cabinet should he win.  But what are the experts of the commentariat predicting?

I spent some time this afternoon ranging far and wide over t’internet in search of speculation on who’s in line for the key foreign policy-related posts in an Obama Administration (Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Director of National Intelligence, National Security Adviser and Ambassador to the United Nations) - using a thoroughly unscientific but broadly mainstream selection of 20 newspapers, magazines, foreign policy experts and foreign policy bloggers.

As I surveyed this glittering array of insight, these were the names that came up at least three times each:

Why yes, since you ask: four out of the top five names are Republicans.  A ‘government of all the talents’, as you might say. 

(Gideon Rachman goes further than most in applying this admirable principle: he’s gleefully suggesting Sarah Palin for Ambassador to Russia.  As he observes, “The governor’s taste for hunting, plain-spoken talk, and foxy boots—not to mention long years of staring at Russia from Alaska—ensure a special relationship with Putin.”)

More proof of team Obama’s internet supremacy

Posted on October 26, 2008 | Alex Evans | More on Communication, US politics | Comments Off

…as if any were needed: this just in from MoveOn.org (thanks to Dan Smith for forwarding).

You can generate a video with your own name (or those of friends) here.

Incoming: the mother of all currency crises

Posted on October 26, 2008 | Alex Evans | More on Development, Global economy | Comments Off

Dani Rodrik:

Paul Krugman frets that we are about to witness the mother of all currency crises in emerging markets, and I am afraid that he is right. As I wrote in my previous post, the financial crisis in the developing world has just started and there are indications that it will get a lot, a lot worse.  What is different with this phase of the crisis is that it cannot be addressed by governments in the affected countries issuing their own fiscal guarantees and domestic currency. These countries need external lines of credit, and they need it fast before the scale of the problem becomes truly unmanageable.  

The solution is clear. The IMF, possibly along with central banks of the G7, has to act as a global lender of last resort to emerging markets. These countries have to have ample access to liquidity in reserve currencies–quickly and with few strings attached–for them to be able to fend off what may otherwise become a historic rout of their currencies.  And China should join in: it should make a portion of its near-$2 trillion of reserves available in support of this global enlargement of credit lines.

Emerging markets have every right to say that they are being swept under by a crisis that is not their own doing. But the real reason the rest of the world needs to move on this front is naked self-interest. Combine a deep recession in the advanced countries with an uncontrolled depreciation of emerging-market currencies, and the pressure to erect trade barriers in the U.S. and Europe will be impossible to withstand.  A vicious cycle of unemployment and protectionism feeding on each other a la 1930s could transform the deep recession everyone is already expecting into a second great depression. It can get worse…

And with this bit of good news just in, Dominique Strauss-Kahn should have no distractions to prevent him from focusing on this most urgent task.  There are some reports that the IMF is moving in this direction.  I have a feeling that this will be the make-it-or-break-it week for emerging markets. I hope the IMF will make an announcement in time to make a difference.   

Stoicism and Catastrophe

Posted on October 25, 2008 | Jules Evans | More on Resilience | Comments Off

There’s an interesting interview with Chinese premier Wen Jiabao by Fareed Jakaria on the CNN website. Wen again talks about his love of Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations, and how it plays a role in his political philosophy.

This philosophy, as far as I can tell, is one of Stoic resilience in the face of catastrophe, such as the earthquake that hit China in May, when Wen immediately flew out and took command of the recovery situation.

He spoke at greater length in New York in September:

I had a background in geological studies and I am familiar with an important theory in the study of the history of geological periods: that is the catastrophic theory.  In the past six years since I took office as the Chinese Premier, it is fair to say that we have encountered numerous disasters and difficulties.

From the outbreak of the SARS epidemic, to the sleet- and snow-storm that hit southern China, and then to the massive earthquake that devastated Wenchuan, Sichuan province, and from the accidents in the coal mines to the food safety incident that occurred recently, all this has given us a very informative experience, and we have learned new things from overcoming these difficulties.  As I always say: what a nation loses in a disaster will always be compensated by progress later on.

As you may know, I very much enjoy reading Meditations, a classical work written by Marcus Aurelius. In this classical work I once read: as for so-called great men, where are they now?  They are all gone. Some of them may be enough to form a story and some others may not even be enough to form half a story.  So I would rather prefer leaving some spiritual legacy behind, mainly as the following two points:

Number one, in the wake of a disaster, we should not yield to the difficulties, rather we should have the courage to face up to the difficulties head-on and we should have the courage to lead our people to surmount the difficulties.  To do that, we need to have a firm stand; we need to have courage and confidence.

Number two, as far as a government is concerned, a government should be responsible for its people, should be dedicated to serving the people, and should be marked by dedication and its clean and honest behavior.  Except for these, a government should not have any privilege whatsoever.  All the power belongs to the people and all the power should be used for the people.

As an old Chinese saying goes: a spring silkworm keeps producing silk until it dies and a candle keeps giving light until it burns into ashes.  I am already sixty-seven years old, and I will dedicate the rest of my power and energy entirely to the Chinese nation and to the Chinese people and I hope that when I leave this world people will remember that I, as the Premier, have actually followed the two principles that I mentioned before, and that way I will also rest in peace.”

Grandpa Wen’s love of Marcus Aurelius has done wonders for the old Stoic’s reputation in China. The Meditations has been in the top ten bestseller list there for several months.

Summits, Panels everywhere - but to what end?

Posted on October 24, 2008 | Alex Evans | More on Cooperation and coherence, Development, Global economy | Comments Off

We are now officially beginning some sort of post-credit crunch global governance feeding frenzy.  We now have the following to look forward to:

- The report of a new High Level Commission on modernisation of the World Bank, chaired by former President of Mexico Ernesto Zedillo;

- A UN General Assembly task force on the global financial system, chaired by Joseph Stiglitz (composition and terms of reference to be announced on 30 October);

- An EU summit on the financial crisis and reform of global financial institutions on 7 November, to prepare for…

- A G20 summit on international financial institution reform in Washington DC on 15 November (though no-one seems to have told the G20 secretariat);

- A UN Financing for Development summit from 29 November to 2 December - it’s been in preparation since last year, but Ban Ki-moon has now suggested turning it into a UN summit on the financial crisis, in NYC rather than Doha as planned (Ban says:

“I strongly believe that holding the summit at the United Nations, the symbol of multilateralism, will lend universal legitimacy to this endeavour and demonstrate a collective will to face this serious global challenge…”)

I make no claim to this being a comprehensive list (and will add to it as I find more baubles to hang on the tree).  But it all invites the question: how much is really going to be achieved through all this pannelling and summitry?  As Eurodad, the civil society network on debt relief, notes on its website:

Several meetings that Eurodad staff have had in recent days reveal that senior European policy makers have few precise reform proposals for this summit meeting and have not started negotiating a common EU position. Indeed smaller European countries are unhappy that they will be excluded from the 15 November meeting. The summit – with its extravagant “Bretton Woods II” billing - may reveal a very dangerous gap between expectations and delivery,

Too right.  Over the summer, there were no fewer than three summits (FAO; G8: WTO) that claimed in advance that they were riding to the rescue on food prices, and which then failed to deliver anything interesting.  Now it looks like we’re about to do the same on the credit crunch…

Update: Eurodad have produced a helpful FAQ on the ‘Bretton Woods II’ summit - download it here. Thanks to Alex Wilks.

Update 2: David and I have published a briefing paper on the Summit.

Obama slides on US aid budgets

Posted on October 24, 2008 | Alex Evans | More on Development, US politics | Comments Off

Think an Obama Administration would spell an upwards march on the US aid budget?  Think again.

The Obama / Biden campaign platform is formally committed to a doubling of US foreign assistance to $50 billion (which by my calculations works out at 0.36% of US gross national income - still a way off from the 0.7 target, but hey). 

But now, it looks as though that commitment got dropped - in a little-noticed part of the Vice-Presidential debate between Biden and Palin on October 3.  The debate chair asked:

“What promises — given the events of the week, the bailout plan, all of this, what promises have you and your campaigns made to the American people that you’re not going to be able to keep?”

And the very first thing that Joe Biden said in his reply was this:

“Well, the one thing we might have to slow down is a commitment we made to double foreign assistance. We’ll probably have to slow that down.”

And that was it; no explanation, no regrets, just a bald statement - a blunt demonstration of the relative weakness of the development lobby in the US.

The future of the Royal Navy?

Posted on October 23, 2008 | Charlie Edwards | More on Conflict and security, Cooperation and coherence, Global economy, Maps, UK politics | Comments Off

The UK defence budget is tight. Defence spending plans are tighter still. While Alex has posted on what the credit crunch will mean for development and multilateralism I want to offer a quick thought or two on how the credit crunch may offer an opportunity to explore new missions for each of the three services. While the UK Government is committed to a replacement for Trident and two new aircraft carriers, both are likely to have an impact on the MoD’s procurement options in the future, unless… the three services adapt their missions and in doing so share the burden more between services and across Whitehall. Given the rapidly changing security environment is the Royal Navy’s future more likely to be in helicopters, hospitals and responding to hijacking on the high seas? Look at what’s happening over the pond.

Exhibit A:

The US Navy is trying to set a new course, embracing a shift in strategy that focuses heavily on administering humanitarian aid, disaster relief, and other forms of so-called soft power to woo allies to help the United States fight global terrorism. The Navy’s new maritime strategy, unveiled this fall and shared by the Marine Corps and Coast Guard, is a shift in tone that reflects a broader change in the Pentagon’s approach as it organizes itself for what many military officials refer to as a “generational conflict” against extremism. It’s a move away from the go-it-alone stance of the Bush White House and toward a new emphasis on building partnerships abroad and finding common interests. While the Navy says it will maintain its ability to use the “hard power” for which it’s known, the new focus represents an important change – the first major rewrite of strategy in more than 20 years. It puts greater emphasis on humanitarian aid, disaster relief, “partnering” with foreign navies also working to combat piracy, terrorism, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Exhibit B:

Hospital ships are, by design, multi-use vehicles that are capable of serving in command and control, educational outreach, or as virtual sea bases. A future hospital ship should be tied into some sort of modularized container system that may mirror the modules used by the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship. A ship that might be charged with high-tempo combat trauma care will need a flat deck that is able to withstand the heat and weight of large helicopters. A well deck also would be recommended, although it could be passed over if the ship is able to dock or maintains an organic docking system.  Under a two-tier system, smaller, cheaper ambulance-like platforms could work in tandem with a larger, more expensive command-and-control “trauma” platform or aid ship tenders where the crew of a smaller, low-endurance craft can take a breather or swap out crews.

Exhibit C

Piracy Map 2008

From the BBC: France has launched two operations already this year to free French ships and crew seized by Somali pirates. Pirates are still holding the Ukrainian ship, the MV Faina, and its cargo of tanks and military hardware, off the Somali coast. They demand $20m (£12m). The International Maritime Bureau (IMB) said on Thursday that 63 of 199 incidents of piracy worldwide recorded in the first nine months of this year had taken place off east Somalia and the Gulf of Aden. This was double the 36 attacks blamed on Somali pirates out of 198 worldwide in the same period last year, the bureau added.

Pirates and the future of 4GW

Posted on October 22, 2008 | Charlie Edwards | More on News | 1 Comment

William S Lind suggests that beyond Afghanistan, the Fourth Generation future belongs neither to al Qaeda nor to the Taliban but to two more sophisticated models, Hezbollah and the Latin American drug gangs (I would add other criminal networks and piracy too). He writes:

Both can fight, but fighting is not primarily what they are about. Rather, both are about benefiting their members with money, services, community, identity, and, strange as it may sound, what passes locally for good government. Even the drug gangs’ governance is often less corrupt than that of the local state. Both of these 4GW models can fall into the fatal error of alienating the local population, but the tendency is not inherent. While Hezbollah is religiously defined, it seems to appeal well beyond the Puritans, which means it can give orders Puritans will not obey. The drug gangs’ principal faith is in making money, and few faiths are more broadly latitudinarian. In Iraq as elsewhere, the fading of the al Qaeda model is being balanced not by the rise of a new state but by the adoption of other models of 4GW. So far, as best I can determine, no foreign intervention in a Fourth Generation conflict has succeeded is re-creating a real state (you can add Ethiopia in Somalia to the long list of failures).

With that in mind it is depressing to read that the newly appointed commander of Nato’s anti-piracy patrol off the coast of Somalia says it will be difficult to defend ships from pirate attacks. This at a time when Nato is sending seven frigates to support US navy vessels already there, and India and several European countries have said they will also mount anti-piracy patrols.

“The time that a pirate unveils himself to the time that he’s onboard ship is such a short period of time,” says Admiral Mark Fitzgerald

Cynics might suggest that this is a careful piece of expectations management (think about the failure of SOCA as another example of how a Government over promises/ but under delivers), but it’s no wonder that NSAs (non state actors) are able to leverage considerable influence in proportion to their size and capabilities when the bureaucracies are not necessarily constrained by current laws/rules but by process of implementing them. The rules of engagement are still being debated by Nato - and if I were a betting man I would suggest that such rules are unlikely to be in place before the NATO task force has to respond to its first attack.

In his interview with the BBC Admiral Mark Fitzgerald also raises a rather more worrying issue*. Given how busy the sea lanes are, he asks: How do you prove a guy’s a pirate before he actually attacks a ship?

Some possible suggestions below:

*TiC

What the credit crunch means for multilateralism

Posted on October 22, 2008 | Alex Evans | More on Cooperation and coherence, Networks | Comments Off

If you haven’t read it already, World Bank President Bob Zoellick’s speech on multilateral reform earlier this month is definitely worth a read.  One of best nuggets in it is his call for “a Facebook for multilateral economic diplomacy” - the rationale for which goes like this:

The G-7 is not working.  We need a better group for a different time. The G-20, though valuable, is too unwieldy in moving from discussion to action. We need a core group of Finance Ministers who will assume responsibility for anticipating issues, sharing information and insights, exploring mutual interests, mobilizing efforts to solve problems, and at least managing differences.

For financial and economic cooperation, we should consider a new Steering Group including Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and the current G-7. Such a Steering Group would bring together over 70 percent of the world’s GDP, 56 percent of world population, 62 percent of its energy production, the major carbon emitters, the principal development donors, large regional actors, and the primary players in global capital, commodity, and exchange rate markets. 

But this Steering Group would not be a G-14.  We will not create a new world simply by remaking the old.  It should be numberless, flexible, and over time, it could evolve.   Others may be added, especially if their rising influence is matched by a willingness to help shoulder responsibilities.

This new Steering Group should meet and videoconference regularly to foster group responsibility.  The Deputies should have frequent and informal discussions.  An active network of bilateral consultations within and beyond the group will support it.  We need a Facebook for multilateral economic diplomacy.

It’s a timely reminder that there’s no hard and fast rule to say that multilateral cooperation has to revolve around formal multilateral organisations - and especially refreshing to hear this coming from the head of the World Bank.  (And yes, he does have a Facebook page, since you wonder.)

Responses to the financial crisis over the last few weeks seem to bear out Zoellick’s point.  Although multilateral cooperation has been central, multilateral organisations haven’t been: the IMF, for example, has been largely absent from the main action, and while the EU managed in the end to be at the forefront of marshalling a collective response, it was the Council of Ministers - not the Commission - that pulled it all together.

In this light, it’s perhaps ironic that while Gordon Brown has come to be seen as one of the main organisers of this non-organisationally-based but nevertheless fundamentally multilateral crisis response, his stated vision for multilateral reform is very organisationally focussed, what with emphasis on a new Bretton Woods, an enhanced early warning role for the IMF and so on.

You know you’re in a network when…

Posted on October 22, 2008 | Charlie Edwards | More on Networks | Comments Off

1. You arrive at a meeting and hear several other people in the room say they have the same title and/or role as you.

2. You land a new job with a clear purpose, but there is no single boss, no hierarchy, no subordinates (as such) and no specific office.

3. You are constantly giving and receiving feedback.

4. You rely on partners outside your organisation to inform or provide services to your customers.

5. The tempo of work and the rate you are working has increased - nothing is simple anymore.

6. You and colleagues no longer focus on single policy areas but on the relationships and interconnections between them.

7. The majority of the people you work with and the resources needed to support them lie outside of your immediate control.

(Feel free to add more…)

The Chatham House Rule is for lightweights

Posted on October 22, 2008 | Alex Evans | More on UK politics | Comments Off

Never mind the Chatham House Rule (which goes like this:

“When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.”)

No, for true assurance of information privacy, you want the Rothschild’s House Rule. (Or else: bang.) Accept no substitute.

Seasonal Resilience: The 4 seasons - Fire, flood, drought & earthquake

Posted on October 21, 2008 | Charlie Edwards | More on Resilience, US politics | Comments Off

Every year, between October and February the Santa Ana winds flow down the valleys and canyons of California picking up speed. As the winds increase so does the likelihood of fire. Electrical/power lines have caused four out of 20 of the worst fires in Californian history. Fires like the Sesnon fire which is, by all accounts now 100% contained, happen with tragic regularity, they are almost predictable but the system still doesn’t seem to be able to respond to such seasonal regularity, until recently:

It wasn’t until last year’s siege of flames that regulators and lawmakers began seriously considering a coordinated response to the problem. A 2001 report (pdf) by state fire officials and utilities called for greater information sharing and a database containing tree inventories and historic fire hazard zones, yet it was never developed.

Complicating matters is that there’s no single agency in charge of regulating power lines or enforcing fire codes. The line that caused the Sesnon fire is owned by Southern California Gas Co. — which isn’t an electrical utility, so its lines aren’t regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission, and PUC rules that govern brush clearance and other precautions don’t apply. It’s unclear whether any government agency had oversight over the line.

Not that government regulations guarantee safety. A PUC report released last month on the 2007 San Diego County blazes found that San Diego Gas & Electric violated regulations for safety and maintenance on lines that caused the devastating Witch and Rice fires. It also concluded that the Guejito fire was caused by a Cox Communications wire that came into contact with an SDG&E conductor during strong Santa Ana winds; Cox, too, was deemed in violation of state rules. The findings have yet to be confirmed by the PUC board, which also must decide whether to fine those responsible.

Most troubling of all: The PUC’s Consumer Protection and Safety Division found that there are other power poles in San Diego County with broken communication wires similar to the one that caused the Guejito fire. More strong Santa Ana winds are expected to gust through the area in coming weeks. Sleep well, San Diego.

So why has this problem been ignored for so long?

The best solution — burying the lines — is so expensive as to be wildly impractical, costing an estimated $1 million a mile. But there are other responses. State lawmakers could start by demanding the creation of the fire database that was recommended in 2001. It’s also outrageous that owners of private power lines like the one that sparked the Sesnon fire are being left unmonitored.

Not all is lost however. There have been some brilliant innovations. Like the following from the LA Fire Department. Yup, you’ve guessed it - using social media:  In complex emergencies - feedback is key - and using social media is a fantastic way of getting it quickly - so have a look at some of the comments.

Pathways to a Global Deal

Posted on October 21, 2008 | David Steven | More on Climate Change, Conflict and security, Global economy, Leadership | Comments Off

In the summer, I gave a talk at the United Nations University G8 symposium on climate change, where I explored the threshold between conflict and cooperation on carbon control.

Belatedly, the talk is online - either as a pdf, or you can read the full text after the jump.

Read more

Preparing for the apocalypse

Posted on October 21, 2008 | David Steven | More on Resilience | Comments Off

A snip at just $84.99 from Costco - a 275-serving, emergency food supply. Only problem: “Due to overwhelming response, this item will be delivered in 10-15 business days.”

Emergency Food - 275 servings

Here’s what you get:

Delicious and easy to prepare. Each bucket contains 275 servings of Pre-mixed and Pre-seasoned 100% vegetarian and vitamin fortified food. With a 20 year long shelf life, this kit is perfect for the preparation of natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes or even for a camping or hunting trip.
Easy to Prepare
275 Servings
All Meals 100% Vegetarian and Vitamin Fortified
Sealed in convenient Weather-Proof bucket for easy transport
30 Servings - Potato Bakon
25 Servings - Corn Chowder
25 Servings - Ala King
25 Servings - Cacciatore
25 Servings - Western Stew
25 Servings - Country Noodle
25 Servings - Rice Lentil
45 Servings - Whey Milk
25 Servings - Blueberry Pancakes
25 Servings - Barley Vegetable
Total Weight: 23 lbs.
For best taste and nutritional value, use product before:
20 years of manufacturing date when stored at 60° F (16.6° C)
10 years of manufacturing date when stored at 70° F (21.1° C)

Re-energizing Europe’s security and defence policy

Posted on October 21, 2008 | Daniel Korski | More on Conflict and security, Cooperation and coherence, Europe | Comments Off

As conflict continues to rage in Chad and Afghanistan and the threat of terrorism at home persists, maximising the effectiveness of the current European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) remains a high priority. With the United States calling for a stronger, more cohesive approach, is it time to redefine European security priorities? How can a collective European security and defence strategy take into consideration the capabilities, weaknesses and resources of individual member states?

In this submission to the IPPR National Security Commission I argue that to create the necessary civilian capabilities in crisis situations for both common and unilateral use, the UK and like-minded allies should consider establishing a European civilian reserve – a reserve corps of 2,000 civilian specialists – with European citizens on stand-by for deployment.

keep looking »