Talk given by David Steven at Gresham College on risk and resilience in the UK housing market, as part of a Long Finance Roundtable meeting (March 2010)
Report by David Steven in response to the FSA’s Mortgage Market Review
Brookings Institution report by Alex Evans, Bruce Jones and David Steven on how globalisation could fail – and how it could be made more resilient. Published to coincide with the 40th anniversary World Economic Forum in Davos.
Report by Alex Evans and David Steven analysing the post-Copenhagen context on climate change, including a proposed 12 point action plan. Written for the Brookings Institution / NYU Center on International Cooperation Managing Global Insecurity programme.
World Food Programme report on the state of the science on what climate change means for hunger, plus policy recommendations. Authored by IPCC Impacts Chair Martin Parry with Mark Rosengrant, Tim Wheeler and Global Dashboard’s Alex Evans (December 2009)
Presentation by Alex Evans to a seminar organised for the UN Department of Political Affairs by the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (August 2009)
Article on risk and resilience by Alex Evans and David Steven – part of a special in World Politics Review on risk and resilience in a globalized age (July 2009)
Report by Alex Evans and David Steven exploring the future international institutional requirements for managing climate change, and including three scenarios for climate institutions between now and 2030. Commissioned by the UK Department for International Development. (May 2009)
Article by Alex Evans and David Steven exploring resilience as a political agenda – part of a special edition of Renewal on the transformation of foreign policy (February 2009)
Climate and cities think piece, co-authored by David Steven and the British Council’s Peter Upton (29 January 2009)
Chatham House pamphlet by Alex Evans on how scarcity issues will shape the outlook for global food production, and the actions that policymakers need to take at the international level and in developing countries to ensure food security in the 21st century
Paper by David Steven, presented to “Reforming International Institutions – Meeting the Challenges of the 21st Century,” a conference organized by the United Nations University and the British Embassy in Tokyo (Jan 2009).
Speech by Alex Evans at the Tomorrow Network (25 November 2008)
Paper by Alex Evans and David Steven on financial reform and wider multilateralism, published ahead of the G20 ‘Bretton Woods II’ Summit (November 2008).
Speech by David Steven to RUSI Conference on UK Resilience (8 October 2008)
Chapter by Alex Evans and David Steven in the Foreign & Commonwealth Office publication, ‘Engagement: public diplomacy in a globalised world’ (July 2008).
Download Chapter
Draft report by Alex Evans exploring multilateral system reforms needed in order to manage resource scarcity issues more effectively. The final version will be published in early 2010 (July 2008)
Speech by Alex Evans at UK Parliament (8 July 2008)
Speech by David Steven at the UNU G8 Symposium (4 July 2008)
Speech by Alex Evans to United Nations Association UK (7 June 2008)
Speech by David Steven to the UK Defence Academy’s Advanced Research and Assessment Group seminar on Strategic Communications, Public Diplomacy and Afghanistan (4 June 2008).
Speech by David Steven to the University of Westminster Symposium on Transformational Public Diplomacy (30 April 2008).
Briefing paper by Alex Evans, published through Chatham House’s food programme (April 2008).
Speech by David Steven to RUSI Conference on Critical National Infrastructure (16 April 2008).
Paper by Alex Evans and David Steven, commissioned by Gordon Brown and presented to heads of state at the Progressive Governance Summit (April 2008).
Chapter by Alex Evans and David Steven, as part of the British Council’s Transatlantic Network 2020 book ‘Talking Trans-Atlantic’ (March 2008).
Article by Alex Evans for the Environmental Policy & Law Journal (January 2008).
Report by Alex Evans and David Steven, written for the London Accord (December 2007).
New paper by Alex Evans on climate policy after 2012 from the Center on International Cooperation (October 2007).
Chapter on the FCO from Manchester University Press’s Alternative Comprehensive Spending Review, by David Steven (September 2007).
Note by Alex Evans and David Steven about how to restructure the UK’s foreign policy system in order to manage trans-boundary global risks better (April 2007).
Talk given by David Steven at the Wilton Park conference: The Future of Public Diplomacy. Focuses on strategies to drive public diplomacy to the heart of the foreign policy armoury (March 2007).
Articles and Publications
Delicious
Rss
Twitter - David Steven
I note Thabo Mbeki, not content with killing hundreds of thousands of his own people by denying them antiretroviral therapy for AIDS, is now busy helping Mugabe destroy Zimbabwe too. He had the effrontery, according to this week’s Economist, to accuse opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai of being a Western stooge for refusing to share the home ministry with Mugabe’s ruling party. The sooner this man retires from public life, the better.
Have you considered that western intervention in Zimbabwe might actually slow the country from its natural evolution towards liberal democracy? The western way of life is based on hundreds of years of internal struggle, crimes against humanity and even genocide (starting with the destruction of Carthage)
Modern Independent Zimbabwe has existed for less than 30 years, how can we possibly expect this country to adhere to the norms and responsibilities that have taken hundreds of years of failure and misery to become universally adopted?
Is it conceivable that the tragic events occurring in Zimbabwe right now will ensure that future generations of citizens will never again allow the tyrant that is Mugabe to gain power?
I would very much like to hear why this perspective is wrong as it is part of a current term paper!
Hi Charlie, here is a reproduction of todays Post editorial in Zambia. I think it reflects the feelings of the majority of the educated elite in the sub-region and explains why military intervention might cause more problems than it solves in the long term. While our hearts bleed for the people of Zim there is clearly no stomach for intervention within SADC or the AU and therefore unlikely to get a mandate from the UN. US override? Another Iraq.
http://www.postzambia.com
Zimbabwe deserves a better opposition
Written by chama
Prof Arthur Mutambara, one of the leaders of the opposition in Zimbabwe, yesterday said: “Can’t you see that you are ruining the opposition you seek to assist and strengthening Mugabe that you seek to destroy? You are foolishly confirming everything that Mugabe has said about the opposition; that we are puppets. Moreover, Mugabe’s strengths are Africa, Pan-Africanism and anti-imperialism.
“Any foreign policy that undermines African leaders and African institutions plays right into Mugabe’s game plan. Why can’t western diplomats master these basics? Why do we have a premonition that most of the destructive grandstanding by western governments is meant for their domestic constituencies?
“We seriously hope that incoming US President Obama and his new team will depart from this ignorant, ruinous and ineffective foreign policy that effectively undermines its intended beneficiaries, strengthens the targeted villains, while blighting the US standing in the world. Things have to change in 2009.
“We are not naïve. We know that the general thrust of the US foreign policy objective is largely independent of both the individual who is US President and the party they belong to. However, we hope the policy execution, nuances and tactics will be different. Zimbabweans have great expectations.
“Usually it is Mugabe and his ZANU-PF who are dismissed. How do you even conceptualize a negotiated outcome without the involvement of the ZANU-PF group? We thought it was common cause that you do not make peace with your friends, but with your opponents. One would expect someone of Jendayi Frazer’s (US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs) stature to understand all this. How does she say that the US supports the negotiated power sharing, but insists that Mugabe must not be involved? Making these statements while defying the consistent advice that she received from all the South African leaders that she interacted with means that Jendayi is insulting the SA leadership at every level. By this disrespectful conduct, she is humiliating both the SADC and the AU.
“In this situation, with respect to the US proposed dialogue framework, who will be the principals, negotiators, facilitators and guarantors? South Africa is the only country with leverage on Zimbabwe. To bring any kind of change in Zimbabwe you have to work with SA, and not insult or humiliate them. Anyone serious about the Zimbabwean agenda must grasp this.
“Jendayi, I assume that you are supportive of Mr. Tsvangirai (MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai) and you want him to succeed. Do you actually have any respect for him? He signed the GPA in which Mugabe is designated as the President. Is it that you think Mr. Tsvangirai does not know what is good for him and therefore you have to lead him every step of the way? By the way, it is not true that the US government supported the agreement when it was signed. For the record, both the US and the UK were opposed to the GPA from the beginning. They did not like the fact that Mugabe was both Head of State and Chairman of Cabinet, and they despised the GPA positions on land reform and sanctions. Everyone knows this. We are not children. The US and the UK are now taking advantage of the delay in implementation of the agreement to savage and destroy the GPA. Jendayi, do you have a workable alternative framework to the current GPA, together with an enforcement mechanism?
“And what is this that you said about the weakness and incompetence of your favourite GPA principal? Did you not say the following; “Tsvangirai is too weak and incompetent for us to allow him to be in an inclusive government with Mugabe. He will be completely out-maneuvered. Tsvangirai is not as strong as Odinga. If he was, we would have allowed him to get into the GNU with Mugabe?” How can you possibly say such insulting remarks about your favourite opposition leader? With friends like these, who needs enemies? Incidentally, did you share your views about Tsvangirai with him? Why not? Anyway, who are you to allow or disallow African leaders? Does the US government have locus standi to do this? From where do you derive such legal, political or moral authority? Would a reverse scenario where international players seek to influence US politics be acceptable to the US?”
This is what leader of the splinter MDC party and Prime Minister designate of Zimbabwe, Prof Mutambara is saying. Can any honest person disagree with what Mutambara is saying? In our view this has been the whole problem, the biggest obstacle to the developments of the Zimbabwean opposition: The interference of the United States and British in Zimbabwean politics.
There are some western countries that have played a very progressive role in many world issues. But the Americans and British are certainly not some of them.
France, despite its colonial history has sometimes played an extremely progressive role. The Scandinavian countries – that is Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland – have also been relatively progressive and extremely supportive of the African struggle and these can be credited as being countries from the western world that actually contributed materially and otherwise to our liberation struggle. But unfortunately they have never been members of the United Nations Security Council.
As for the British and the Americans, their record is bad. They have never supported the liberation struggle in this part of our world. They have been part of the oppressive forces in this part of the world. Until the last minute they have stood on the same side with the apartheid forces. They were actually part of the apartheid regime.
Who doesn’t know that the British government supported and defended the racist white Rhodesian regime of Ian Smith? Truly these people have never been part of the liberation force in Africa. What they have always done is defended their interests, sometimes narrowly.
As we have said before, the United States and the British can never claim to be champions of human rights in Zimbabwe and elsewhere. Their history is one of not respecting our human rights, but simply of exploiting us, humiliating us and subjudication. They have never treated Africans as equals in their dealings with them.
Yes, they sometimes do in speech but when it comes to action or deeds, it is a different story.
Zimbabwe deserves a strong and progressive opposition and the Zimbabwean opposition could have done much better if it had freed itself from the control of the Americans, the British, the Australians and New Zealanders and others where the lobby of the white Rhodesians is very strong. These are still imperialist countries, albeit in a changed way, and reliance on them to democratise a country like Zimbabwe is a fleeting illusion that will never be attained. It’s not democracy they are pursuing in Zimbabwe. It’s not human rights they are concerned with in Zimbabwe. It is something else and it is good that part of the Zimbabwean opposition is starting to see through the deceit.
Zimbabwe deserves better than a proxy opposition. Not an opposition that is controlled by remote from Washington and London – not another puppet regime of the Abel Muzorewa type in Zimbabwe.
And this explains why serious independent countries in the world have difficulties supporting the Zimbabwean opposition. It also explains why part of the Zimbabwean opposition is so disrespectful of the African initiative and brothers. They would rather take instructions from Washington and London on what course to take.
Any person or nation that subordinates itself to another can never be democratic. Independence and sovereignty are preconditions to democracy. A nation whose political leadership has to take instructions from the political leaders of some imperial power can never be said to be democratic in their dealings and actions.
Only an independent country can genuinely pursue democratic endeavors. If the Zimbabwean opposition wants to play a meaningful role in their country, they have to strive to be independent. It is surprising that the countries and governments that have never funded the liberation struggle are today funding the opposition in Zimbabwe. Why? Their aim is not democracy. It is something else.
A clear testimony is what is happening to the Palestinians in Gaza. The Americans and the British have decided to stand on the fence while the Israelis massacre the Palestinians. They have decided to turn a blind eye to the atrocities and carnage that is being inflicted on the Palestinians. They have decided to ignore the disregard for rules of war by the Israelis who are killing people indiscriminately regardless of whether one is a child or not, regardless of whether one is combatant or a civilian, whether the installation is a military target or one vital for the civilian population. Probably there is a number they are waiting for the death toll to reach before they can ask Israel to end the war.
World leaders interested in peace like French President Nicolas Sarkozy have embarked on shuttle diplomacy aimed at ending the slaughter.
These are the sort of countries that are supporting part of the Zimbabwean opposition. Clearly, Zimbabwe deserves a better opposition.