photo credit: imedagoze

The big news in international diplomacy is that the Americans have managed to get the Chinese to come on board with potential sanctions against Iran. This is quite a coup, given that relations between the two countries have recently been about as warm as Pingu’s handshake. But if this article in the Guardian is true, then it seems that the bargaining chip the Americans used to get the Chinese to be so agreeable is the threat of the U.S. branding them a currency manipulator.  China, who have been pursuing a cunning plan of devaluing their currency by buying up American dollars in order to boost their exports, do not want to be called out on their trickery. All of which means that America has a pretty high-value bargaining chip which they can use to extract some concessions from the Asian dragon.

What a pity, then, that they’ve chosen to waste it on an agreement over Iran sanctions, which, for reasons put more eloquently by an actual expert on the subject here, are a bad idea. In a more perfect world where the major powers weren’t so cockeyed on the subject of how to contain Iran, the bargaining chip could be used to get so many worthwhile concessions out of China. For example, if the Copenhagen Summit was anything to go by, the Chinese are going to be a real thorn in the side of any potential international treaty on climate change. Then there’s China’s alleged cyber-attacks and scary censorship of the internet, which has led to Google basically abandoning it. And of course there’s China’s awful human rights record and habit of sticking their fingers in their ears and going LALALA when it comes to the issue of Tibet, not to mention their habit of trading with and selling arms to the likes of Sudan, Zimbabwe and other friendly African dictatorships. The list goes on. And on.

So there are many useful concessions America could have squeezed out of China. Instead they wasted what is quite  a potent threat on more pointless and counter-productive posturing on Iran. Great.  Obama’s had a good couple of weeks on the domestic and international scene, but for me this hits a real sour note. China is going to be a big problem in the next few years and it seems America just threw away an excellent bargaining chip. The question is, how many more does  it have up its sleeve?

The run up to Copenhagen has begun and by all accounts it was a little more fiery than expected. I’m not referring to the Climate Camp in London, whose location was kept so secret, nor am I referring to Sen. Chuck Grassley’s remarkable comments that there are an increasing number of scientists who have doubts about Climate Change…really? This sounds a little like Sen Inhofe’s infamous list, many of whom were horrified to learn they were including on his list ( yes, he basically made it up). All of these are mere broadsides in the contemporary Climate Change debate.  The fire in this debate, which we’ve only seen glimmers on touches on the elephant in the room for environmentalists and even governments, Population control. India’s Environmental Minister Jairam Ramesh issued a response to efforts by the US to bring India’s population into the debate:

Speaking at a conference in the Indian capital, organised by Delhi’s Centre for Science and Environment, Jairam Ramesh said there was a “move in western countries to bring population into climate change [negotiations]. Influential American think-tanks are asking why should we reward profligate reproductive behaviour? Why should we reward India which is adding 14 million people every year?”

For many environmentalists, population control is the issue not spoken of. Many are reluctant enough to talk about curbing our “excessive lifestyles”, reducing the number of cars, the size of our homes, waste and all the rest of it makes Environmentalists seem draconian enough and a ideology of gloom without adding the terrifying illiberal issue of population control to the mix. Yet for many, it remains the elephant in the room. Recently some scientists in environmental corners have whispered it out, what is the best thing I can do to to go green? hybrid car? recycling? Errr no, don’t procreate so much.

The maths is quite simple, if you stopped flying and etc etc you could probably reduce your average footprint from say a ball park of 25 down to 15, a big reduction to be sure but over your lifetime that would ( very simplistically) only take  800 tons difference. Here is what a child adds on average:

Under current conditions in the United States, for instance, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent – about 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which, on average, a person is responsible.

But population control goes beyond Climate Change, in fact to some extent it dwarfs Climate Change as a problem. The world’s population is estimated to peak  around 2050, with  at over 9 billion people.  Over that period standards of living will rise for hundreds of millions of people which, without huge breakthroughs in food production and resource recycling will result in incredible strain on a planet already unable to sustain the current population. The new people rightly will expect higher standards of living than their forebears and governments will face acute problems as rising demands meets dwindling supply. Climate Change compounds the issue, reducing the earth;s resource capacity most critically in areas of food production and more gravely reducing it in the regions of the world with the fastest growing populations.

Africa and the Middle East, have among the fastest growing population and are also among the most water-poor areas in the world, with the former in historically dire straits its problems will almost certainly be gravely compounded lacking even the basic means  agricultural production.

The issue, is a uniquely human one,  all other animal species grow to the extent their environment can sustain them, reaching a natural equilibrium of sorts. Humans, differ and have expanded exponentially over their history. This century may prove more testing than others with Climate Change and economic growth heading towards a degree of inevitable conflict. You’ve already seen this problem, water resources in Sudan, oil wars in the Middle East, these problems aren’t solely due to population but population can create almost insurmountable structural pressure on politics to match demand.

But unlike other Climate Change problems which are about financing , economic growth, technology transfer and trade terms, population control hits home directly.  How many children will you or someone else be allowed? It’s a distinctly moral question, the biological essence of humanity is put into question and one of surely our most basic rights could be called into question. Deeper than that is that, it has more underlying undertones of power politics. Wealthy and ageing western populations trying to curb the fertility of China, India, Africa and the Middle East, touches on raw nerves of the balance of global power.

This isn’t the first time the issue has been raised. China, the only country to have enacted an all-encompassing population policy in its infamous “one child policy” has in the past noted that it has done more than many countries in the effort to control Climate Change through its one child policy,  which it estimates have kept several hundred million from existence and thus relieved enormous future amounts of strain from the world.

Going into Copenhagen population control is highly unlikely to feature, however its emergence into International dialogue has begun already and soon this taboo subject may well become centre stage, although I suspect a third-rail at first.

Newcomers tuning in to the G8 meeting may have been surprised by recent events. On balance it looks like an event where things get done, everything about it oozes action and dynamism. Firstly, just who they are ought to be enough: USA, UK, Russia, France, Germany, Canada, Japan and errr Italy ( it is rich at least). Secondly, there are as the name would suggest, only 8 of them. 8 is quite small, not like the UN, a system perfectly matched to ensure gridlock if any real global policy ever had to take place. Just 8, market based democracies this ought to be packing with leadership and vision.

Unfortunately, reality is different and while the world is cooking, the G8 kindly offered some token money to help agriculture in developing countries and to promise to keep global temperatures down to a mere 2C rise, no policy, no action or room for vision rather a an extended press conference, suitably vague to offend nobody and of course hopelessly lacking in leadership.

With Climate Change’s effects flexing their muscles, declining ice in the Arctic, water crises from Northern India, to Australia and the US west, rising sea levels and things only set to get worse, it was disheartening to say the least that the top 8 richest countries in the world apparently struggle to lay out any plan that might make them have to take Climate Change seriously. Why was this so?

Apart from the G8’s careful ability to rarely achieve much, this G8 with a focus on Climate change had several factors that damaged it from the start:

1. The US the only chance of any global leadership, has yet to pass a Climate bill at a federal level, and has recently been delayed, in reality removing much of the the US’s strength in International negotiations.
2. Russia, amusing ( black comedy style) Russia has announced that by allowing emissions to increase up to 2020 at predicted level it will still achieve its kyoto targets  due to so much soviet heavy industry closing down.
3. Japan, promised to reduce emissions by 15% on 2004 baselines, essentially then reducing 4% emissions since 1990.
4. Canada, ranked bottom of the G8 group by the WWF-Allianz group, this affluent state is unfortunately ruled by a Stephen Harper’s minority coalition government whose biggest contribution to Climate change discussions has been to a) admit Climate Change exists and b) be reassured that soundsbites are becoming more robust ( but god forbid they translate into policy).

Amusingly, that leaves the European contingent as leaders, now on the one hand, as a cautious EU supporter I’m proud we’re leading the field, on the other hand UK, Germany, France and Italy reads like who’s who of 19th/20th century has beens and are woefully incapable of providing the true leadership we need.

What are the positives then?

Firstly is that we are in a recession and that may make policy makes especially cautious to be seen to be making any moves on Climate Change that could hamper economic recovery, or even sound like it might, if the US in particular begins to pull out in the next 4 months it may even be able to sneak a bill through congress. If it does this, this could easily provide the catalyst for for key developing countries such as China and India to begin managing targets.

Secondly, Canada could get a new government, actually quite likely and while Mr Ignatieff is still a fan of Alberta’s tar sands, he is a world apart from Mr Harper when it comes to actually tackling Climate Change.

Finally, the debate will continue to roll on, Climate Change will not be going away, slowly but surely people are coming to terms with the need for policy action and I see domestic movement having a positive reciprocal relationship with International policy, if something however disappointing but vaguely substantial can be agreed at Copenhagen, this will strengthen the case for domestic politicians to go back home and bolster their own efforts which should be able to feed back into International negotiations. We won’t get this right with one swing but slowly our pleasantly inadequate politicians might manage to avoid total catastrophe.

It’s crunch time on capital hill as the Obama administration puts its political capital on the line for the House to pass the Waxman-Markey bill. For those of you who don’t know, the Waxman-Markey bill is the first Climate Change bill to be introduced in the US ( on a federal level).

So what does it promise? (See here for a more comprehensive overview)

• To reduce US emissions on 2005 levels by 17% by 2020
• To bring US emissions down by 80% by 2050
• 25% of US energy by 2025 must be renewable
• A Cap and Trade system, 85% of permits will be auctioned off
• 2 Billion tons worth of carbon offsets
• A whole host of other measures from building efficiency, fuel standards and even a new technology bank!

Ok it’s been watered down, see Kelly McManus’ coverage at Climatico to,how its been watered down. Worse the Senate will be an even tougher battle with a smaller Democratic majority, and still no Al Franken *sigh*, but make no mistake, this bill is a game changer.

For a long time, I’ve had a list of things I would like Obama to do ( not including saving the US economy):

1. Health care
2. Climate Change bill
3. Immigration Reform
4. Gay rights

That isn’t a definitive list but if he got those down, that would do for me. Although far from perfect, this Climate Change bill is the only realistic chance of success in combatting Climate change, not simply because the US is the world’s second largest polluter but because it is the world’s superpower and the largest economy. If the US  was not willing to take serious action against Climate Change, China India and the rest will never get on board. As we head towards crucial Climate negotiations at the end of this year and the beginning of the next this is probably the only chance the US has of passing a serious Climate Change bill in time, to show it is willing to take serious leadership

And to be honest, the Democrats won’t have it this good for a long time, at best they will keep a hold in the 2010 mid terms, there is a small chance they’ll be able to expand and a good chance they will slip a little bit. They have a large majority in the house and IF Franken were ever seated would be looking at filibuster proof majority in the Senate. The time really is now.

So if it passes what then? Well if it passes, it still ahs to go and get watered down in the Senate, but if it survives that and the Republicans don’t use the fillibuster than a framework has been set for the US to reduce Climate emissions. With luck this will change the nature of debate for further incremental legislation to strengthen the legislation, critical to this will be:

• Proven success of green jobs, already a growing number of economists and think tanks ( e.g. Pew Research) have come out in support – that green can be good for the economy.
• An economic upturn in general, weakens the hand of those who oppose the bill purely on economic grounds.
• The continual reduction in climate sceptics as evidence already insurmountable continues to pile over, until Republicans realise that opposing near total majority of world scientific research is ridiculous, this could take a long time, but if enough of the American public are convinced, Republicans may eventualyl change their tune. Then the debate will be about the type of policy rather than the exisitence of Carbon Dioxide :-p

The House votes tommorow, fingers crossed.

Take a fascinating and often harrowing account in this week’s New York Times about modern-day Cambodia:

As it struggles to leave its past behind, Cambodia today suffers from a particularly painful generation gap: those who survived the brutal Khmer Rouge regime, and their children and grandchildren, who know very little about it.

photo credit: Strevo

Under the leadership of Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge killed around a fifth (most likely around 1.8 million) of the Cambodian population, engaging in radical social engineering which, in its persecution of anyone with the slightest education and its emphasis on a purely agrarian social model, not only had a massive human cost, but also social, economic and cultural consequences which will be felt for decades to come.  That, as the NYT article reports, 80% of under-30 year olds (who make up 70% of Cambodia’s population) know “little or nothing” about this period clearly has massive implications, generationally and in terms of an historical healing process.  Despite the ongoing trials of Khmer Rouge figures, under UN pressure, the Prime Minister, Hun Sen is clearly a proponent of historical oblivion: “[he] once proposed that Cambodia “dig a hole and bury the past.”*

[...] the Khmer Rouge period has not been taught in school, causing some teachers who are survivors to feel orphaned by their students.

A new high school text book that discusses the Khmer Rouge years has been prepared, but it will reach only a portion of the country’s students

This attitude seems to reflect that prevalent in Germany immediately following the war, and perhaps the desire to forget is understandable.  But the disbelieving laughter of children who play with the skulls in the erstwhile Killing Fields must come as a final, devestating blow to those who suffered one of the most abhorrent acts of the bloodiest century in human history, but who thought perhaps, that some solace might at least be found in the final verdict of history.  With the latest trials a seeming irrelevance in national discourse, any hope of “Truth and Reconciliation” seems far off, and in failing to come to terms with the past, we risk alienation and, inevitably, the repetition of tragedy in the future.

I say we, for if the twentieth century has taught us anything, it is that genocide can happen almost anywhere, and that the international community is woefully slow to act.  Forgetfulness (if not ignorance) is stark even with regard to evil at its most manifest: a poll of British schoolchildren last month showed that only 37% knew that 6 millions Jews died in Europe’s Holocaust.  Those children at the back of Cambodian classrooms are not unique, and we must strive to ensure that meta-narratives do not blot out unpalatable aspects of history, especially in a globalised age where history is far from a national construct and in which modern-day cases of genocide make a brief foray into national dialogue before being overshadowed by pressing domestic concerns.

Nor should we allow the Holocaust to become trivialised through misappropriation of language  (a post-modern phenomenon I think is all to common – consider for example, the ubiquity of the word ‘rape’ in contemporary youth parlance).  A piece by Dr Dvir Abramovich, Director of Jewish studies at the University of Melbourne, makes this point quite well and provides some telling examples, although his argument does betray a lack of nuance in equating the poignant and delicate film, Life is Beautiful, with a build-it-yourself LEGO concentration camp .  

photo credit: _L_U_C_A_

Contrary to Abramovich’s assertions, the value of a film like Life is Beautiful is in its original, personal and challenging presentation of the events of the Final Solution.  In constantly demanding honesty, in whatever form available, and in never shying from confrontation with unpalatable aspects of history in an increasingly global process of shaping collective memory, we can only improve the chance that the leaders of tomorrow will be more likely to act when evil inevitably strikes once more.

*Update: for an in-depth academic study of collective memory and the Cambodian genocide, see David Chandler, ‘Cambodia Deals with its Past: Collective Memory, Demonisation and Induced Amnesia’ in Totalitarian Movements and Political Regions, 9:2 (June 2008).

photo credit: JFabra

If you Read Ed’s article on the need for stimulus packages in Europe you may have come across a debate Ed and I had over the nature and merits of a stimulus. Regardless of which side you fell on, there were further issues at stake than just economics. Economists like to see their subject as a science: numerical and evidence based, rational and objective. No doubt,  many of their research tools are scientific but economics is also the backbone of the modern world and often not an end in itself, more a vehicle for achieving other ends.

As James Surowiecki argues in the Financial Page of the New Yorker, economics is by no means a science and as the recession draws on, we’re able to examine the cultural memories that can and do direct economic courses of action. From recessions and inflations, each country will have its own preferences and fears that alter the importance attached to different parts of the economy.

In the US, the focus has fallen on the stimulus package and Paul Krugman has made the case that europe should follow suite. He makes a convincing case for a European stimulus package, but is it correct to lampoon European economic policy and decision making as woefully inadequate or to equate US economic policy so readily with Europe? Well in some sense yes, it’ s perfectly fair, the rationale for the stimulus is not so difficult,  it could even lead to greater gains if correctly invested in infrastructure which could grow economies in the future, from transport to broadband aswell as tiding Europe over during a recession. In fact, many economists, (despite what many think) advocate deficit spending. They argue that if done correctly it will more than pay itself back through the higher tax-receipts of the economic growth it will yield.

But Krugman’s argument fails to take into account complexities within Europe, not just over the method of recovery but the acceptable limits . Surowiecki’s argument makes clear the perils of inflation in cultural memory and ought to be taken seriously:

If the episode that haunts the U.S. is the Great Depression, in Europe, where the Germans have been dominant in shaping economic policy, the defining historical moment is the hyperinflation of Weimar Germany, when prices rose more than seventy-five billion per cent in just one year, 1923, and, in the words of Walter Benjamin, “trust, calm, and health” vanished

The US has never sufferred the acute inflationary issues several European countries and notably developing countries have suffered, but it has suffered unemployment.  Europe on the other hand has had its fair share of both, such as Weimar Germany.  Inflation is not simply a historical boogeyman, Hungary and Yugoslavia , Argentina and Chile in the 70s and 80s and Zimbabwe to this present day have  allsuffered the terrible impact of inflation, collapsing economies as easily if not more so than high unemployment.

Within Europe, unemployment is also less of a concern than the US.  Europe an countries have lower unemployment rates and greater safety nets, which act as stabilisers against recession. European states can and will try to sweat out the recession by letting the welfare states take the strain. Furthermore, Europe knows that the US and China have to get themselves going, China has been candid before about its need to maintain  high growth rates to appease ever-growing expectations among its population and the US similarly has high expectation, if these key markets take the strain Europe could ride on their coat tails. They will probably recover more slowly, miss an oppurtunity to re-vamp their economies for new challenges, but European countries have in the past demonstrated their willingness to take the backseat, if it means avoiding the riskier decisions.

US capitalists would look in horror at the idea that European states would happily accept higher levels of unemployment and the subsequent welfare costs, and forego economic growth in return for stability.  But a turbulent history of left-right battles  recurrent thrroughout the 20th century, continuing after Post-War into the radical conflicts of the 60s have made the European centre right more concilillatory, in order to maintain stability. In Germany for example, the importance of left-right pacts that the CDU has fostered since the days of West Germany, to keep the left and the right firmly in check and the bargaining parties as the power-brokers, not the fringe parties.

Krugman’s views shouldn’t be taken out of context, as an American he can’t be immune from the feeling they are taking more than their fair share of the burden.  Surowiecki’s argument is that the US is paying for the luxury of a rapid recovery through stimulus, with the bonus of being able to re-shape significant parts of the economy such as green energy investment to prepare the economy for a low-carbon future, rather than endure a longer recession and a slow recovery. Surowiecki’s argument underestimates the importance of a stimulus to the US, lengths of recessions are not “luxuries” but he’s right in some sense that there is a cultural value being attached to the economy as whole, particularly when Americans lack the European safety nets.

By comparison , Europeans have less to lose from economic growth, much of this is the welfare state, unemployment is not the devastating force it can be to many in the US. A more relaxed attitude to growth may also be a way of compensating for Europe’s inability to compete with the US economically, or a disregard for trickle down economics but I suspect it’s also rooted in the history of post-war Europe, as the battle ground of the Cold War. With the spectre of communism on the one side and the rising power of US capitalism on the other, Europeans were caught internally and externally between competing views of progress and settled, broadly, for variations on social democracy, a comfortable less exciting middle ground, less growth, more stability.

Nevertheless, using culture and history doens’t mask other problems facing Europe. Germany undoubtedly has its reasons for not backing a stimulus as do other European countries. Some, might find it politically unpalatable, many Europeans blame the “Anglo-Saxon” economic system, and are not in quite the dire straits the US and the UK, no wonder Brown is the loudest for a stimulus when the UK is already mired in debt and less able to help itself. But Krugman is right, when before he’s recognised that European institutions have been slow and incapable of decisive action, even if they’d want to do so . Europe finds itself in the position of having an integrated market without integrated institutions to support it which this recession  has exposed cruelly.

]]> http://www.entangledalliances.com/2009/03/europe-and-the-us-two-different-fears/feed/ 0 http://www.entangledalliances.com/2009/03/camerons-playing-games-with-europe-follow-up/ http://www.entangledalliances.com/2009/03/camerons-playing-games-with-europe-follow-up/#comments Sun, 22 Mar 2009 15:25:00 +0000 Chris Fellingham http://www.entangledalliances.com/?p=869
photo credit: mohammadali

As Mark announced on the update to his post, Cameron has formally reasserted his desire for the Conservatives to leave the European People’s Party, the centre right coalition for the European Parliament. Then he will attempt to form a new bloc, which  supports the economic benefits of Europe but keeps away from the federalist leanings underpinning that the EPP displays.

The problem as the FT’s Brussels Bureau Chief, makes clear is that the alternative to the EPP doesn’t look that  promising and worse, where there is promise for a new bloc, that may cause Mr Cameron as many problems. Yet the Conservative Party’s European alliances are only a small part of the bigger picture. Cameron’s move away from the EPP is not unusual or without precedent in British politics but it is one that has been tried and tested before and has invariably come up short. Furthermore, Cameron risks isolating the UK from Europe precisiely at a time when greater cooperation is, and will be necessary, all to secure control of a rebel wing of his party.

British parties and Europe

British political parties have a long and enduring precedent of meddling with the European Union. This volatile relationship is largely unique in western Europe a product of our policy making and party system. Where other European countries such as Germany formulate policy with regards to Europe more at the technical level of the civil service, British parties have always juggled with Europe according to the needs of the party.

With such a narrow party system, the importance of party unity is paramount to maintain an electoral advantage, Europe has proved incredibly divisive to British parties over the years, from Conservative anxiety over its free trade (both for and against), Federalism ( more against) and immigration, to name but a few of the key issues. Labour have been similarly divided over issues such immigration, the protection of workers and union rights. Both parties have had pangs of regret, Europe seemed a decidedly less exciting alternative to the British Empire which both parties opted to cling onto as it crumbled through Post-war Britain’sfingers.

To resolve the issue, parties have had to avoid Europe as a wedge issue, and find a stance which placataes enough dissenters for it not to be an issue in the election. Three consecutive electoral defeats have left the Conservatives hungry for power, and Cameron wants no splits as the party heads towards a 2010 election but will his move to placate the wing of his party prove short-sighted, Brown you will remember tried a not dissimilar approach for the Lisbon Treaty wherehe opted to sign the agreement but miss the photo opp, pleasing no one and irritating everyone.

Cameron’s Problems

Cameron’s latest attempt to navigate the field are perilous.

Tony Barber outlines the options:

The most likely candidates are the Czech Civic Democrats (who have a helpful English-language website) and Poland’s Law and Justice party (Polish only, as far as I can tell, but here’s what the party slogan translates as: “Patriotism, solidarity, modernity”). Neither fits neatly into mainstream western European definitions of moderate centre-right politics. Both have earned a reputation for being “difficult” on the EU stage. Like the Tories, however, they are not afraid to challenge conventional wisdom. They should be taken seriously.

Other possible companions for the Conservatives are Italy’s Northern League, which is distinctly more right-wing. The League, I fear, could embarrass the Tories with its hostility to foreigners and rather peculiar version of northern Italian ethnic politics. Then there is the Danish People’s Party, which has a similar brand of conservative, anti-immigrant populism. Finally, there are some minor parties in Belgium, Latvia and Lithuania.

The problem for the Tories is that the chaps like them, across Europe, by and large are pro-Europeans leaving them with slightly oddball parties such as Law and Justice, who could cause them alot of potential embarassment if/when the Conservatives return to power. Law and Justice on issues such as  homosexuality, not to mention have proven particualrly awkward partners in the European Union, something which may marginalise Conservative’s position. Italy’s Northern League would be even worse, I could build a case against them but this poster from the 2005 regional elections in Italy does it so much better. Even within his party Cameron’s move could backfire,because in bringing back Kenneth Clark one of his biggest hitters in parliament and to the public, he has brought in one of the most pro-European Conservatives. Cameron is probably not a fool, andmust be aware of this but nevertheless it adds one more precarious balancing act that taps into deeply rooted feelings within the Conservative party, issue by issue he’ll have to take the temperatures of the factions to negotiate his pathway through Europe.

Britain and Europe in the 21st Century

I  am sympathetic to the Tory position on Federalisation, I disagree but their arguments are legitimate and fair. The European Union has largely failed to communicate what it stands for, what it does and where its going to, to European citizens. It’s not just the European Union’s fault, the British media and British political parties have constantly switched sides on Europe, always avoided the debate for fearing of exposing divisions in their own party.

The European Union however, is much much more than bendy bananas, more even than free markets and open borders. The European Union is about the long term security and future of the European continent, its very much about geopolitics and as Prodi made clear in a recent talk, no individual European country can have a serious voice on the world stage without standing shoulder to shoulder with its continental allies. This isn’t new, Europe’s status decline was evident immediately after the Second World War, it was a bi-polar world with the UK, a poor third place, desperate to maintain relevance through a relationship with the USA and by clinging on to its Empire.  Looking at the 21st century, the rise of China, India, Brazil and to some extent Russia will again significantly downsize the UK’s position in global standing. When Obama callled Cameron a lightweight, it was probably personal but it was also a pointed dig at his Euroscepticism, Obama’s belief that the UK’s position is as a big player through Europe but not a big player on its own.

Cameron has displayed some dangerous naivete on the world before,  his attempt to cash in on world leader status and make Brown appear dithering, during the Georgia-Russia conflict was embarassing, he showed a totally one sided view that barely took into account Georgia’s foolish military stunts on South Ossetia, offered provokative language with no examples of what was to be done and then ordered Georgia’s application should be sped up – which would only anatagonise Russia’s position and put NATO in a precarious spot having to provide cover for  Saakashvili’s   loose cannon foreign policy.

His attempts to paint a new world order where Britain can retain relevance without Europe and the US have a similarly hollow tone . Undoubtedlythe UK has opportunities with India yet to be exploted but if Cameron thinks these can amount to replacing Europe he is drastically over-estimating the UK’s role in the 21st century.  The UK’s economy is far more closely tied with both Europe and the US, our security issues frequently are far more closely aligned with the US and Europe, from border to security to terrorism and geo-strategic military interests.  Like it or not , the UK is inextricably linked to its “old foes”, the old Commonwealth  is over and  India will engage with us not the other way round.

The challenges facing the UK in the 21st century will require European above all European solutions,  not just border security, immigration and keeping open markets, some of the biggest issues will be challenges such as maintianging secure energy supplies in the face of Russi’a volatility,  transforming European economic development to fulfil the Lisbon treaty and invest in a research driven Europe in the so-called ‘knowledge economy’, does Cameron think India or the US will help the UK out with this, does he not think that the UK and Europe are irrevocably bound by geography and now the European Union.

The Road ahead

Where does this leave David Cameron and the Conservatives? By leaving the EPP and attempting to pursue a form of Europe supported by a minority group can only leader to the UK’s isolation and irritate other European leaders.

An Economist article a while back made the point clearly, there was a time when the UK sent its best and brightest to Europe, not because they were passionate about Europe but to make sure they got what they wanted out of it, those days are gone, and as the Economist went onto point out this represents a strategic error.From experience this hasn’t worked out well for Britain, because other European leaders simply continue to develop European policy which Britain is then left out of, unable to convert its strength into leverage because it alienates its potential allies to score quick points in party politics and refuses to seriously engage with Europe.

Thatcher may have won domestic plaudits for her rebate but her Bruges speech in 1988 was an embarassing admissions of how out of touch with European feeling she was. While Europe can prove frustrating to the UK, issues such as the CAP , the nature and size of its bureacracy and yes its federalist implications, half-hearted detachment only weaken’s the UK’s ability to alter its direction.  By leaving the EPP Cameron would not only be handicapping his relationship with other European leaders from the start but he would be weaken the UK’s long term ability to project its actual power into influence within Europe. One salient example is Blair’s attempt to reform the CAP, he had to give up the rebate just to gain a discussion of the CAP, yet had the UK been more engaged with Europe and cultivated alliances and policy positions, rather than pursue its childish semi0detachment Blair may have been more successful.

In reality, Cameron undoubtedly has some sort of fudged plan in mind, to appease both sides, but the future ahead looks set for a continuation of UK’s marginalisation in Europe, and that is of little good to anyone of its citizens.

photo credit: PappaJack

Tuesday marked the anniversary of Kosovo’s declaration of independence from Serbia. I meant to write about this sooner – but the day passed off largely without event, with none of the ugly scenes in Belgrade of a year ago.

In the extended entry, I’ll look at the effect of this declaration – both in Kosovo and on the wider international system – as well as the mood on the ground, from a visit I made there a couple of months ago.

(and I will definitely return to my mini-series on the EU in 2009 shortly – I should also have a post on Norway coming up in the next few days)

This post has become quite large so I’ve divided it up into the following sections if you’d prefer to read it that way.

• The International System
  • and Serbia
• Inside Kosovo
  • Division of Kosovo?
  • Mitrovica
  • Civil Society

THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

photo credit: Iujaz [Away from Flickr]

The Maldives today became the 55th country to recognise the independence of Kosovo, joining the US, Japan, and 22 of 27 EU member states. Serbia, Russia, China, and (obviously) five other EU states have either refused or so far withheld recognition.

Ian Bancroft thinks that states are going to rescind their recognition of Kosovo following an ICJ judgement, expected within the next 20 months, on the legality of Kosovo’s declaration (and presumably that Kosovo is going to be put back into Serbia?). I think this is unlikely.

Each of the five EU states have concerns about separatism (or irredentism):

• Spain’s various regions include Catalonia, the Basque Country and Galicia.
• Cyprus, because of the ongoing unresolved problems with the separatist northern part of the island, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. I still don’t get why this wasn’t resolved before Cypriot accession, but that’s a whole different discussion.
• Greece is worried about irredentist movements in its region of Macedonia, from the FYR Macedonia, as well as having historically strong relations with Serbia. Also because of Cyprus.
• Slovakia, because of the large Hungarian minority in the south and east of the country (though there are suggestions this could change in the near future, according to B92). This is an interesting article from the DPA last year which (towards the end) hints at some of the problems Slovakia is worried about.
• Romania, also because of the Hungarian minority in Transylvania

This list may seem like a slightly disjointed point to start a discussion about Kosovo, but it demonstrates that even within now (relatively) stable Europe, there are large concerns about the integrity of borders and fragmentation. Kosovo represents the age-old conflict between the twin concerns of immutability of borders and self-determination, brilliantly enshrined in the Helsinki Accords of 1975.

photo credit: Ereine

The Accords were signed at the height of superpower Détente, as part of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, a precursor to today’s OSCE. Possibly as part of Kissinger’s policy of “linkage”, signatories recognised the immutability of post-war borders in Europe, a key aim of a paranoid Soviet Union that was craving this legitimacy for itself, and its satellite states in the Eastern bloc. In return for this, they recognised respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and “Equal rights and self-determination of freedoms”. The ten “Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States”, on the face of it fairly uncontroversial, are thus paradoxical (they’re worth a read in full).

As a result, while Serbia and its allies can say that Kosovo’s secession was illegal, Kosovo and its allies can say that it is perfectly legal. Interestingly, Russia siding with Serbia is in a somewhat complicated situation as Gorbachev certainly didn’t authorise the secession of any of the 15 Union Republics of the USSR.

(Incidentally — it’s funny that the Helsinki Accords, signed in, well, Helsinki, Finland, have played such a role, as the former President of Finland, Marti Ahtisaari, wrote the plan on supervised independence on which Kosovo’s declaration was based. They’re busy people, those Finns.)

Nevertheless, unilateral declarations of independence have been traditionally frowned upon by the international community, and certainly the UN which after all is a club of sovereign states. In the break up of the Soviet Union, the international community was adamant until the last minute that it would not accept its break up — and after that became a reality, it would only recognise Union Republics who declared independence. Chechnya is the exception which proves the rule, as it is the only non-Union-level Republic to be recognised (until South Ossetia and Abkhazia – more in a moment), and that was by the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. The international community also set a deadline for Yugoslav Republics to declare independence.

Thus, despite the unilateral declarations of independence of the past, Kosovo did set a precedent. There are no other examples that I can think of where a country is recognised amidst such continuing (particularly international) wrangling over its status. That’s not necessarily to say that I think the UDI was the wrong course of action – just that it has set a precedent in the international system. The effect of this can very clearly be seen in October last year: South Ossetia (and even more dubiously, Abkhazia) were finally recognised as independent by Russia after hostilities in August/September 2008. The International Crisis Group also points nervously (2007) towards Nagorno-Karabakh, the breakaway region of Azerbaijan currently occupied by Armenia. The two countries went to war over this territory’s declaration of independence some fifteen years ago, with the loss of 20,000 lives.

I was fortunate enough to speak with Ronald Suny about the effect of Kosovo’s UDI (and subsequent recognition of it) on Nagorno-Karabakh a couple of months ago, just before I went out to Kosovo. He thought that it had had a large effect, as it made the de facto administration in Stepanankert, the capital of the breakaway region, believe that the Kosovan precedent may work in their favour. Last August/September’s conflict between Georgia and Russia probably made that less likely for Nagorno-Karabakh, however, as it suggested Russia would probably step in on the side of Armenia — and also because Turkey and Russia have started making greater overtures to each other, conscious that this conflict could set them at war with one another. That probably needs another post! (Although, this is another reason for diffusing tensions: oil and gas pipelines would be one of the first casualties of any new outbreak in Nagorno-Karabakh.)

Nagorno-Karabakh is a complicated example, but in other situations it’s likely that the recognition of Kosovo’s declaration of independence will have emboldened those similarly seeking recognition.

Serbia

Finally, in considering the effect on the international system, we should not forget Serbia. Last year’s pro-Europe (ish) vote was surprising and unexpected, coming three months after Kosovo’s declaration of independence. However, perhaps this will allow Serbia to finally start closing the door on the nationalism which has led the country into disastrous wars and economic hardship. On the anniversary of independence, Serbia’s President Tadić continued to insist that “Kosovo is not a country”, but the rhetoric has been toned down; in contrast to the amibuous rhetoric of the same time last year, he emphasised that Serbia will defend its “legitimate rights by legal and diplomatic means, not force.”

Shortly before last year’s election, Serbia signed a Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA), a precursor to EU membership negotiations, and the arrest of Karadzic (and reports of greater effort to find and arrest Mladic) suggest that Serbia is making genuine moves towards European integration. It seems as though the EU’s soft power is finally attracting Serbia.

INSIDE KOSOVO

The mood in Kosovo on the anniversary depends who you ask: even the AP can’t quite make up their mind – it’s either ‘jubilant‘ crowds pouring on to the streets, or a struggling, barely-recognised, crime-ridden territory. I think I’d probably lean much more to the former. Maybe I’m naive and overly optimistic, but the ethnic Albanian Kosovans I met seemed genuinely proud of their accomplishments.

That’s not to say they don’t recognise the massive hill they’ve still got to climb: there are indeed problems with corruption, unemployment’s hovering at above 40% (and with some 70% of Kosovans under 27, that figure’s only going to rise in the short term). Then, along with the frequent electricity shortages which make business very difficult, they have to contend with continuing uncertainty over the northern quarter of their already small territory. In Zvecan, just outside the flashpoint town of Mitrovica, Serbian lawmakers on Tuesday adopted a resolution denouncing Kosovo’s declaration of independence.

Division of Kosovo?

These moves are not really unexpected, but they do emphasise the continuing (and in some ways growing) division of Kosovo. The “Six Point Plan” is controversial in Kosovo, as many see it leading to partition, or at least parallel institutions. EULEX, the European Union law and order mission taking over from the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), is deploying under this plan. This is the reason for the large amount of grafitti around the capital Pristina – “EULEX – Made In Serbia” – and “NO EULEX” being written on red traffic lights. So what does this Six Point Plan actually say?

It’s remarkably difficult to find out. This is the only site I could find which actually lists the points, but it doesn’t seem particularly contentious (except perhaps point C, exclusively UNMIK control in northern Mitrovica with local prosecutors and judges). It turns out the “Six Point Plan” is part of the Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (S/2008/692 via this link) (PDF) on reconfiguring UNMIK, presented in November 2008. The Six Points were drafted in consultation with Belgrade; Kosovo rejected the reconfiguration (its response is in Annex I), arguing that they gave too many concessions to Serbia.

The relevant parts of the six points are (from page 8, my summaries):

A: Policing - more localised policing, particularly in non-ethnic Albanian areas

B: Customs - reinstatement of international customs officers (rather than nothing, as is the case at the moment, or else Kosovan customs officers)

C: Justice - for the first 60 days, the new northern Mitrovice courthouse will be staffed by UNMIK only; after that point, it will be staffed by local judges and prosecutors – potentially creating a parallel system outside the rule of the Kosovo Ministry of Justice, especially as “The mix of local judges and prosecutors appointed during the phases will reflect the communities and territorial jurisdictions that they will serve.”

Essentially, the concern is that northern Kosovo will adopt a parallel judicial system, especially as parts B and C include the words “in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999)”. Potentially also controversial is that, under paragraph 50, EULEX will operate in accordance with that same Security Council Resolution.

Mitrovica

I recommend at least the first six pages of this report to anyone with an interest in Kosovo. It’s very good at setting out the current situation there, particularly with reference to the north/south division. We travelled to Mitrovica while in Kosovo, and the tension really is palpable. We walked up to the famous bridge across the River Ibar which both joins and divides the two communities – Albanians in the south, (mostly) Serbs in the north. The UNMIK official just before the bridge told us that we were welcome to cross, but that it was a “ticking time bomb”; the Kosovo Police Service policeman on the bridge told us that we could cross if we wanted and that most likely nothing would happen, but that “as a friend” it wasn’t worth the risk. The north side was daubed in Serb flags and cyrillic script, and policemen on the northern side told us to move on quickly, so we returned (also partly because the FCO avoids against all but essential travel there, so our insurance would have been void). We did see people crossing (few, mind) so it seems that it’s not impossible – but the KPS guy at the south side of the bridge told us that he once drove his police car in there and had it smashed up. The Kosovo Police Service no longer insure their policemen driving in to the north alone.

Civil Society

The UN report highlights another big problem in Kosovo: the lack of well-developed civil society institutions, or just the fact that they’re often ignored. This was a key, repeating theme we saw while we were there. One large civil society institution told us that people had been concentrating so hard and for so long on the question of independence, everything else had been put off until this was resolved. The civil society institutions are developing however – from civil, human, and disabilities rights organisations through to media and environmental protection, NGOs are opening their doors and consolidating their efforts throughout.

Kosovo, then, is a long way off full acceptance into the international community, but it is beginning its journey down this long road. The current remaining issues over the status of northern Kosovo present an obstacle and a potential flashpoint for the future, and the possible reinforcement of parallel institutions by UNMIK is something that needs to be avoided. The creation of a true multi-ethnic state in Kosovo is not pure fantasy; indeed, the UN report notes that “…freedom of movement is not a serious concern of the minority communities, except for the Kosovo Albanian minorities in northern Kosovo.” (para 19, p16)

What is undoubted, however, is that this is a place to watch in the future.

photo credit: doug.siefken

Another issue puts this into a wider context. Back in 2005 141 US Mayors  signed the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.  By 2007, 500 US Mayors had signed. The pact agreed to aim to meet Kyoto limits and was a slap in the face to the Bush administration, who throughout its 8 years opposed or held up any serious Climate Change agreement.

What marks both out is their decision to create policy outside of national Government and beyond their national borders  indicating a remarkable shift in traditional political power structures. While the US has always had stronger support for the Mayoral system than the UK, the gap may be coming to an end as a new era of urban self-determination could become increasingly prominent in 21st century politics.

David Cameron recently wrote an article in the Guardian, asking for greater devolvement of power. This isn’t exactly a new theme, and the article is somewhat ironic given it was Thatcher more than anyone else that smashed local Government control in the UK.  Look past thishowever and you will see a key piece of Cameron’s plan is for 12 new mayoral systems to be established across the UK.  The rise of mayoral politics is undoubtedly a symbol of our growing urbanisation, with over 50% of the world’s population now living in urban areas, the traditional local government structures, of geographical region will need serious reform to cope with the growing power of cities.

There are reasons to think this is a positive development; the recent intensity around London’s election, which saw Conservative Boris Johnson oust incumbent Ken Livingstone was a testament to the shifting identities in the UK and around the world , and a subsequent need for new democratic structures to represent and engage people.

Furthermore, cities are fundamentally different from other traditional units, continuous, dense economic hubs with high stress on resources and infrastructure,  usually multicultural and often far more integrated into the global economy,change is a permanent state in the city and as such the mayoral system with greater executive power is in my opinion far more appropriate.

These two pieces of legislation, remarkable in their breadth, vision and justified belief in the importance of cities for global issues is a strongly positive symbol of the globalized society to find new routes to enact the urgent change we need to tackle Climate Change, and hopefully arrest the lethargy in national goverment in addressing urgent issues.

photo credit: Compound Eye

Amid an awful lot of recessionary gloom, Europe may have taken a small but significant step forward with a new report out by the New Carbon Finance group, which shows that the EU’s ETS (Emission Trading Scheme) may actually be working. I don’t know how authoritative this report is, and the difficulties of tracking carbon  emissions across Europe force us to take each report with a grain of salt.  Indeed, I would hesitate to call this authoritative until further reports can confirm.  However, if it is true, this could well be a turning point in the struggle against Climate Change.

The problem with  all Climate Change solutions, apart from political will power, is actually designing a system to contain them. With competing influences, from the problems of levying further direct taxes, to interfering with the free markets (which as everyone knows always work flawlessly without exception) cap and trade – the broad idea of which the ETS was a derivative of, was seen as the best compromise solution to all.

It works very simply,( and you can read the wikipedia article here, or the specific EU ETS here)  but essentially each country in the EU is assigned  a certain number of permits to cover its pollution, these are then sold/auctioned/given away ( a point of much controversy) to polluters.  Polluters then need to pay for permits, and those who reduce their pollution can then sell their permits to polluters (as they have an excess). Essentially it increases the cost of pollution, with each new stage the total number of permits given out across the EU are reduced, raising the price of pollution, making polluting ventures less and less profitable, and creating greater incentives not to invest in polluting energy/industrial activity or to find ways to reduce pollution. A market based solution.

However, unsurprisingly with a scheme which has to cover thousands of businesses, there have been a large number of problems..

1. As the WWF documented, there were loopholes, some companies were able to evade pollution costs by carbon offsetting ( itself a contentious issue in Climate Change circles).  The benefits of this to the environment are difficult to measure, many are based on theoretical increases in emissions (e.g. buying more fuel efficient stoves for people instead of the coal stoves they were probably going to buy…)

2. Another problem was the first phase handed out  far too many permits were handed out, this crashed the price of pollution, and where it didn’t crash the price could result in effectively handing out money to energy and industrial companies.

3.The third problem,  is that carbon trading only accounts for 40% of Europe’s emissions. In part, its difficult to regulate some areas of personal emissions, but key industries like aviation were missed out, making the ETS limited at best. National lobbying also saw some countries such as  Germany gain opt outs for its heavy industry.

Nevertheless, I think of these problems more as teething issues in what is a highgly complex system to regulate. As WWF asserts, and what this new report may indicate is that fundamentally Cap and Trade systems can work.

Perhaps the biggest problem is simply a lack of political will to shoulder a burden that other countries aren’t shouldering in and that alone will not halt Climate Change.There is an urgent need for a global greement. European countries were only able to agree to this scheme because it was a collectively shared burden, but Europe was hardly like to shoulder an excessive burden if the US and China did nothing to reduce their own emissions.

However, things are looking decidedly different, a new wind is blowing through Washington. President Obama has not only talked of Climate change he’s started to walk the walk.

His key picks were : Holdren as a Science adviser, someone who has been vociferouson the perils of climate change and the need to act.Stephen Chu for the Department of Energy was crucial – another Scientist with exceptional credentials and Lisa Jackson as Environmental Chief. Furthermore the stimulus bill saw a cool $60 billion for green works. This was disappointing givent he size of the bill and the potential for green energy in job creation, long term energy security and the economic benefits of leading the wolrd in green technolgoy but nonetheless remains an important boost to the industry.

However, even more important than the domestic solutions is the need for a global agreement, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put the issue front and centre, by selecting a special envoy Todd Stern for Climate change. The message is clear, the US is gearing up for a global treaty on emissions reductions.

photo credit: alibaba0

photo credit: alibaba0

A global agreement would not only forcibly strengthen the resolve of the EU to improve and expand the coverage of ETS, but the ETS itself could become the foundation for a workable global system to reduce carbon emissions.  Heady times to be sure and undoubtedly there will be further setbacks but don’t underestimate the landmark potential of this report.