I believe the EU will work better with the Lisbon treaty. It helps to make the institutions, voting and power sharing more transparent and manageable. Ratifying the Lisbon treaty also finishes the institutional navel gazing and creates room for doing real stuff. From my perspective, the EU needs even simpler, transparent and democratic rules which would probably move it further towards a federal structure. This would be fine with me. Having said that, I agree that a second Irish referendum is not the most democratic way out of the problem. I have argued straight after the first Irish referendum that one should ditch the Lisbon treaty and gradually reform the EU step-by-step, as it has happened so far.
Of course, ideally we should have a more efficient and democratic European Union. But from my perspective this can only be achieved through more federalism.
From what I understand Libertas will be a pan-European party which stands for more democracy in Europe. There is nothing to argue about. I could undersign this.
But the single focus of Libertas on fighting the Lisbon treaty weakens it, I think. If you stand for more democracy, why not propose to have a pan-European referendum about the Lisbon treaty on the same day with the referendum passing with 50% of the European electorate. This would then also be consistent with the direct election of the EU President as proposed by Libertas. I am all for this. Together with the EP elections in June this would be the best communications campaign for Europe, a real political discussion about Europe’s future. This would be a real Plan D, not a buraucratic Plan D of funding information campaigns.
In this way, the creation of Libertas as a pan-European party with a united election platform is a good thing and puts the mainstream parties under pressure to think and campaign more European. If that happens we will have a real European Parliament election campaign in 2009, with real debate and political competition. If Libertas can act as the catalyst for this, Libertas will be thanked by pro-Europeans all over Europe.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
A first concrete US contribution to climate change
The Obama administration should not waste its energy and money on saving the 3 big US car makers, but rather use their market failure as a first concrete contribution to a new climate policy.
The economic state of GM, Ford and Chrysler is a reflection of the fact that they have missed the turn to defining mobility in the 21st century. Instead they were lost in a time bubble projecting past and current consumer patters into the future and building ineffient monsters believing their own advertising strategies.
Not many people knew that the end would come so quickly, but the signs were on the wall, with climbing oil prices and government CO2 regulations. While oil prices have dropped dramatically, government CO2 regulation has increased and consumer behaviour is changing, partly due to current recession fears.
Why should the US, or any other government, spent tax payers money on saving inefficient and polluting industries? Any government investment in these industries now will only prolonge their agony and waste another $ 50-100 billion (or credit which US taxpayers will have to pay back for many years). In addition, a government bail out will make it possible for the car makers to continue building inefficient and polluting cars which will be forced on US consumers under the 'Buy American' slogan. This will make for a bad start of US climate change policy when the main thing the US needs now is credibility.
Of course, it's all about jobs and this is important. But given the choice, should the government not invest in jobs for the future rather than jobs of the past? Can the US government asked China to close down coal power plants when it keeps subsidiesing its ineffienct and polluting car monsters?
I propose that the US government puts together a stimulus package for the car makers, the people who build the cars. They should receive a one-off payment helping them to make a new start in life. The car companies can get subsidies only for business plans based on new mobility ideas.
This way the collapse of the car industry in the US can create opportunities for new enterpreneurship and help to reduce the US and global CO2 targets at the same time.
The economic state of GM, Ford and Chrysler is a reflection of the fact that they have missed the turn to defining mobility in the 21st century. Instead they were lost in a time bubble projecting past and current consumer patters into the future and building ineffient monsters believing their own advertising strategies.
Not many people knew that the end would come so quickly, but the signs were on the wall, with climbing oil prices and government CO2 regulations. While oil prices have dropped dramatically, government CO2 regulation has increased and consumer behaviour is changing, partly due to current recession fears.
Why should the US, or any other government, spent tax payers money on saving inefficient and polluting industries? Any government investment in these industries now will only prolonge their agony and waste another $ 50-100 billion (or credit which US taxpayers will have to pay back for many years). In addition, a government bail out will make it possible for the car makers to continue building inefficient and polluting cars which will be forced on US consumers under the 'Buy American' slogan. This will make for a bad start of US climate change policy when the main thing the US needs now is credibility.
Of course, it's all about jobs and this is important. But given the choice, should the government not invest in jobs for the future rather than jobs of the past? Can the US government asked China to close down coal power plants when it keeps subsidiesing its ineffienct and polluting car monsters?
I propose that the US government puts together a stimulus package for the car makers, the people who build the cars. They should receive a one-off payment helping them to make a new start in life. The car companies can get subsidies only for business plans based on new mobility ideas.
This way the collapse of the car industry in the US can create opportunities for new enterpreneurship and help to reduce the US and global CO2 targets at the same time.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
How to rebuild Iceland: A letter to a friend in Reijavik
My dear friend,
You ask me how to rebuild trust in Iceland. Here are my two cents:
Starting point for rebuilding trust, both internally and externally, is to design and implement policies which make sense and work (the Product). Acknowledge mistakes, draw conclusions and come up with bold policy proposals to move forward. Be absolutely transparent and participatory in the communications (we need all of you here to get out of this mess).
Create a ‘We’ feeling, rather then we are the victims and the guys at the top always mess up.
Act and communicate along the following lines:
You ask me how to rebuild trust in Iceland. Here are my two cents:
Starting point for rebuilding trust, both internally and externally, is to design and implement policies which make sense and work (the Product). Acknowledge mistakes, draw conclusions and come up with bold policy proposals to move forward. Be absolutely transparent and participatory in the communications (we need all of you here to get out of this mess).
Create a ‘We’ feeling, rather then we are the victims and the guys at the top always mess up.
Act and communicate along the following lines:
We made mistakes because we had too much trust in the invisible hand of the market – we had become market fundamentalists. We were not alone in this, but we were possibly among the most extreme and the most exposed. PM should offer to resign, but say that this will not solve the issue.
Clear message that government is working 24/7 and engages the best brains in Iceland and the world.
Priorities now are: short term crisis management, introducing tight banking regulation which helps avoid repeat in the future, and economic reform which gets economy through crisis and helps build sustainable economy in the future. This is also important for FDI confidence.
Build in the message that Iceland has great potential which has not gone away. ‘We have to create a new Wirtschaftswunder’. And as in Germany after the war it will be hard.
Engage the best brains in the world to help in tackling these priorities. Take them to Iceland and give media exposure (We work with the best people in the World). One brain could be George Soros who has long warned about the crisis and what led to them.
Launch and moderate a national debate about the Future of Iceland (the vision thing). This should build on the best of new media, ask the Obama campaign people.
All this will be much easier if the fresh start comes also with a fresh face, the Icelandic Obama. If this is not possible, at least a major reshuffle of the top people. These people need to talk to everyone ‘We need everyone here to get out of the mess’.
In sum:
Fresh start (admit mistakes + 24/7 crisis management + design long term economic policy framework)
Best would be fresh face(s)
Build community sense of ‘Aermel hochkrempeln’
Get the best minds in the world to Iceland to help
National vision debate
This is from far away (Brussels) and may be all too basic. Most is probably already done. If so, ignore.
Good luck,
Andre
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Some implications from the Georgia-Russia war
My speaking points at a meeting on the implications of the Georgian-Russain War.
How has the Georgian-Russian war been perceived in Europe?
In general
o It was a wake up call for the need for clear and common EU positions and decisions in relations with Russia and the Eastern neighbors.
o Also, a reminder that frozen conflicts are still conflicts and can erupt quite easily into hot conflicts.
Otherwise it depends who you ask in Europe
o for the Baltics, Poland, Czech Republic + UK and Sweden (the friends of Georgia) this was an aggression of Russia and confirmation of the re-emerging expansionists Russian Empire. For them it was a mistake not to give a NATO Map to Georgia as they believe it would have avoided this standoff. They were quick in support for Sakasvili and for calling sanctions against Russia. This group is close to the current US position.
o for the rest of the EU lead by France and Germany, the crisis was a confirmation of 3 things: that Sakasvili is an adventurer who cannot be trusted, that Russia’s un-proportionate military reaction was manifestation that Russia is back in geo-political business, that EU and NATO policies for the whole Eastern region need to be rethought. Their take was that it was wise not to give a NATO Map to Georgia.
2. What are the prospects and constraints for concerted action?
Despite these differences the EU acted quick and united with surprisingly swift crisis management by Sarkozy. A discussion is now underway on the EU’s stands towards Russia. It started off with some tough words but in the end the Realists/pro-engagement faction is winning the debate. EU knows that there is no alternative to engagement with Russia.
On Georgia, there is a re-evaluation going on. The state of emergency in November last year was seen largely as an unfortunate overreaction. Playing with missiles is going too far for most EU countries. There is disappointment with Sachasvili. The exception is the Eastern EU members who feel deep rooted solidarity with Georgia based on historic memories of their own.
It is most likely that the EU will continue to support Georgia (as during the Donor conference) but start increasingly to distance them from Sachasvili.
A dividing issue is NATO expansion and the US missile defense system. Generally New Europe supports NATO expansion while Old Europe does not. I expect that at the next NATO Council a diplomatic formulation will be found which affirms that Georgia and Ukraine can join one day but not now. Here much will depend on the post-election position of the US.
On the other hand the EU is realizing that the ENP-enlargement light- approach has not had the effect its designers had in mind. Here all options are now discussed, even (silently) the prospect of eventual (if very distant) EU membership.
3. What options are there for stability and security arrangements for Georgia as a result?
I would like to quote Sakasvili here, in a German TV interview ‘Wrong question, you should ask …’ . Seriously, the question should be what the options for stability and security in the whole region are, including for Russia and Europe. Security and Stability can only be achieved with all partners involved.
With the military option Sakashvili has gambled away any hope to re-integrate South Ossetia and Abkhazia in the medium term. The Russian recognition leaves these territories in international limbo and under the direct influence of Moscow.
NATO is the wrong track. It is the track of the cold war. I think we have to dramatically rethink NATO and its relationship with Russia.
Can this be a revival of OSCE? Medvedev is calling for a new Security architecture. Why not take him by his word and explore what this means? Simply accepting a Russian proposal for discussion would be a positive sign.
My view is that the EU should accept the Russian proposal for debate. It may be a last chance to build in our values before Europe and the US influence in the world further declines.
Some concluding remarks :
Let's look at Georgia, Russia and the separatist entities separately for a moment
Georgia:
Something went seriously wrong here. After a good start and many good reforms, Sakashvili lost it. Despite warnings he opted for a military solution of a frozen conflict. He gave Russia the chance to demonstrate where the red lines are.
Georgia is a big looser of this conflict: it probably lost option to join NATO, lost South Ossetia and Abkhazia for the foreseeable future and will have to rebuild a trusted relationship with the EU.
I see the following priorities :
o Economic reconstruction and social development is priority + integration of refugees. This is where the EU should concentrate support.
o Now it is important to make sure that Georgia does not re-militarize.
o Government needs to reopen dialogue with civil society, and engage in CS confidence building.
o High level corruption should be made an issue, especially in relation to militarization and the military budget.
o Useful to put in place an independent investigation into the conflict, and probably also think about transitional justice.
o Think about post-Sakashvili period and how not to loose the momentum for further transition to an open society
Russia:
No question that Russia had a hand in creating this conflict. However, both Putin and Sakhasvili wanted to force it. Russia handled badly, luckily for Sachasvili.
Russia achieved its main goals: NATO membership pf Georgia is probably off the table, and West has to recognize Russia’s regional and global ambitions.
Conflict and Russia's reaction put the question of the future European security structure on the agenda. I think it would be useful to discuss this with the Russians.
Frozen Conflicts:
Depends who you ask, but at least there is some movement in the discussion. The link to Kosovo makes everything very complicated.
Need to explore what all this means for future of international law
At least all parties should agree that military option is not an option.
Apparent exclusion from Donors spending is a mistake. It recognizes that the territories are lost and pushes them further under Russian influence.
EU:
East is back, ENP on agenda
Russia, need for new, more mature relationship, does not mean giving up values, but need for a value driven interest policy
Re-think cold war and post-cold war arrangements. My sense is that NATO is in decline and OSCE needs a relaunch or is dead. Why not explore what the Russians mean by European Security Structures, engage, change it and give feeling to Russia that they have launched something with EU and others coming on board.
Interesting what EU position on NATO will mean for relationship with US. Likely that under McCain more difficult. But also possible that he will push New/Old Europe agenda. We should manage a more cooperative position of the US.
How has the Georgian-Russian war been perceived in Europe?
In general
o It was a wake up call for the need for clear and common EU positions and decisions in relations with Russia and the Eastern neighbors.
o Also, a reminder that frozen conflicts are still conflicts and can erupt quite easily into hot conflicts.
Otherwise it depends who you ask in Europe
o for the Baltics, Poland, Czech Republic + UK and Sweden (the friends of Georgia) this was an aggression of Russia and confirmation of the re-emerging expansionists Russian Empire. For them it was a mistake not to give a NATO Map to Georgia as they believe it would have avoided this standoff. They were quick in support for Sakasvili and for calling sanctions against Russia. This group is close to the current US position.
o for the rest of the EU lead by France and Germany, the crisis was a confirmation of 3 things: that Sakasvili is an adventurer who cannot be trusted, that Russia’s un-proportionate military reaction was manifestation that Russia is back in geo-political business, that EU and NATO policies for the whole Eastern region need to be rethought. Their take was that it was wise not to give a NATO Map to Georgia.
2. What are the prospects and constraints for concerted action?
Despite these differences the EU acted quick and united with surprisingly swift crisis management by Sarkozy. A discussion is now underway on the EU’s stands towards Russia. It started off with some tough words but in the end the Realists/pro-engagement faction is winning the debate. EU knows that there is no alternative to engagement with Russia.
On Georgia, there is a re-evaluation going on. The state of emergency in November last year was seen largely as an unfortunate overreaction. Playing with missiles is going too far for most EU countries. There is disappointment with Sachasvili. The exception is the Eastern EU members who feel deep rooted solidarity with Georgia based on historic memories of their own.
It is most likely that the EU will continue to support Georgia (as during the Donor conference) but start increasingly to distance them from Sachasvili.
A dividing issue is NATO expansion and the US missile defense system. Generally New Europe supports NATO expansion while Old Europe does not. I expect that at the next NATO Council a diplomatic formulation will be found which affirms that Georgia and Ukraine can join one day but not now. Here much will depend on the post-election position of the US.
On the other hand the EU is realizing that the ENP-enlargement light- approach has not had the effect its designers had in mind. Here all options are now discussed, even (silently) the prospect of eventual (if very distant) EU membership.
3. What options are there for stability and security arrangements for Georgia as a result?
I would like to quote Sakasvili here, in a German TV interview ‘Wrong question, you should ask …’ . Seriously, the question should be what the options for stability and security in the whole region are, including for Russia and Europe. Security and Stability can only be achieved with all partners involved.
With the military option Sakashvili has gambled away any hope to re-integrate South Ossetia and Abkhazia in the medium term. The Russian recognition leaves these territories in international limbo and under the direct influence of Moscow.
NATO is the wrong track. It is the track of the cold war. I think we have to dramatically rethink NATO and its relationship with Russia.
Can this be a revival of OSCE? Medvedev is calling for a new Security architecture. Why not take him by his word and explore what this means? Simply accepting a Russian proposal for discussion would be a positive sign.
My view is that the EU should accept the Russian proposal for debate. It may be a last chance to build in our values before Europe and the US influence in the world further declines.
Some concluding remarks :
Let's look at Georgia, Russia and the separatist entities separately for a moment
Georgia:
Something went seriously wrong here. After a good start and many good reforms, Sakashvili lost it. Despite warnings he opted for a military solution of a frozen conflict. He gave Russia the chance to demonstrate where the red lines are.
Georgia is a big looser of this conflict: it probably lost option to join NATO, lost South Ossetia and Abkhazia for the foreseeable future and will have to rebuild a trusted relationship with the EU.
I see the following priorities :
o Economic reconstruction and social development is priority + integration of refugees. This is where the EU should concentrate support.
o Now it is important to make sure that Georgia does not re-militarize.
o Government needs to reopen dialogue with civil society, and engage in CS confidence building.
o High level corruption should be made an issue, especially in relation to militarization and the military budget.
o Useful to put in place an independent investigation into the conflict, and probably also think about transitional justice.
o Think about post-Sakashvili period and how not to loose the momentum for further transition to an open society
Russia:
No question that Russia had a hand in creating this conflict. However, both Putin and Sakhasvili wanted to force it. Russia handled badly, luckily for Sachasvili.
Russia achieved its main goals: NATO membership pf Georgia is probably off the table, and West has to recognize Russia’s regional and global ambitions.
Conflict and Russia's reaction put the question of the future European security structure on the agenda. I think it would be useful to discuss this with the Russians.
Frozen Conflicts:
Depends who you ask, but at least there is some movement in the discussion. The link to Kosovo makes everything very complicated.
Need to explore what all this means for future of international law
At least all parties should agree that military option is not an option.
Apparent exclusion from Donors spending is a mistake. It recognizes that the territories are lost and pushes them further under Russian influence.
EU:
East is back, ENP on agenda
Russia, need for new, more mature relationship, does not mean giving up values, but need for a value driven interest policy
Re-think cold war and post-cold war arrangements. My sense is that NATO is in decline and OSCE needs a relaunch or is dead. Why not explore what the Russians mean by European Security Structures, engage, change it and give feeling to Russia that they have launched something with EU and others coming on board.
Interesting what EU position on NATO will mean for relationship with US. Likely that under McCain more difficult. But also possible that he will push New/Old Europe agenda. We should manage a more cooperative position of the US.
Monday, November 3, 2008
GreenTrabi and the Eco-Economic Revolution
The global car industry is in recesssion. Most German car manufacturers are already working in forced holiday mode. What a great moment to think anticyclical and launch a new car. Or relaunch a true vintage car, the Trabant.
Why? The Trabant is one of the most successful mass produced cars of all times. It was a real Volkswagen (people's car), it was small, simple (it could actually be repaired), durable (most kept going for 20 years), timeless design, had an ecological side (the chassis was made of some kind of recycable cardboard material, while the engine was a real ecological disaster). And of course it achived historic fame as the mobility symbol of the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall. What other car brand can claim a similar status. Are these not enough reasons for a relaunch of the Trabant?
What should the new Trabi be and look like?
The new Trabi should be based on the key values of the original Trabant: simple- small- recycable- durable- timeless design- cheap (7000 Euro would be a good target)- Made in (East) Germany.
In addition, and crucially important, the new Trabi should push the limits of eco-economic technology and design. The new Trabant will be GreenTrabi.
The GreenTrabi will be the Volkswagen of the 2010s. And as the Volkswagen Kaefer was the symbol of the German economic miracle of the 1950s, the GreenTrabi could be a symbol of the German eco-econmic miracle of the 2010s.
The GreenTrabi concept has nothing in common with the idea of the miniatur model company Herpa to produce 5000 limited edition New Trabis for a retail price of 50,000 Euro each.
What's next? Let's find an investor who puts his money into the GreenTrabi car revolution. And let's launch the idea in 2009, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. 1989 was the year of the peaceful revolution to a capitalist society. The capitalist system now needs a eco-economic revolution and the GreenTrabi could become another revolutionary symbol.
Why? The Trabant is one of the most successful mass produced cars of all times. It was a real Volkswagen (people's car), it was small, simple (it could actually be repaired), durable (most kept going for 20 years), timeless design, had an ecological side (the chassis was made of some kind of recycable cardboard material, while the engine was a real ecological disaster). And of course it achived historic fame as the mobility symbol of the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall. What other car brand can claim a similar status. Are these not enough reasons for a relaunch of the Trabant?
What should the new Trabi be and look like?
The new Trabi should be based on the key values of the original Trabant: simple- small- recycable- durable- timeless design- cheap (7000 Euro would be a good target)- Made in (East) Germany.
In addition, and crucially important, the new Trabi should push the limits of eco-economic technology and design. The new Trabant will be GreenTrabi.
The GreenTrabi will be the Volkswagen of the 2010s. And as the Volkswagen Kaefer was the symbol of the German economic miracle of the 1950s, the GreenTrabi could be a symbol of the German eco-econmic miracle of the 2010s.
The GreenTrabi concept has nothing in common with the idea of the miniatur model company Herpa to produce 5000 limited edition New Trabis for a retail price of 50,000 Euro each.
What's next? Let's find an investor who puts his money into the GreenTrabi car revolution. And let's launch the idea in 2009, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. 1989 was the year of the peaceful revolution to a capitalist society. The capitalist system now needs a eco-economic revolution and the GreenTrabi could become another revolutionary symbol.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Functional communications
Communications should be functional, i.e. service a clear objective. In the private sector a key aim is selling your product and communications are build around this purpose.
In the non-profit sector this is different but the key questions is always 'What business am I in', 'What do I want to achive'. There will be various answers but it is important to ask the right questions first. And the right questions always start with the business challenge. How can I achive the goals of my organisation? What do I need to make it happen? Who do I need on board? What does he need to know?
Communications is always functional. If not it will not be genuine and may be a waste of resources.
To be continued and edited.
In the non-profit sector this is different but the key questions is always 'What business am I in', 'What do I want to achive'. There will be various answers but it is important to ask the right questions first. And the right questions always start with the business challenge. How can I achive the goals of my organisation? What do I need to make it happen? Who do I need on board? What does he need to know?
Communications is always functional. If not it will not be genuine and may be a waste of resources.
To be continued and edited.
Monday, October 20, 2008
The global financial crisis and the resulting opportunities
The global financial crisis has implications which go much beyond the financial and economic sectors. Below are a eight thoughts and an attempt to see the opportunities in what currently looks like a pretty grim picture.
Thought 1: The West is in trouble and has become a potential source of instability for the world. During the last 8 Bush years the West's political leadership has been gamble away. But now the economic fundament of the Western way of life is being gamble away too. This is serious. In the future the challenge is to manage a peaceful decline of the West while rescuing as many of our liberal political and economic values as possible. This will only work if we accept the multipolar world as a reality and as an opportunity for a new style of global cooperation and governance.
Thought 2: The trouble of the West is contagious. And this has repercussions, not only economically. Even in decline, the West will weather the financial crisis and a recession better than emerging and developing countries. Democracies should be better equipped to deal with economic instability, one should hope. But how will Russia and China behave in a recession? Despite our differences, we cannot feel good if Russia and China suffer economically as instability there will have huge political, but also economic repercussions for us.
Thought 3: Global issues have to come to the boil before global action is taken. But if they boil and a global interdependent system is close to standstill, global leaders can and do act. Who would have thought that trillions of Euros would be found within a matter of weeks to deal with the global financial crisis? This should be a lesson for other global issues such as climate change and poverty. What were the estimated costs of Nicholas Stern to fighting climate change? And how many G8 summits went by talking about 'Making poverty history'? The question is whether we will have to come to boiling (or drowning) point before such dramatic government action will be taken on climate change and poverty reduction. On climate change global leaders cannot afford to wait until the system comes to a hold, because it will then be too late to get it going again, even with all the money in the world. Even the option of migration to another planet, as suggested by Stephen Hawkins, will need some serious preparation.
Thought 4: Globalization is very tangible now. We are interdependent, no question. Naomi Klein’s ‘No Logo’ was fun; No Lehman Bros is the hard reality of globalization. On the opportunities side, the attempts of major countries to work together shows that hard core globalization can force global government action. Will history books mark the collapse of Lehman Brothers as the start of building 21st century global governance?
Thought 5: Global governance has a comeback. And it is the Economy, stupid, which creates this new opening for global governance in the 21st Century. We need New Global Governance which can both manage the assent of China, India, Russia, Brazil as well as the decline of the US and Europe. Europe and the US must concentrate on shaping this new global governance and enshrine its progressive values it, while we still have some power to do so.
Thought 6: The early European Union a model for 21st century global governance. The EU started as s steel and coal community, not as the value community of today. While the fathers of the EU had a value driven vision of Europe in mind, they started pragmatically with coal and steel. Can this be a lesson for global governance? Can we re-build global governance based on global financial governance and then move on in a similar way the EU has done? Could this be an example for building a global open society. This is for financial and economic experts to answer. However, the EU is already at the forefront of creating global standards on another global issues- climate change. And arguably this is currently the EU's most successful foreign policy.
Thought 7: Keynes to create a new energy revolution. While the financial crisis is not quite over yet politicians are already turning to the predicted, and in some places already real, recession in the real economy. After major bail out packages for the banks now major stimulation packages for the economy are in preparation. And this is good. But stimulation packages should be used to stimulate the new, renewable energy growth sector and help create an energy revolution which creates sustainable growth now and in the future. The trillions of Euros which will likely be spent on fighting the global recession should be spent on fighting climate change at the same time. It’s a question of efficiency and forward thinking. And it combines the Urgent with the Important.
Thought 8: Development money will be scarce, at the least in the short term. This will apply to government development aid but also private foundation money and NGOs. We may find a consolidation in this sector but also lots of broken promises. However, rather than competing for scarce resources, the development community should use the crunch in development aid to assess approaches and structures, to restructure and to let go of ineffective models. Competition for creativity should result in doing things better with less.
Undoubtedly there are many more and more sophisticated angles to the Global Financial Crisis. The importance is to understand the crisis as an opportunity which should not be wasted.
Thought 1: The West is in trouble and has become a potential source of instability for the world. During the last 8 Bush years the West's political leadership has been gamble away. But now the economic fundament of the Western way of life is being gamble away too. This is serious. In the future the challenge is to manage a peaceful decline of the West while rescuing as many of our liberal political and economic values as possible. This will only work if we accept the multipolar world as a reality and as an opportunity for a new style of global cooperation and governance.
Thought 2: The trouble of the West is contagious. And this has repercussions, not only economically. Even in decline, the West will weather the financial crisis and a recession better than emerging and developing countries. Democracies should be better equipped to deal with economic instability, one should hope. But how will Russia and China behave in a recession? Despite our differences, we cannot feel good if Russia and China suffer economically as instability there will have huge political, but also economic repercussions for us.
Thought 3: Global issues have to come to the boil before global action is taken. But if they boil and a global interdependent system is close to standstill, global leaders can and do act. Who would have thought that trillions of Euros would be found within a matter of weeks to deal with the global financial crisis? This should be a lesson for other global issues such as climate change and poverty. What were the estimated costs of Nicholas Stern to fighting climate change? And how many G8 summits went by talking about 'Making poverty history'? The question is whether we will have to come to boiling (or drowning) point before such dramatic government action will be taken on climate change and poverty reduction. On climate change global leaders cannot afford to wait until the system comes to a hold, because it will then be too late to get it going again, even with all the money in the world. Even the option of migration to another planet, as suggested by Stephen Hawkins, will need some serious preparation.
Thought 4: Globalization is very tangible now. We are interdependent, no question. Naomi Klein’s ‘No Logo’ was fun; No Lehman Bros is the hard reality of globalization. On the opportunities side, the attempts of major countries to work together shows that hard core globalization can force global government action. Will history books mark the collapse of Lehman Brothers as the start of building 21st century global governance?
Thought 5: Global governance has a comeback. And it is the Economy, stupid, which creates this new opening for global governance in the 21st Century. We need New Global Governance which can both manage the assent of China, India, Russia, Brazil as well as the decline of the US and Europe. Europe and the US must concentrate on shaping this new global governance and enshrine its progressive values it, while we still have some power to do so.
Thought 6: The early European Union a model for 21st century global governance. The EU started as s steel and coal community, not as the value community of today. While the fathers of the EU had a value driven vision of Europe in mind, they started pragmatically with coal and steel. Can this be a lesson for global governance? Can we re-build global governance based on global financial governance and then move on in a similar way the EU has done? Could this be an example for building a global open society. This is for financial and economic experts to answer. However, the EU is already at the forefront of creating global standards on another global issues- climate change. And arguably this is currently the EU's most successful foreign policy.
Thought 7: Keynes to create a new energy revolution. While the financial crisis is not quite over yet politicians are already turning to the predicted, and in some places already real, recession in the real economy. After major bail out packages for the banks now major stimulation packages for the economy are in preparation. And this is good. But stimulation packages should be used to stimulate the new, renewable energy growth sector and help create an energy revolution which creates sustainable growth now and in the future. The trillions of Euros which will likely be spent on fighting the global recession should be spent on fighting climate change at the same time. It’s a question of efficiency and forward thinking. And it combines the Urgent with the Important.
Thought 8: Development money will be scarce, at the least in the short term. This will apply to government development aid but also private foundation money and NGOs. We may find a consolidation in this sector but also lots of broken promises. However, rather than competing for scarce resources, the development community should use the crunch in development aid to assess approaches and structures, to restructure and to let go of ineffective models. Competition for creativity should result in doing things better with less.
Undoubtedly there are many more and more sophisticated angles to the Global Financial Crisis. The importance is to understand the crisis as an opportunity which should not be wasted.
Final article published in Open Democracy http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/the-global-financial-crisis-opportunities-for-change
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
