The best job in the World

Much has been written about the successful PR campaign of the Queensland Tourism authority who spent relatively little money in advertising The Best Job in the World as a well paid ranger on a Queensland island having a good time and writing a blog about it. This became a truly viral marketing campaign with millions of followers, thousands of applicants and tons of media coverage. A great and innovative low budget campaign for Queensland Tourism.

Apart from the campaign, is a ranger job on an island in Australia really the best job in the world? It's a nice sabbatical and can lead to new thinking, but otherwise?
For me the best job in the world is the one which engages and challenges me, which has some sort of impact beyond myself and in which I work together with like-minded people. It should also be fun. Ultimately, the best job in the world should help to make this world a better place.

Do these jobs exist? Yes, they do. It could be running a locals bar in Italy, managing a volunteer sports club or working for a humanitarian organisation. All of those and many others could and should advertise jobs as 'The best job in the world, probably.' or 'One of the best jobs in the world, really'.

Let's learn from the Queensland campaign and use it to draw attention to the best jobs in the world, those which make a difference.

Looking for the coal and steel for global governance

Monnet's lessons for global governance
By Hakan Altinay and Andre Wilkens

Could a global emissions-trading system serve as the European Coal and Steel Community of our times?
Extraordinary times call for extraordinary ideas, like the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community, which later became the European Union. That idea transformed a continent of conflict and hatred into a haven of peace, stability and prosperity.
Jean Monnet conceived of it becoming even more. In his memoirs, he wrote that “the Community we have created is not an end in itself. The sovereign nations of the past can no longer solve the problems of the present; they cannot control their own future.” The European Community should only be a stage on the way to the organised world of tomorrow, he wrote.
The London G20 summit was a success in global crisis management, but it failed to show a direction for the climate crisis. These are extraordinary times that demand extraordinary ideas about how we can organise the world. Those grappling with global challenges such as climate change and globalised finance should learn three lessons from Monnet.
Firstly, Monnet and the other founding fathers seized on the yearning for a new order. Europeans pooled sovereignty only after having exhausted all other options and paid overwhelming costs. There is a growing understanding now that the forces that influence our daily well-being are not restricted to national borders. Securitisation practices in the US's financial sector affect economies half-way around the world. Carbons released in China influence crop yields in Africa. An epidemic in Africa may well depress air travel in Europe. Something better is needed, an increasing number of people believe.
Secondly, big ideas need a pragmatic foundation. Monnet had a big vision for Europe but he started very pragmatically by pooling sovereignty over the issues of coal and steel. Might it be that a truly global emissions-trading system, which addresses the most fundamental global issue of today, climate change, could become this century's equivalent of coal and steel?
Thirdly, the European project highlights the risk of overshooting. In 2005, two of the EU's founding members – France and the Netherlands – voted down steps considered vital by their political elites. Decades after the pooling of sovereignty began, European societies continue to view the nation state as their primary medium of participation. Enthusiasts for global governance should accept that few people will opt for an abstract world government over nation states, that most of us feel allegiance primarily to others who are like us. That is no bad thing. Nor does that spell trouble for better global governance. One needs to be multilateralist to be patriotic precisely because you cannot achieve the outcomes desired by your nation state by acting alone.
Monnet had the wisdom to view the EU as a step towards better world co-operation; he also had the pragmatism needed to roll out his vision in manner that outlived him. Advocates of enhanced global governance should learn from Europe's experiment.

Hakan Altinay is executive director of the Open Society Foundation (Turkey), and Andre Wilkens is a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations.
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2009/04/monnet's-lessons-for-global-governance/64593.aspx

How the UN bureaucracy can make the world a better place?

What have the UN bureaucracy, climate change and the global automotive crisis have in common? By linking them, they can help making the world a better place. And here is how:

1. Insights

The UN is seen by many primarily as a big bureaucracy. While thedre is of course more to the UN, there is no doubt that it is big and slow.
The UN is not in best shape. Even though the US hardcore attitude towards the UN has changed, it has lost much of its relevance and central stage.
For many the UN is also associated with a fleet of big, fat, white SUVs. While this is good for visibility, protection and often important in difficult terrain, big SUVs are now also a sign of the past, throw-away society. The latest car shows in Detroit and Geneva are a clear sign that the dominant colour of the automotive industry will be green.
Climate change is the biggest global challenge of our times and so far the UN has played an important role in putting the issue on the global agenda by trying to set targets and monitoring them. However, success in the real world has been meagre and where it happens it is difficult to credit the UN for it.
The global automotive industry is in crisis and is now going through a major transformation. Carmakers need to reposition themselves as providers of sustainable mobility.

2. The idea
The UN and its agencies/affiliates can use its global procurement power to commission the World Car of the future, helping to fight climate change and accelerating the transformation of the automotive industry. Doing this will also help reposition the UN as a foreward looking organisation with tangible impact in the real world.

3. How?
With a fleet of tens of thousands of vehicles the UN is one of the biggest owners and buyers of vehicles worldwide. Rather than buying what is on the market, the UN procurement experts should sit together with aid workers, engineers, car designers and environmentalists and draw up the specifications for the global UN car of the future. Car makers would then have to design a car with the incentive of winning the biggest global supply contract. The car itself can then also be produced in mass production after the UN initial orders have been filled. And all those car makers which did not get the UN contract will still be able to get their car design into production.

4. What are the benefits?
A better vehicle fleet will reduce CO2 emissions of the UN and make the UN lead by example. UN member states and donors will be confident that their contribution is used in a good way.
The action will positions the UN as a doer not just talker. It will also position the UN as innovative and relevant in the real world, and will turn the outdated UN SUV image into a proactive green image.
And the car industry will have a first global client who commits to making a big first mover order. This first big order will fund part of the development and production costs of the winning global car of the future.

And this is how you turn a difficult image (big, fat bureaucracy) into an advantage (big customer power) and help to make the world a better place. Sounds too easy, but let's try.

The Trillion Dollar Question - Two bets

What is the way out of the recession? This is the trillion dollar question these days. If someone could credible answer this question and had a money-back guarantee, the G-20 (which meet later this month) may even put their remaining funds together. This would be money well spent.

But there is noone who has the answer. And so the trillion dollars are spent by governments betting in the worldwide lottery. Some put their money into nationalising banks, others in betting on automotive and Japan is just handing out money for free. Some of these numbers may win. But it looks like the jackpot will continue to build up.

I am in no position to bet government billions. But if I had I would be torn between two bets: system change or Re-bubbling.

Bet 1: We are experiencing a total system failure. This is not just a banking crisis but a crisis of our whole economic system which is based on permanent growth and consumption. This system encouraged extreme risk taking, greed and decoupled the real from the virtual economy. In the last years we saw that a substantial part of our growth was based on invented values, or on nothing. Quite clever actually - making billions out of nothing. For many it’s now back to its original value-nothing.
This could all be a normal recession if it were not for the fact that it hits almost all sectors and all countries. We have a system failure. Can we just rebuild the same defaulted system? Or should we think again and come up with a new system? This is not about going back to socialism. This is about thinking new. Let’s have a competition for a new economic system which can be retrofitted to what we have at the moment. Or we wait a bit longer and we may have to go for a totally new model.

Bet 2: System change is hard, especially globally. It will probably not happen. Therefore, my second bet (and second best option) is to revitalise the current economic system by create a new bubble which creates growth, prosperity, jobs. But this time let’s at least create a bubble which makes sense, let’s create a green bubble. Governemnts have started putting stimulus money into green investment, on average 10-15%. This is good but not enough to create a green bubble. Let’s study the previous internet, housing and banking bubbles and transfer that knowledge into creating a green bubble. And when the green bubble deflates, let’s plan the next useful bubble already.

Disclaimer: Before taking this advice please consult your common sense. There is no money-back guaranty.

Who will win the competition for the Greenest Economy?

Joseph Stiglitz and Nicholas Stern write in the FT that "The US, in particular, has a window of opportunityto act on the financial crisis and at the same time, lay the foundations for a new wave of growth based on technologies for a low carbon economy."

Four months ago I put it like this: "Yes we can create a new energy revolution. While we are still in the midst of the financial crisis, global leaders are already turning to the fast approaching recession in the real economy. After major bailout packages for the banks, major economic stimulus packages are now in preparation. This is the right approach. But these packages should be targeted and used to stimulate the new, renewable-energy growth sector and help to initiate 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. The European Union's structural-funds model, based on EU co-funding of up to 80%, can be used to disburse the EU's new energy-stimulation package, making it attractive also for east-central European member-states to join the new energy revolution." http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/the-global-financial-crisis-opportunities-for-change

While I fully agree with the Stiglitz/Stern opinion, as a European I hope that Europe grabs this green growth opportunity. After all climate policy has been Europe's most successful foreign policy in the last 5 years.

Will now the US take the lead from Europe, or will it be China (see previous article on Wilkens Observer)? And does it matter? Whoever is the leader, it is good that there is competition for the Greenest Economy. Just a year ago the competition was rather for who can avoid expensive cuts in CO2 emmissions the longest.

In the end we may find that we needed a global recession and good old capitalist competition to deal effectivly with the challenge of climate change. And the Copenhagen conference will then only be a buraucratic confirmation on what is happening anyway in the real economy.

Wishful thinking? I think the current global recession is a reminder that everything is possible.

Why China could run the 21st Century

Out of the many reasons for and against such statement, let's just look at two, both of which are now amplified by the global recession - China as the world's biggest creditor and China's serious green investments.

Firstly, China has the biggest cash reserves in the world, and more importantly it is the biggest creditor of the USA. Now, every American already owes China around 4000 $.

Yes, this is an interdependent relationship where the US depends on China for credit while China depends on the US for consumption. This relationship suited both sides well in the good times. Now we are in a global recession and China is sitting on the longer lever of this interdependent relationship. US state secretary Clinton's visit to China last week already gave a glimpse of how the relationship is changing towards Realpolitik. But this time it seems that it is Realpolitik more on Chinese than US terms. I would expect that the Chinese administration has studied carefully the old Western manuscript of using its softpower. With its amplified economic and financial leverage the manuscript should work again under the new masters.

Secondly, China has allocated around one third of its 581 billion economic stimulus package to green investment. This is more than double the US green investment percentage of 16% and the EU's of 14%. Only South Korea does better with 69% of its stimulus going towards green investment (Source: HSBC Centre for Climate Change).

And while the West is banging on about China joining the post Kyoto targets, China is actually seizing the economic opportunity of green investment now. They have understood that green is where the growth opportunities are right now and especially after the recession. The west is talking, China is doing.

Put the two things together and China has the potential to run the 21st Century. And is that a problem? After all China's rise so far has been much smoother than the rocky decline of the US during the last eight years.

Interests vs. values? (still a draft)

Interest policy has a bad name. Most European countries would claim that their foreign policy is value policy. But is EU foreign policy really value policy? Does a pure foreign value policy really exist? And is there, and should there be, a distinction between values and interests at all?

I believe foreign policy is and should be primarily interest policy. And interests are and should be defined through a certain value set. This results in a value driven interest policy, a foreign policy where interests and values are in equilibrium.

What gives interest policy its bad name is that interests and values are defined separately, usually by different people, who then try to find a compromise between interests and values. In reality this leads to inconsistencies, bad compromises and double standards. And it appears as interest policy masked as value policy. This is the worst foreign policy as it is unpredictable, inconsistent and compromises European values.

Let’s start with a definition of interests and values.

Interests: Because the EU is not a single nation state, the European interest is not always clear and others either get confused and/or exploit the ambiguity.

What interests define EU foreign policy? This is not clear either. EU interests are often just the lowest common denominator of member states foreign policy. It is an unclear combination of interest and values, often in competition between geopolitical/economic interest and human rights and democratic values (in many cases just pretended). It is also a feeble mask for competition between member states national interests.

Cynics claim that member states define themselves through national interest and ‘outsource’ the difficult value policy, e.g. human rights, rule of law, democratic standards) to the EU. A division of tasks which cannot work and is exploited easily by counter parts of the EU, e.g. China and Russia.

Values: What do we mean by promoting our values? This is increasingly empty talk which has no resonance. In addition, the EU is inconsistent in applying its own values and standards. Our foreign policy is full of double standards juggling interests and values.

We should rethink our approach based on consistency between interests and values.

The starting point for developing this approach should be the question ‘What kind of world do we want to see? What kind of global order? Answering this question will help to define our foreign policy interests and objectives (e.g. a world order which offers security, stability, prosperity for all and is based on the respect of fundamental human rights).

When the objectives are clear we should define how to get there and in doing so should be as open and creative as possible. This is more difficult.

In this process we should consider direct and indirect ways. Sometimes the direct way may be the best, but more often then not the indirect way may be better.

Indirect approaches usually require creativity. Creativity is a rare commodity in foreign policy. But we need it because the world is too complicated.

An example for finding creative solutions to complex issues was the creation of the European Union 50 years ago. After two devastating wars in Europe the objective was peace, stability and prosperity. The way was through pulling the coal and steel industries. This must have been the oddest and creative proposal to end decades of atrocious wars in Europe. But it worked and works and has developed into the most successful model of a regional bloc based on pulled sovereignty.

So, what can be the coal and steel of reaching EU foreign policy objectives? Energy? Climate? Financial regulation?

A good example of a European value driven interest policy is on climate change. Here Europe has set the agenda, and (through ups and downs) leads by example based on clear and transparent interests which were defined through the EU value set. Here Europe is both principled and rational.