#33 The Green Avalanche

It is impossible to escape the issue of climate change in the media today. Green issues central to political and cultural debate are everywhere now, in a way so vast and banal, it has almost escaped comment. Al Gore has been transformed into an international star with An Inconvenient Truth; David Cameron of the Conservative Party in the UK has made green issues a central plank of the Party’s manifesto, and has even changed the party symbol to reflect it; the recent Paris conference on climate change has clearly laid the blame at man’s feet, and President Chirac has demanded that the world pick up the gauntlet. Even President Bush has finally acknowledged both the reality and seriousness of climate change in the State of the Union address, whilst celebrities clamour over one another to demonstrate their green credentials. Following the tough, no nonsense Stern Report on the huge costs of inaction on climate change, the Economist recently reported that it is now global businesses leaders who are the ones demanding that action be taken, and fast, for hard nosed financial reasons. Unbelievable as it is, Arnie the Governator stands as an unlikely green champion with his initiatives on emissions and solar panels.

This is a remarkable change from even just one year ago. Of course, there has been plenty of doom and gloom too - meaning that many have effortlessly crossed from denial to hopeless resignation, and hence conveniently squaring the circle to write off any guilt for inaction or a sway some lingering sense of social responsibility whilst they blithely continue their carbon heavy lives. Even though Americans may be the ‘least concerned’ about climate change in the world (according to AcNielsen, just 42% considered it ‘very serious’), an amazing 91% of 25,000 people globally surveyed considered it a ‘very serious’ or ‘serious’ problem. With 1.5 billion people and growth projections indicating it will overtake the US as the world’s top CO2 emitter by 2009, the fact that China considers the problem both very serous and clearly man made counts for a lot, and cannot be ignored.

What is more, let us contemplate just one single momentous fact – whoever wins the US Presidential elections in 2008, from either party, they will almost certainly push America to take global leadership in tackling climate change. The forerunners, McCain, Obama and Clinton, have all pledged to bring the issue to the centre of their policies. And that’s not even touching on the impressive environmental measures that the newly Democratic controlled Houses have launched, starting with the repeal of Big Oil’s massive tax breaks (with the money going to a green fuels fund), and the Waxman investigation into Bush administration manipulation and suppression of scientific information on climate change. Even Dick Cheney’s own fund manager says he is "certain" that "oil substitution, energy conservation, and related environment issues will be the biggest investment issue of at least the next several decades," in a letter in which he blasted 20 years of political cowardice, inaction and greed in the face of mounting energy problems in the US.

The writing is on the wall, and people are finally starting to read it. How on earth did we reach this apparent tipping point so rapidly? A host of immediate issues spring to mind: the devastation of Hurricane Katrina; the looming conflict with Iran; the price of oil; the unsettling and disturbing weather patterns across the Northern Hemisphere; celebrity sound bites and tabloid hysteria; not to mention of course the mountains of solid scientific data. All have played a part. And yet, the current debate and momentum for rapid, dramatic change has snowballed so fast, that it is clearly far greater than the sum of these parts alone.

For, underlying these immediate causal factors, I suspect, lies a much deeper driving force – the maturing and development of the information revolution, the much vaulted ‘Web 2.0.’ Whilst hype is dangerous (Dot Com bubble anyone), and although one can legitimately question Time’s choice of ‘you’ as person of the year, something really significant has happened – and it isn’t so simple as the labels ‘user driven content,’ ‘amateur journalism’ or ‘new media’ imply. This is because these things are only facets of a much more profound democratising change that is occurring in the nature of information, and our relationship with it. The evidence, acceptance and debate on the reality of climate change (and the profoundly negative consequences associated with it) has spread and become commonplace in a grassroots virtual exchange that illustrates the fundamental dynamism of information. Data, in all its multifarious forms, has an independent, boundless and relentless desire to replicate and spread itself as far and as wide as possible. This is what we really need to be looking at to understand this rapid, complex weaving together of factors and forces.

Blogs, podcasts, video phones, YouTube, Google, P2P and all the rest, are all forming the infrastructure and tools to articulate this inherent dynamic of information to expand, replicate, network and generate. The Green Avalanche is just one byproduct of this new era we are moving towards. The information on climate change is ‘out there,’ in this new virtual civic space, and it wants to get out, irrespective of politics or business. The truth has a boundless desire to be set free, to operate in the market place of ideas, and Web 2.0 will increasingly make that manifestation real. Where does this end? A radical rethinking of just about everything from ownership, equality, relationships, intellectual property rights, are only a few things that come to mind…

- This article was written for and provided to the Weekend Economist by Stuart Reeve

#32 The Institutionalization of Peacebuilding

The last few decades (especially since the end of the Cold War), has seen a shift from traditional warfare to an increasing number of intrastate violent conflicts. With this shift, a new term has entered the dictionary of supranational organisations to join such institutions as the UN and the EU. The term I am referring to is “Peacebuilding.”

The process of peacebuilding is aimed at the restoring of positive peace on all levels (thus including the local, grassroots level), to ensure that the causes of the conflict are addressed and that the state in question can function peacefully and stable again. This trend has recently been embraced by NGOs, who are increasingly spending their time and resources on various elements of peacebuilding, such as the initiation of processes aimed at facilitating reconciliation.

However, it seems that the larger international community is not practicing what they preach when intervening in a conflict. The attainment of negative peace (the mere absence of overt conflict) seems to have become sufficient for proclaiming that an intervention has been successful. Add to that the imposition of progressive institutions such as a democratically elected government (which is often too weak to function properly) and a tribunal to try the perpetrators of war crimes, and we have been extremely successful in our peacebuilding efforts. Or so the international community shamefully seems to believe, with the US as its main advocator.

This viewpoint, which is rather simplistic even in theory, is all the more a smorgasbord of failure in practice. Peacebuilding has become an institutionalised process, in which it almost seems to be forgotten that institutions do not work without creating a situation in which the successful functioning of these institutions can be safeguarded. The international community – especially the state-actors – is taking a deductive approach to peacebuilding, focusing on what they can offer in short-term transitional measures, thereby disregarding their long-term capacity in the process of conflict resolution. The focus should rather be on an inductive approach, which is more problem-driven and works at addressing the underlying causes of a conflict to ensure the violence does not recur. As John Paul Lederach, one of the leading authors on post-conflict reconciliation, argues, peacebuilding is a structure-process, which involves the necessity of change in attitudes on all levels of society to stop violent behaviour.

The growing institutionalised approach to peacebuilding is detrimental for the attainment of positive peace; a situation in which not only the fighting has stopped, but also the root causes of the former conflict have been dealt with. By focusing too little on the inductive approach, the international community is and has been missing the opportunity to build a sustainable peace and, in fact, is often making things worse for the stability of the international political community in the long run. Take the example of the global rush for democratisation. This is producing many illiberal democracies, where popularly elected leaders disregard civil- and political rights because they act without constraint of functioning institutions or a history of law-based liberalism.

This institutionalisation of peacebuilding has partially been caused by the characteristics of the prevailing conflicts that we nowadays face. The attainment of positive peace has become far more difficult due to the intrastate- and often ethnic nature of these conflicts, which are frequently referred to as the ‘new wars.’ Also, the fact that civilians are often both the victims and the perpetrators of atrocities has made the threshold to reconciliation and the addressing of the root causes of a conflict much higher. Lastly, after these ‘new wars,’ the former conflicting parties often still share the same state or lands, which increases the chances of violence erupting yet again. Due to the fact that the attainment of a positive peace has become so much more difficult than after traditional wars, the focus of peace researchers and other people involved in the process of peacebuilding has simply shifted to focusing merely on the first step of the attainment of a positive peace: the absence of overt conflict. In doing so, the international community (with the exception perhaps of NGOs) seems to have almost forgotten that the absence of overt conflict – negative peace – should only be the first step towards attaining a situation of positive peace.

Fortunately, the situation seems to be improving. The growing attention paid by NGOs to facilitate initiatives at the grassroots level and take a bottom-up instead of a top-down approach, combined with the increasing importance that these organisations are beginning to play in peacebuilding nowadays (compare, for example, NGO involvement in the breakdown of Yugoslavia with the current war in Iraq), is a positive development in the process of peacebuilding. For a truly successful intervention in a conflict, peacebuilding needs to become highly prioritised in the decision making process. The failure of the Iraq invasion is the prefect testimony to this proposition.

- This article was written for and provided to the Weekend Economist by Leon Emmen

#31 Entertainment for a Superpower

Every superpower needs some entertainment. The Romans had their gladiators and chariot racing, the British hunted the fox and exported cricket, and the USA has baseball and the Super Bowl. Now it is China's turn.

After completing the monumental Shanghai F1 track - which was the venue of the inaugural Formula One Chinese Grand Prix on 26 September, 2004 - and the recent opening of the Hong Kong Disneyland Resort, China has begun to build on an already existing and highly popular form of entertainment among Chinese: gambling.

Macau has long been a haven for Asians eager to gamble away some money, as it is one of the few areas in the region where gambling on such a scale is legal. Today, and in the future, the main target audience is and will be mainland Chinese. Ever since Macau was handed back to the Chinese by the Portuguese in 1999, radical changes have been implemented. For one, gambling mogul Stanley Ho lost his government monopoly on the island's gaming industry in 2004. This saw his share of gambling revenue plummet from 100% to 55% and it is still falling. The new government also eased restrictions on mainland Chinese travelers to the island, allowing them to travel freely. Coupled with the incredible growth of the mainland and the increasing wealth per capita, this means an unimaginable number of potential visitors to the island and an exceedingly obscene income base.

In fact, Macau is already the biggest single gambling market in the world according to Morgan Stanley. In 2006, Macau casino's brought in an estimated $6.8 billion, versus an estimated $6.5 in Las Vegas. US gambling billionaire Sheldon Adelson of Las Vegas Sands even opened the world's largest casino in Macau in 2004; the Sands Macao. The Sands is equipped with 740 gaming tables and has recouped Adelson's $260 million initial investment in just eight months. Other gaming moguls investing heavily in the island are Steve Wynn of Wynn Resorts Ltd. and Kirk Kerkorian of MGM Mirage, to name but a few.

Important differences between Macao and Las Vegas is the fact that Macau earns over 70% of its revenue from casino taxes, while more than 50% of Las Vegas's tourism revenues come from non-gaming activities. In other words, Macau is highly dependent on gamblers spending their income in one of the countless casinos, whereas Las Vegas has something to offer non-gamblers as well. Indeed, in terms of tourism revenue, Las Vegas still easily outdoes its Asian counterpart. Furthermore, according to Bloomberg, the average length of stay in Macau is 1.17 nights, compared with 3.5 in Las Vegas. This dependency on gambling could spell trouble for the island, as other popular destinations such as Singapore have recently begun to issue licences to casinos as well. Nevertheless, the head start and strategic location (near 250 million Chinese, 128 million Japanese, 75 million Thai and 24 million Taiwanese potential visitors) of Macau should give it the edge over possible regional competitors.

It is interesting to note that both Disneyland and the gambling industry are located on the two islands that fall under the "one country, two systems" policy. This way China can continue 'preserve' her healthy Communist/Socialist "ideals," while simultaneously raking in big bucks and giving her citizens a much desired entertainment scene. Sure, both Disney and the Asian Las Vegas are little more than copies of US forms of entertainment, but China will be sure to try and beat the Americans at their own game. When it comes to sports, it seems highly likely that the Chinese will do just that at next years Beijing Olympic Games.

If entertainment and the size thereof is a pretty good indicator of status, then the US should be very weary of the recent unfolding of events in the Middle Kingdom.

#30 Predictable Failures of Global Warming

Future generations will not remember us for what we did for them; rather they will remember us for what we failed to do for ourselves.

Have we achieved a moral high ground and cultural superiority that has allowed us to concern ourselves not with our problems, but with the potential problems of the future? Are we so inclined to believe that future generations will be incapable of helping themselves to the point that we must sacrifice our weak, our poor and our disadvantaged today in order to “save” the future? With our selective amnesia we have relegated ourselves to ignoring the real problems that face our planet and instead focusing our time and resources on the “potential” problems of the future.

Global warming theorists, and those who follow their lead, are in the inevitable position of being the most likely to promote the continued death of the underprivileged and underrepresented societies. They are the most willing to believe in the fallacy and incompetence of man, and are most likely to conclude that man will, by the very nature of existence, destroy the planet.

The premise behind global warming is that in the future, due to human lifestyles and consumption rates now, we will irrevocably harm the earth. The assumption is the brainchild of global warming theorists who maintain that the future of the world is doomed because of the burning of fossil fuels, which is leading to a rise in CO2 emissions, which is causing a rise in global temperatures. These theorists believe that the warming of the globe will ultimately cause a catastrophic climate change that will lead to hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people, suffering the consequences. We are our own messengers and the message is loud and clear: we are going to destroy the globe because of our reckless lifestyle. These are the doomsday warnings that the global warming theorists are bringing to the rest of us.

Why am I under the impression that these global warming theorists are hastening the destruction of the planet? Is it not their hysteria that has alarmed the rest of the world to the dangers of human consumption? Or, as they would like us to believe, are they in fact providing a tremendous service to mankind by alarming us to the dangers of global warming and therefore helping us to overcome the inevitable dangers? In a perfect world, perhaps yes, but have the global warming theorists conveniently forgotten about the true perils facing our world today? Have they forgotten about the 10 million children who die yearly of preventable diseases? Have they forgotten about the global scourge of HIV/AIDS and its 40 million sufferers? I maintain that they have--but have you?

If we are placing “global warming,” and the unsubstantiated fears at the top of the list, then we have in fact forgotten about them. We have given up on the unglamorous and challenging task of facing these problems, and instead shifted our attention to wasting precious resources in a vain attempt to solve an imagined problem. In the process, we are left only to hope that our efforts will afford us the pains and guilt of failing to prevent the real disasters that are unfolding on a daily basis.

Which touches on a sensitive topic: Who is actually worried about global warming? Certainly a child in sub-Saharan Africa who has lost both her parents to disease--and will herself eventually succumb to AIDS--is not worrying about global warming. Similarly, are the wealthy nations with their vast resources and innovative technologies really concerned about their future generations? Are they not confident in the resourcefulness and wealth afforded to their off-spring? In fact, global warming theorists are, ironically enough, more concerned with their impact as wealthy nations on the poor, developing world of the future.

It is not only our responsibility to save and protect future generations, but our responsibility and moral duty to save and protect our current generation.

Global warming theorists will have you believe that the problems facing the world today are by no means comparable to the eventual problems that global warming might bring. Unfortunately, their insistence has paid off, and public opinion has shifted, making the fight against global warming a top priority. The money, resources, and international public opinion needed in the fight against the real problems facing the world will slowly be reallocated to the imaginary problem of global warming. The consequences of these actions will have severe and long lasting affects on the disadvantaged societies of the world. These callous and insouciant attitudes represent a failure of mankind akin to the atrocities committed by the most tyrannical despots and sadistic leaders.

- This article was written for and provided to the Weekend Economist by Westbrook Sullivan

#29 The Oil Tsars Part 2

In an oblique way, Russia stands to benefit from an escalated crisis in the Middle East. As long as the U.S.-Iranian standoff continues, Russia's military industrial complex stands to pocket handsomely from Iranian fears of US invasion. Indeed, Iranians are well received customers of Russia's bargain bin defence industries.

Another positive by-product of Middle East tension is high energy prices: 30% of Russia's budget comes from the export of energy products. It is no surprise that, besides the economic benefits, high oil prices fill both government and oligarch coffers substantially. Russian oligarchs and Kremlin officials must be asking themselves "why deescalate the crisis when we profit so handsomely from it?" consequently, it is not in Russia's interest to resolve the American-Iranian standoff.

Most significant Russian enterprises, military-industrial firms, banks and energy giants such as Gazprom are so closely tied to the state that there are in fact almost no boundaries between business and the Kremlin. In fact, you could go as far as to coin an entirely new term for these enterprises, namely "Kremlinprises:" the money machines of Russia's well connected oligarchic elite.

Turning to the political perspective, America's desperation in the Middle East has given Putin a carte blanche to deal with his own pestering fundamentalist problems in Russia's caucus powder keg of Islamic nationalists. For a country as large as Russia, remarkably little news finds it way to the press, unless it concerns energy of course.

The Russian bear seems to finally be waking up from its democratic and free market hangover of the wild 90's. The current nationalist and authoritarian reflex is one that has gone by with remarkable support, albeit at the expense of freedom and equality. Nonetheless, Putin has managed to charm much of the world, using not only his own charm, but borrowing heavily from the grandeur and symbolism of old Tsarist times as well.

With new splendor, power and determination, Russia is once again present on world stage as a worthy global power. Within this reborn diplomatic fervor, Putin is striking deals and renewing bonds with old allies such as India. If during the cold war Russian alliances and diplomatic interests where based on ideology, today they are based on business. With business and state affairs so closely connected in the Kremlin, Russia is basically one giant state enterprise, though one in which top level managers reap a significantly larger portion of the benefits. Russia's neighbors are feeling the pinch of the surgent Kremlin corporatism. Tough renegotiated oil contracts show that the regime favors money more than it does old compatriots (witness the recent standoff with arch ally Belarus).

The US would be wise to take heed of this new transformation and understand the novel role Russia is playing not only in Europe, but also in the Middle East and Asia. While the US is seemingly wasting its resources in a futile bid for control and stability in the Middle East, Russia is biding its time, patiently rebuilding its domestic, political, industrial and economic power base. After nearly a century, Russia has a new Tsar. Funny enough, the pawns, as well the stakes, are the same (if not greater).

Please click here for The Oil Tsars Part 1

#28 The Oil Tsars Part 1

Their regimes might change, but the Russian psyche manages to remain remarkably uniform no matter what. Russians are tough, enduring people, who have proved themselves admirably in the face of countless foes such as the Tartars, Swedes, French, Poles and Germans. Interestingly enough, their biggest enemy has always been from within, irrespective of the form of government (be it Communism, Democracy, Tsarism, etc.). The following paragraphs will uncover some of the putrescent aspects of Russian society, while "The Oil Tsars Part 2" will examine the effect this has on the current global state of affairs.

Democracy stems from the Greek word "demos," which means rule by the people. Sure, Russia is ruled by people; a pretty small group of people, that is. Due to the dangerous collusion between political and economic power in the Kremlin, few people truly have much to say. The real power rests in the hands of a small group; often ex-KGB oligarchs who profited handsomely through the prostitution of state companies and resources during the shock transition to free markets in the 1990's.

Although it seems that the Russian economy is back on track with a vengeance after contracting an estimated 40% between 1991 and 1998, the benefits of the economic recovery are not shared by the majority of Russian citizens. This is in large part due to the inefficiency of the economic system which, due to the corrupt nature of governance, disenfranchises the majority of Russian citizens. This very engine of inequality is polarizing Russian society and sowing the seeds of future instability.

The streets in Russia are also becoming poisoned with ultra right wing nationalism, where gangs and organized crime contest for control. State owned media is for a large part responsible for fueling this nationalist sentiment. The atmosphere is reminiscent of 1930's Nazi Germany, with minority groups being openly blamed and targeted for the social economic turmoil. In the past, being a dissident would get you deported to the Gulag somewhere far away in Siberia. In the new Russia, if you speak out or are perceived to be a threat or nuisance by the ruling elite, you could get the bullet. A professional assassination will only set you back about US$10.000, which for high-rolling criminals, gangs, oligarchs, agents, etc., is really not such a steep price to pay.

Gangsters are not only found in the street. In fact, the biggest gangsters are sitting comfortably in the Kremlin. With no respect for free markets, Russia is bullying out foreign companies who have significant stakes in Russia's oil wealth. Although this is arguably part of a global trend of energy nationalization, it must be said that those countries partaking in such measures are democratically bankrupt.

High oil prices will continue to beguile Russia to nationalize her natural resources. 30% of the Russian state budget comes from exporting energy wealth. Without it, Russia could never keep its expensive, corrupt bureaucracy intact. By using her oil wealth as a strategic state asset, Russia has turned around its economy from being a net debtor to becoming a creditor nation. However, if Russia remains a country where justice, conscience and power is for sale, its citizens will never reap the true potential of mother Russia and her abundant resource wealth.

Please click here for The Oil Tsars Part 2

#27 A not so Imperial USA

The issue of global US hegemony and/or imperialism is one that instantly generates heated debates when addressed. The divide generally lies between pro-US and anti-US "debaters," with discussion between them usually going along the following lines:

Moe: "The US sucks!"

Joe: "No, the world sucks!"

Moe: "You think you are so much better than everyone else, but you don't even know the difference between Malawi and Kazakhstan! You just force your ways on the world through force!"

Joe: "Well, we bring the world Democracy! If it weren't for us you'd be kissing Nazi ass or getting raped by the Japanese imperial army!"

Moe: "You suck, you ignorant asshole American"!

Joe: "You suck, you dimwitted hippie"!

If we get past the name calling and take a closer look at the situation on the ground today and compare it to recent superpowers, a relatively benign picture of the USA prevails. Take Britain at its imperial peak for example. Wherever they were present, be it in Kenya or in India, every aspect of public life - ranging from taxes and laws to external relations - were controlled by the British. Other great powers of afore such as France and Russia also exhibited what renowned Political Scientist Joseph Nye considers to be "the core feature of imperialism," namely political control. Certainly unequal relationships between the US and most of the rest of the world exist and, yes, the US does exert her influence when she feels it is necessary, but this does not equate to political control.

The 'occupation' of Western Europe and Japan provide two perfect examples where US influence is clearly visible on the one hand, but it is equally obvious that these areas are entirely sovereign. The US rebuilt Western Europe and Japan, leaving a clear American footprint, but when it comes to making any decision of significance, the US has no role to play. This is especially the case now that the EU has solidified itself as a powerful unit. Granted, militarily the US is the world's sole superpower and, if they choose to do so, they could bring down any government in the world. But, as the case of Iraq has shown, even the world's sole superpower cannot succeed alone, as a military victory is only one of many steps needed to attain true victory.

Indeed, the USA has shown itself to be a severely poor occupier in the aftermath of the Iraq War. Bringing down the Baathist government and Saddam Hussein was a cinch, but managing the occupation has thus far been a total disaster. Up until the two World Wars devastated the power of the British and the French to subdue any form of revolt in their colonies through force, these two countries had been masters at occupation. The reason the US succeeded in Europe was because they had been welcomed as liberators. In Japan I believe they had both grown tired of war and the sheer devastation allowed for an environment in which the victors could leave their mark without much opposition. In areas where the US has not been welcomed (e.g. Vietnam and Iraq), they have been unable to deal even a fraction as efficiently with occupation as the British, French and Russians managed.

Furthermore, while the US might be the world's military hegemon, in terms of issues such as economics it is nothing more than an equal power. If the EU, Japan, or even China or India are engaged with the US in trade talks, they generally have to meet halfway. Imperial Britain would have accepted no such thing. They would have simply forced their way. In today's world, however, this is not the case and would probably not be possible or at least not sustainable either. The world order is defined by more than just military might and, with this in mind, the US has positioned itself as the world's primal player, but not an imperial one.