Some personal remarks

Today it gets a bit personal and subjective, sorry for that. Ok, it is quite inevitable that on the occasion of G8 some "selected" men come together, men which have met the selection criteria of a political system, as it is today in the early 21st century, sometimes a strange fabric of political, of media and economic power. Great opportunity to see the elected leaders Bush, Berlusconi and Sarkozy at one place and analyzing their different "semiotics of power". When I watch the scene, their "tv faces", their postures then there seems to be some contrast to the severity of the situation ahead (maybe I am somehow biased as a futurist and analyst).

All just looks like a "business as usual" thing – and this is a bit shocking.

The communiqué says: “We seek to share with all parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change….the goal of achieving at least 50 per cent reduction of global emissions by 2050.”

... On mid-term targets, it says: “We acknowledge our leadership role and each of us will implement ambitious economy-wide mid-term goals in order to achieve absolute emissions reductions and, where applicable, first stop the growth of emissions as soon as possible.”

The latter phrase appears to be an accommodation to the US position, which is that it will stabilise emissions by 2020 before cutting them after that.

Peter Grant, international director of Tearfund, an advocy group, said: “Concrete commitments on climate change are the acid test of success at this summit. The G8 are crawling forward on emissions cuts at a time when giant leaps and bounds are needed." FT.com / In depth - G8 leaders reach deal on climate change

And then the inevitable "symbol production" for the always hungry media society – seven men and one woman are planting those little trees (of hope – and we need a lot of hope with these type of politicians). And in this moment they look even less like the leaders I could have the confidence to solve the coming global super crisis.

(Image source: Screenshot FT.com / In depth - G8 leaders reach deal on climate change)

The large scale protests against the G8 summit in Sapparo, Japan and around the world to express solidarity on 5 July which is the International Day of Action Against the G8 has certainly drawn attention to the world's most pressing problems.

According to Socialist Unity which reproduced a note from the No! G8 Legal Team, the protests in Japan has been heavily suppressed with those arrested facing possibly, years in prison in addition to police raids. As it relates, prior to the protests,

Activists throughout Japan have been arrested at demonstrations and in their homes, often on “technical” charges, such as not registering a change of address. Overt surveillance of activists, academics and reporters has been taking place for months, and with some local activists for years. International conference participants and protesters have been interrogated for hours at the border and many have been denied entry into the country without warrant.

Besides the repression which ought to invite outright condemnation, a report by the University of Toronto found that the G8, 'is struggling to keep its promises despite success on several big-ticket issues such as fighting climate change, working towards regional security in Darfur and promoting energy efficiency'.

The BBC G8 profile also notes that critics have accused the G8 of representing the interests of only 'an elite group of industrialised nations, to the detriment of the needs of the wider world'. Another AP article, 'G8 summit draws grab-bag of activists, causes' noted that the summit has drawn a variety of demands ranging from banning 'cluster bombs, stop global warming, end poverty, outlaw war'. For example, La Via Campesina, has protested against 'subsidies and other supports in rich countries for big-business agriculture and demanded a return to small-scale farming to restore stability to food prices and supplies'. It also noted that the central theme running through all these issues is the effect of 'corporate- driven globalisation' which has 'triggered a series of crises — in the world economy, in oil prices, in agriculture, and in the climate'.

Enough said.

Second, the market for commodities, especially food and oil has been growing at an alarming rate. While the per-barrel price of crude oil has been rising since about 2005, the upsurge in food prices has been even more rapid. Rice, the world's largest staple crop, has more than doubled in value since January of this yearalone, with wheat prices not far behind.

Economists are citing many reasons for the upsurge in grain prices, including increased demand in developing countries, especially India and China, as well as poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions in some places.

While changing consumption and production patterns due to things like global warming and wasteful consumption patterns (particularly in the developed world) may be a worry, in most of the world grain stores are still more than sufficient to handle these fluctuations. With the exception of East Africa, where there are genuine shortages and a genuine danger of famine, the rise in global food prices can't be explained solely in terms of supply and demand.

Economists also agree that speculation is playing a role in pushing up global food prices. They argue that many investors are engaging in hoarding or other kinds of speculation, anticipating that they will receive bigger returns on their investments in the future than what they could make now. According to this mainstream argument, speculation is a secondary or less important reason for the price boom, with supply and demand factors and rising fuel costs being the primary factors.

While the story of rising food costs is no doubt complex, the sudden rise of commodities prices and the simultaneous collapse in many financial markets is unlikely to be a coincidence. ... more>>

We can keep cribbing about jobs being outsourced to India, dealing with foreign accents, etc. but the real problem lies elsewhere. Who decided that costs are the only drivers of business? Who created the call centers? Who decided that technology is a good alternative to human beings? These are some of the questions we need to answer.

When I was a kid, my Dad told me what selling was all about. "In one sentence," he mused, "it is about selling a hair brush to a bald man and getting him to be obliged for the favour!" My take-away was that selling is the art of having your customer see value beyond the price he's paying. There's hardly any sales competency required if all I have to do is to lower the price. Business competencies yes, but sales competency NO. If my strategy for the future is based on the principle that my competitors will become worse and worse, then that's the weakest basis for survival. Forget growth.

My other contention is that the cost model might still work for 'material' goods that are possible to benchmark by adding from raw materials upwards. How do I even figure out the BoM for consulting? That's easy! Just take salaries of people and put it in the 'Raw Material' column??

So when we talk of cost-cutting, the first thing that comes to mind is to cut the salary bill. Hey that's a pointer. Where can I get a person at one-tenth the salary so I can hire 10 people for every one person I have today. Next step, fire all the people I have today and I end up running a company 10 times the size. WoW! The mathematics are perfect and infallible.

10 janitors = 1 software professional. All we need to do now is to teach the janitors Java. Even if it took me a year and I spent another fraction on training, I would still make a higher profit. Is Alfred Nobel dead or sleeping!

The general attitude and proof among American workers is that free trade has been bad for American jobs, resulting in exporting industry in a wholesale fashion. The evidence is hard, if not impossible, to refute.

Interestingly, Presidential contender Barack Obama openly states that the American work force has been hurt by poorly negotiated and improperly enforced trade policies. He wants to amend NAFTA to enforce labor and environmental standards, while pushing for greater global market access for America.

While this move portends some change, the debate in America rages about whether free trade policies have been good for anyone except the bottom-line of big government internal interests and to strengthen already burgeoning big business.

The fact that John McCain is roving the world to sell free trade to the world is somewhat troubling since Americans are the ones that need to buy off on his ideals. Remember the election? This isn’t readily happening and makes Mr. McCain seem out of touch. On the other hand, Barack Obama is focused on dealing with the country on its’ own turf. He hasn’t been sold on extensive overseas trips in the hope of bolstering support for his policies and political stands.

McCain says we can't rescind the free trade agreements we've negotiated. He doesn’t give a good reason why or admit that the truth that foreign powers have already broken trade agreements. His stand is that free trade needs to create jobs on both sides of the border. That good idea has not happened in the last decade. Instead, the U.S. economic engine has been sacrificed on the altar of big business prosperity through government lobbyists. A recent TV ad by Mr. McCain doesn't say anything about the specifics of the Colombia agreement or why opposition to free trade agreements will hurt American workers.

The fascinating part of the whole scheme is that free trade doesn’t require a single treaty or agreement. For example, the notorious NAFTA free trade agreement consists of two thousand or so pages. Nine hundred pages of text are devoted to tariff rates. On the other hand, the Constitution uses fifty-four words to establish free trade among the states.

Free trade agreements are full of controls, rules of origin, inspection, verification and inference with labor laws. Trade agreements spell out the exceptions to the rules by bending or breaking rules that exist. Instead, free trade agreements are, in fact, a display of political favoritism based on common interests that usually bolsters bureaucracy and government largesse.

Controlling trade between countries makes as much sense as controlling trade between states within this country. Free trade agreements favor certain preferred countries instead of creating real economic solutions. The bottom line is that trade does not need to be managed by government in order to be fair.

NAFTA, for example, is not completely free trade. Certainly, free trade is better than any specialized trade policy that must be legislated. Politicians have failed to prove how trade agreement policy is superior over real business free trade. The results of our ravaged economy are part of the proof, a decade or more after the proliferation of free trade agreements and political favoritism.

If more bureaucracy is needed, it is needed to police the imports that come into this country for safety and legality. To add to matters, this country has a worrisome trade deficit. The trade deficit is the difference between the goods and services Americans sell to foreigners versus the goods and services that Americans purchase from foreigners. As business has become more global in scope, especially in the last decade, more and more money leaves the United States to support business in other countries. As a result, the dollar eventually destabilizes. For more than 30 years, the United States has produced consistently increasing trade losses which don’t affect business directly, but weaken the dollar that drives the economy through inflation or deflation. The enormous size of successive trade deficits raises the possibility of a severe international economic crisis if other economies begin to dump dollars held in world currency markets.

The Cato Institute holds that the trade deficit is not caused by unfair trade practices abroad or declining industrial competitiveness at home. In their view, trade deficits simply reflect the flow of capital across international borders. Therefore trade policy is an ineffective tool for reducing a nation's trade deficit. While this fact can be argued, the Cato Institute is looking at the balance between industrial decline and the yearly trade deficit. Cato insists that trade deficits do not cost jobs and that rising trade deficits correlate with falling unemployment rates. The reality is that expecting economic symptoms to correlate is poor economic guessing at best. To top off the foolishness, Cato mistakenly expects surveys of America's major trading partners, the ones that benefit from trading, to reveal the right answer. That is politics pure and simple.

Meanwhile, thousands of U.S. layoffs continue occur every week as the national economy continues to contract. This is a symptom with multiple causes. A high percentage of these layoffs are as a direct result of competition from foreign companies as well as sending jobs overseas. Eventually, as more and more money leaves the U.S., the economy becomes helpless to prevent further losses as it ultimately sinks to the level of a third-world economy full of impoverished citizens.

In our current economic scenario, we have almost arrived. The question is whether the nation will remain in this position and for how long.

As world leaders discuss poverty and climate change from the comfort of their conference halls in Japan, the real effects of those issues are being harshly felt.
In Chad, rising temperatures have brought drought, which is reducing crop yields and causing widespread malnutrition.

The Prime Minister was served 24 different dishes during his first day at the summit – just hours after urging the world to reduce the "unnecessary demand" for food and calling on British families to cut back on their wasteful use of food.

Mr Brown and his wife Sarah were among 15 guests at the "blessings of the earth and the sea social dinner".

The dinner consisted of 18 dishes in eight courses including caviar, smoked salmon, Kyoto beef and a "G8 fantasy dessert".

The agreement will give EU exporters free and immediate access to the Egyptian market for around 90 percent of agriculture and fisheries products, it said in a statement.

Egypt will continue to apply existing conditions to imports of tobacco, wines and spirits and pig meat but will halve its duties on confectionery, chocolate, pasta and bakery products.

EU exports of these products to Egypt were worth almost 600 million euros ($942 million) between 2005 and 2007, compared with an equivalent 540 million euros of Egyptian exports to EU markets over the same period, it said.

In return, the EU market will be opened to all products except for a list of items considered "most sensitive" and for which a certain level of protection -- via import duties or tariff-rate quotas -- will be maintained.

Those include tomatoes, cucumbers, artichokes, courgettes, grapes, garlic, strawberries, rice, sugar, processed products with high sugar content, as well as processed tuna and sardines.

"This agreement should make it possible to strengthen European exporters' position on the Egyptian market, which is the most important market in the Middle East," it said.

The worldwide food crisis has spawned high-level meetings and cogent-sounding strategies proclaimed by leaders of the wealthy nations that caused it. But when looking for results, come to places like this, one of the most impoverished towns in an exceedingly poor country.

People who live here, like the women trying to mete out the fish, say, simply: We’re hungry. But no one seems to listen – or care.

A few weeks ago, Cairo appointed a new governor of this northern region, nestled in the Nile River delta where it meets the Mediterranean Sea. He decided it would be more efficient to end the monthly flour ration and give out a few pieces of bread instead.

This town’s 80,000 residents greeted the decision with a fury borne not of reasoned principle but of desperate need. Without the flour, most of them simply did not have enough to eat.

“We have our particular circumstances here,” said Taher El-Mahkawi, a fisherman, like most everyone in town. “Without the bread, there is no additional food.”

With the price of grains doubling worldwide, and inflation in Egypt now clawing toward 20 percent, no one here could afford to buy the flour. So the people of Burullus rioted; 8,000 of them took to the street. They burned tires and shut down the International Highway that runs from Bardiyah, Libya, in the west, through this town and then east until it stops at the closed gates to the Gaza Strip. That’s when Egyptian riot police stormed into town. They fired tear gas and arrested dozens of town people.

At first the governor, Ahmad Zaki Abdin, hung tough and complained on Egyptian television that, with all the foment, being a governor was “the filthiest of all jobs.” Late last month, he relented – a bit.

No one in Burullus seems to know why they have come to this moment, when they can no longer afford to buy even the most basic rations. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak takes the easy path and blames the United States – an ever-popular connivance here.

“The international community must reassess the real cost of the production of biofuels” and “its consequences for the food security of humans,” he insisted last month.

The United States, of course, offers subsidies, estimated to be worth $11 billion a year, to farmers who grow corn for ethanol production. Hundreds of farmers have switched from growing wheat to corn so they can cash in. Well, Egypt imports much of its wheat from America, and the price has doubled. ... more>>

- Flynt Leverett (former director of Middle East Affairs on the National Security Council, 16 Jun 2008 )

This weekend, Peter Kelly, the Editor-at-large of The Australian picked up the current energy, economical and politicial woes that affecting the US. In his article, he wrote about the passing of American prestige and power, last seen during the pre-Bush years. In the second part of the article, he discussed about the new power structure and dynamics under the current geopolitical climate. This sentiment is also shared in an article published in the Jul/Aug 08 edition of the Foreign Affairs by the Secretary of State, Dr Condoleeza Rice.

Related links

• Nirvana out of American reach (Paul Kelly, The Australian)
• US Economic Decline Top Issue (Flynt Leverett, New America Foundation)
• Rethinking the National (America) Interest (Condoleezza Rice, Foreign Affairs)
• Special Report: China in Africa (Richard Behar, Fastcompany.com)

- The editorial seeks to explain the responsibility of G8 in maintaining its promises to the world's poor.

WHEN the leaders of G7 plus Russia - the group that allegedly runs the world - gather in Japan, tomorrow, in reviewing the world economy, what is the point in discussions of the oil price and production levels without Saudi Arabia, the world's dominant supplier? Or, harping on about the dollar without China, which itself holds so many US Treasury Bills?

How can G8 impose economic or political sanctions against Robert Mugabe, without any African contingent present? Does global warming, or the fight against AIDS, not depend on the developing world being represented at such a so-called prominent and important world summit?

What does G8 intend to resolve?

G8, like most things just now, looks antiquated and impotent. Consider, too, the UN Security Council that has tried telling Iran to stop enriching Uranium, without much effect. The nuclear non-proliferation regime (NPT) is certainly in tatters.

The Observer article mentions the ‘credit crunch', the effects which have been devastating on almost everyone's lives: disposable incomes decreasing and the availability of credit and mortgage loans now heavily guarded by the financial institutions that issue them. And, yet, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the guardian and protector in previous financial crises, has been nothing more than an idle bystander. Doha, the organisation commissioned in dealing with World Trade, is, equally, stuck.

Global problems are proliferating; the effects of globalisation and digitalisation now whip information around the world so quick that it is making the G8 look feeble, shabby, out-of-date and irrelevant.

The world's governing bodies need to radically change in meeting with the issues and threats being faced by the world.

Ancillary

EXCUSES have always been found in putting off reform. For a long time, it was the cold war; recently, it has been the ‘unipolar moment' that convinced neo-conservatives that the US could run things as it saw fit. But, calls for change and reform are coming thick and fast. Gordon Brown, for instance, keen to see an overhaul and redesign of global financial regulation. Others, like John McCain are starting to promote a League of Democracies, whilst Asian countries are looking to set-up a club of their own - an Asian Union likely to match and challenge the European one.

Global organisations should be more focussed in what they do, dispensing of them, though, isn't the way forward. Efforts on making them work better, such as lending help to countries that find it difficult in accessing capital markets. Recognition of how economics has changed the world order should be placing different priorities on how world organisations are dealing with events. Emerging economies now account for more than 50% of global growth. Concurrently, the most powerful among them need to be given more influence and leverage during the decision making processes that are taken within international institutions affecting the shape and order of our world. Is India, for example, likely to remain happy being outside of the United Nations Security Council?

On examination, it would appear that any solution must accept three constraints. Better institutions, for a start, will not solve or remove the intractable problems being faced by the world. Secondly, no matter how radical membership conditions change, somebody somewhere will always feel left out. Thirdly, the world cannot start again. Whilst the founding fathers of the UN had a clean-slate to write upon in 1945 that became possible because, everything had been destroyed. The modern era does not have that uncertain luxury: future building of world bodies must come from what already exists.

The G8, in particular, is a point in question. Some believe it should be reduced so as just including the economic superpowers: the US, the EU, China and Japan. An appealing idea to those states and unions who seek to exercise yet more hegemony over world affairs but, better to enlarge the current body to include the world's biggest economies. A G12, for instance, might bring in India, Brazil, China and Spain. 

The political frameworks of the UN Security Council are even more outdated. Nobody, now, would want to give France or Britain permanent veto rights, but neither country would want to give up that right. Future candidates, meanwhile, are being held back by regional jealousies: India by Pakistan, Brazil by Argentina, Germany by Italy and Japan by China. Other seats are needed in representing Islamic countries and for the African nation.

Getting behind any reforms will ultimately require the blessing of the United States. But, any sharpening of the Security Council could mitigate the objections surfacing from within the developing world to UN reform. A more representative high command could lead to better and bolder decisions being taken in the future such as earmarking military style forces in dealing with Darfur-style catastrophes. World institutions must look at themselves very closely; an introspection of the inadequacy of commitment to conflict zones in certain parts of the world is testament to utter failure.

The World Bank should still be seen as a donor to the really poor, as and when it might be needed. It should also play a more integral part by being a sponsor and supporter of global public goods, such as the increasing difficulties being faced with innumerable climate-change projects. Whilst there is a less obvious need for the IMF, which was initially set-up in monitoring exchange rates, it could become a committee of oversight because it is inconceivable in believing that financial regulation could surpass national level.

Proponents of John McCain's ‘League of Democracies' suggest it could become like a NATO pact, a subcommittee in the global arena of things. For their to be credibility in such an idea supporters of McCain need to define exactly what his democracies are. For example, will countries such as Malaysia count? What about Iran? Saliently, too, any league must not be seen as an alternative to reforming the UN. Global talking-shops and institutions require incorporating everybody, not just a country's allies and friends.

A dichotomy underlies the great need in reforming international institutions. The rich west, in particular the United States, has a choice. It can either cling onto power, which will see both China and India emerging as superpowers in forming their own global clubs. If this was to happen, both would likely focus on their own interests and problems. If the west cedes power, and binds them in, economic interests and problems are shared. How the world is run, in the future, requires some hard thinking but, eventually, major reform of virtually all the world bodies and institutions in existence is urgently needed.

© Mark Dowe 2008: all rights protected

• Observer Editorial, "G8 must keep its promises to the world's poor"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/06/g8.internationalaidanddevelopment

• Guardian Editorial, "The Three F-Words"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/07/g8.globaleconomy?commentpage=1&commentposted=1

• Guardian Editorial, "New era, old problems" -- 'Russia at the G8'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/08/russia.g8

Angola does not yet produce enough food to meet the needs of its population. There are major deficits and low crop yields in some provinces, and they include the staple crops of maize, millet and sorghum. In 2002 about US$210.0 million was spent on emergency aid to Angola.

Poverty is far more severe and widespread in rural areas, where an estimated 94 per cent of households are poor. Although the war ended in 2002, conditions remain extremely difficult. Housing is rudimentary and health services cover only 30 per cent of rural areas. The majority of households have no electricity and no adequate sanitation. Access to safe drinking water is also limited, and more than 60 per cent of rural households obtain their water from unsafe sources. In general women and girls are responsible for fetching the family’s water, sometimes walking 1 km or more to reach the nearest source. ... more>>

Cocktail de fruits de mer, marque "générique". Composé de :

- Saint-Jacques pêchée en Atlantique Sud, par un chalutier panaméen ;
- Calmar pêché dans le Pacifique, par une jonque vietnamienne (une grosse sans doute) ;
- Crevette du Groenland, hissée dans des filets islandais ;
- Moule de Mer du Nord, cultivée au large du Danemark par des fils d'immigrés polonais.

Conservé en frigorifiques fabriqués aux États-Unis.
Transporté et centralisé par des avions-cargos russes.

Emballé en France dans du polyvinyle allemand, par des machines-outil montées au Portugal.
Surplombé d'une étiquette imprimée en Italie avec de l'encre suisse constituée de pigments africains.

Distribué par un géant de l'agro-alimentaire hollandais.

Vendu dans un hypermarché belge racheté par un groupe japonais.

Cuit, hier soir, dans une poêle taiwanaise en fonte d'aluminium canadien, dessinée par un Sri-Lankais.

Agrémenté d'ail corse, d'huile d'olives du Péloponnèse, et d'un tour de poivre de Cayenne.

Dégusté dans des assiettes suédoises avec une Bordelaise amoureuse de la cuisine méditerranéenne.

Evacué, un peu plus tard, dans des sanitaires conçus en Autriche et installés par un plombier ougandais. (Qui utilisa en outre une clef anglaise.)

Filtré, beaucoup plus tard, par une station d'épuration sous brevet israélien.

Traité et compacté – selon une technologie brésilienne – pour l'engraissage des prés bressois, sur lesquels caquettent des gallinacés de race hongroise.

Voilà pour le "Cocktail de fruits de mer".

La prochaine fois, nous parlerons de la "Brochette fermière".
Celle qui finit dans la mer.

So from 1776 to 2008 we have President George W. Bush at Jefferson's House as people from 30 nations become citizens of a nation that, loved or hated, is the lone colossus of the world stage leaving others in it's shadow. Not all approve of the darkness cast as the link shows when Bush was heckled, over fascism and Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7491278.stm

To my mind that was the wrong setting for protests. It was the right location and ceremony for a President to be, on a day to celebrate the birth of a nation and to reaffirm what the USA is founded on. Free speech being one of them, a put down that at the same time reaffirms ideals that Zimbabweans can only hope would come at the price that it did for the American protesters.

It is difficult to argue that fighting for these ideals 232 years ago, with both foreign and domestic enemies during its brief history, means that the USA should sacrifice the blood of it's children and wealth to give freedom to other nations. These struggles are inherently one for the people so affected to fight first and foremost. Yet when they do so the world should support them because we recognize that these values are one essential for the human condition to live life to the full - the recognition that people are an ends in themselves and not a means to a supposedly higher goal, whether the whims of a tyrant, creating a kingdom of heaven on earth, or a cog in a wheel of utopia. The extent of that support, there lies the rub, and one that free citizens should exercise mindful of the liberty they have to choose was not born alone.

The extent of independence in an ever interconnected world is another issue. Jefferson was wary of entanglements with other nations, and yet world problems require world solutions. Looking only within your own shores to protect the self interest of a nation has never been the optimum position in the global era.

The next President will have these issues to grapple with; their view of history and vision of the USA in the world will be a factor in how they behave as rational actors not only on the world stage. In the court of public opinion a change of face will be greeted sympathetically by the world but actions rather than words will be the litmus test. But for Americans perhaps there is no better test then to see how their country measures up to the aspirations of 56 signatures over 200 years ago.

"There's an aggressive and a defensive western reaction to this threatening world, both of which are mistaken. Call them the crusader and the drawbridge options. The crusader option was Bush in Iraq. Now we'll see more of the drawbridge. Defensive, fearful, protectionist, shot through with a cultural pessimism worthy of Oswald Spengler, this variant says: pull up the drawbridge in front of the old stone fortress called Western Civ. Keep out as many alien people, goods, ideas as possible. Don't try to change the attitudes of Islamic states, Russia or China. Belonging to different civilisations, they have different values, and always will. The best we can hope for is a kind of armed truce, on the lines of 'you do it your way, we do it ours'. So this western conservative view deplores multiculturalism at home but favours it abroad."

Read full story.

Read full story.