American Hypocrisy on Libya & Int'l Criminal Court

I read with no small amount of amusement the grandiosely titled op-ed "Libya's Pathway to Peace" by Barack Obama, David Cameron, and Nicolas Sarkozy. One way or another, none are free from hypocrisy to keep things lively. When the Libya mess erupted, Cameron was on a junket to the Middle East selling arms. Meanwhile, Sarkozy in the not-too-distant past was encouraging Western defence firms to hawk their wares in Libya.

As usual, though, the Americans take the grand prize in the hypocrites' sweepstakes. Sometime ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had the chutzpah to suggest China and the Southeast Asian countries disputing islands in the South China Sea resort to "international law" when the US was famously not even a signatory to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In the grand American tradition of paying international cooperation lip service but flouting the United Nations' various conventions and instruments, the lead author and president of a country that hasn't signed up to the International Criminal Court had this to say:

Our duty and our mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power. The International Criminal Court is rightly investigating the crimes committed against civilians and the grievous violations of international law. It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government. The brave citizens of those towns that have held out against forces that have been mercilessly targeting them would face a fearful vengeance if the world accepted such an arrangement. It would be an unconscionable betrayal.

That's pretty rich stuff, Obama. Why don't you get Congress to sign up to the ICC, then you can talk about it investigating "grievous violations." Indeed, US policy concerning the ICC is built around non-signatories being free from its jurisdiction. From a rather helpful article comes this summation of US policy concerning this very issue:

This article examines the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) over nationals of states not party to the ICC Statute. The article first addresses the US argument that the exercise of ICC jurisdiction over nationals of non-parties without the consent of that non-party would be contrary to international law.

As I've said, one reason for UN dysfunction is its ill treatment at the hands of its hosts. As for Obama's obvious vexation with international law and the ICC, let's just say he's even worse than Clinton. Clinton's hypocrisy was wanting to subject others to laws the US itself did not follow. Obama's hypocrisy is claiming that Libya should be investigated by the ICC in accordance with international law when the unrevised US position is that the ICC exercising jurisdiction over citizens of non-signatories is a contravention of international law.

These US foreign policy statements are strictly amateur nite.

The UN Should Be Anywhere But New York

Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home - so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world - Eleanor Roosevelt

There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States...The Secretariat Building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost ten stories today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference - John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations

Given that his campaigning self promised a more internationalist outlook, it is striking how Barack Obama hews more closely to the John Bolton School of International Relations (now there's a thought for you) than that of Eleanor Roosevelt. In addition to keeping that shining example of American justice Guantanamo Bay alive and strong, the Obama administration has done little in terms of Roosevelt's "concerted citizen action" at home. As Eleanor Roosevelt suggested, a likely reason why we often "look in vain for progress in the larger world" is because of unyielding negativity about the UN from the country it is headquartered in. Home ain't where the heart is.

As I will enumerate, the US routinely flouts conventions people from other parts in the world consider valuable--especially in terms of advancing rights. Given the plenitude of such examples, it is best to consider the US a delinquent parent of the organization. Unfortunately, John Bolton's flippant suggestion that nothing much would be lost if ten floors of the UN were blown off is not far from actual US policy. Indeed, the Obama administration is next to no improvement seen in this light -

"The United States is concerned about children's rights and welfare."

Americans blather on and on about human rights. Call it the white man's harangue. So much so that you'd expect it to have ratified the well-meaning UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), right? If you read my lengthy post on why the shameless publicity seeker Amy Chua is more American than Chinese, then you would know that it isn't. How embarrassing is this? Well, aside from a failed state (Somalia), the US is the only other country that hasn't ratified it. Alike Guantanamo, it appears Obama has not been more talk than action in behaving in an internationally acceptable manner.

For all its human rights happy talk, the truth, dear readers, is this: the United States is a miserable place to be a kid. But don't take my word for it. The OECD recently compared the well-being of children across developed countries and found that the US ranked second worst next to the UK--and by quite some margin. Perhaps you and I should be concerned about this American failing that is only reinforced by its failure to ratify this convention. Child misery, thy name is America:

"The United States wishes that women have equal rights to men."

While the US does somewhat better on measures of gender equality such as the pay gap, it has yet to achieve several milestones others have alike having a female head of state. Most plausibly, America's chauvinistic tendencies are behind it not inking the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). In another shameful display, the US is noted by commentators to be the only developed nation not to ratify CEDAW. A shining beacon of gender equality for the world to follow? I think not.

"The United States condemns crimes against humanity."

The Bush administration was famously hostile to pursuing the ratification of US membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC) based in the Hague. While the Obama administration has stopped its predecessor's outright hostility to the body, it still remains aloof to the idea of ratifying participation. Then again, given the United States' continuing penchant for extrajudicial imprisonment, I guess membership in the ICC is not on the game plan for the immediate future despite more internationalist voices calling for it.

"The United States cares about the welfare of migrants."

It is well-known that virtually all signatories to the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families are migrant-sending nations. Despite calling itself the land of opportunity, a melting pot, and so forth, the truth is that the US is just as reluctant as other developed nations to sign on to something which concerns guaranteeing the welfare of migrants. In trade terms, it is unsurprising a country that has so far been unwilling to implement WTO provisions concerning temporary migration is also unwilling to extend them substantive international rights.

"The United States does not want to deploy land mines indiscriminately."

Activists have, for a long time, been championing the reduction in the use of land mines for the simple reason that they tend to kill and maim civilians--often long after conflicts that resulted in them being deployed have ended. However, the US has once again not ratified the Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention. For a country that is already malodorous in so many parts of the world due to its militaristic excursions, this shameful omission only reinforces America's negative image.

"The United States cares about the environment."

Kyoto Protocol. Nuff said.

"The United States has a national interest in respecting international maritime law."

Of all the conventions left unsigned by the US at the UN, the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is perhaps the most interesting one in terms of geopolitical implications. In fact, Hillary Clinton alluded to it last year during the non-controversy over the South China Sea the US fomented at the ASEAN Regional Forum. As I have explained, the utterly hypocritical point is that the US has not ratified UNCLOS but claims that its stipulations should be followed when it comes to resolving others' disputes. Hypocrisy aside, meddling in others' disputes without a discernible legal basis to do so takes a lot of nerve.
-----------------------------

All in all, here is the bottom line when it comes to the US and the UN: If you don't bother with much of anything people of the world devote their valuable time and effort to, then you might as well not host the United Nations. Let's face it: Americans tend to be very parochial in outlook. This negative kind of American exceptionalism poisons international relations through thinking that what goes on in the UN is not in US interests in so many instances. Alike with the IMF which really ought to be in Beijing, the time has come to move the UN elsewhere. The world has moved on. I won't even get into the US offering the sole veto over discouraging continued Israeli settlement of the occupied territories.

There's a saying that you shouldn't stick around where you're not wanted. I guess now is as good as time as any for the UN to move from a country of the past that doesn't care much for it (by brushing off any number of conventions) to a country of the future that at least embraces its core belief in the value of multilateralism. There is no point remaining in a location which undermines it at almost every turn like the United States does. A reason why the UN is often ineffective is because of America's delinquent parenting as its host nation. Think of a child continuously being belittled, insulted and threatened by its parents and modern US treatment of the UN comes to mind. (Not that actual American parenting is much better--see above.) That it even functions at all is a wonder.

When the United States is such an all-around bad example for core UN principles alike human rights, justice, opportunity, and non-discrimination, it's best to skip town. That's something John Bolton and I can probably agree on. Does modern America do Eleanor Roosevelt proud? As I said, the UN should be anywhere but New York.

'Tiger Mom' Amy Chua More American Than Chinese

Oh, to be rid of this riff-raff once and for all. Let's face it: there are certain popular authors social science academics find cringeworthy. Reading the output of such writers usually reveals obvious shortcomings. Dambisa Moyo combines regurgitation of others' ideas with simple factual errors. Meanwhile, Amy Chua stretches personal anecdotes to represent wide-ranging phenomena. Views of (prejudiced) Chinese-Filipinos become the basis of setting the World on Fire. Or, in perhaps the most puzzling simplification to date, her wish to continue strict parenting she experienced becomes a 'Chinese' parenting war cry in Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. Although she claims this book to be more of a memoir, she does list it among her academic publications, so it's fair game here.

My first major objection is that Chua skips over her nanny's contributions:

...something doesn't add up. That missing piece is her Mandarin-speaking nanny.

That's right, the full-time growling Tiger Mom didn't raise her daughters herself, or even in a simple partnership with her husband. She isn't a stay-at-home mom, she isn't a middle-class working mom, she is a rich woman. And although she insists that her recently published book is not meant to be taken as parenting advice, its message is widely being read as suggesting that the "Chinese" mothering style is superior to the more lenient "Western" way. In any case, the truth is that for mothers who don't have her resources, following her lead would be impossible.

My second major objection is that, for someone teaching law--a trade where one should be precise with the use of words--she uses the term 'Chinese mother' in a very loose sense. In fact, I doubt whether she would even qualify as one. To be exact, she is a Filipino-Chinese migrant to the United States baptised as a Catholic who is not fluent in Mandarin:

She became a law professor and now teaches at Yale. She and her husband, another Yale law professor, hired a Chinese nanny to speak Mandarin, though Ms. Chua doesn’t speak it herself. Ms. Chua grew up as a Roman Catholic, but her daughters were raised as Jews.

My third major objection--one that various talking heads including those who claim to be international relations scholars haven't brought up yet--is that, for a lawyer by profession, Amy Chua does not seem to make much use of international law in discussing international parenting differences. This pattern of simplification is consistent with her previous work as I've mentioned above. Anyway, for the benefit of our dear readers, there is this thing called the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) under the auspices of the UN Children's Fund or UNICEF:

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the first legally binding international instrument to incorporate the full range of human rights—-civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. In 1989, world leaders decided that children needed a special convention just for them because people under 18 years old often need special care and protection that adults do not. The leaders also wanted to make sure that the world recognized that children have human rights too...

By agreeing to undertake the obligations of the Convention (by ratifying or acceding to it), national governments have committed themselves to protecting and ensuring children's rights and they have agreed to hold themselves accountable for this commitment before the international community. States parties to the Convention are obliged to develop and undertake all actions and policies in the light of the best interests of the child.

However, alike with the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), let's say 'world leaders' of a certain North American nation have not signed up to this important international law. Which, in retrospect, is in keeping with environs where folks like Amy Chua can thrive. Contrary to the image Chua wants to portray, China has acceded to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child unlike the United States. Embarrassingly, the only state other than the US not to ratify it is a failed one (Somalia). President Obama cringes at this fact, but then again, he's done next to nothing about the matter:

The head of a United Nations monitoring committee today called on Somalia and the United States, the only two countries not to have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), to do so immediately. “With the best interests of all children at heart, I would respectfully like to reiterate our appeal that these States ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child,” Committee on the Rights of the Child Chairperson Yanghee Lee told the General Assembly today. That pact is the first legally binding international instrument to incorporate the full range of human rights – civil, cultural, economic, political and social – for youngsters under 18...

Asked at an earlier news conference why the United States had not ratified the treaty, she cited a raft of reasons from lack of political will to myths and misunderstandings about the convention. “The lack of political will is the biggest reason,” she said, noting that President Barack Obama in his 2008 election campaign had said that the US would ratify the treaty, “but we have yet to see that come to fruition.”

Ms. Lee noted that “then there is the misunderstanding that once you ratify this convention parents will have to give up their parental rights, and then children would be running around with all kinds of rights, taking the rights away from parents. “But that’s really a myth and a strong misunderstanding because the convention calls for guidance and support of parents, and families with responsibilities is one of the major provisions in the convention.”

Ms. Lee also cited a pushback from religious groups and also concerns from people who advocate home schooling and are concerned that CRC would abolish it. “But that’s not the case,” she stressed. “We have consistently said for States parties to provide for formal and non-formal education that also includes home schooling.” She also noted that some people have said CRC is pro-abortion and pro-adolescent health but “there is nothing in the convention that would suggest anything that the CRC is pro-abortion.”

It's insular America all over again, profoundly unconcerned about the rest of the world while constructing its own warped narratives. And just what would this self-styled 'Chinese tiger mom' be discouraged from doing? Let us count the ways:

Article 13

1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice.
2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.

Contrast this with tiger parenting:

• As an adult, I once did the same thing to Sophia, calling her garbage in English
  
• The fact is that Chinese parents can do things that would seem unimaginable—-even legally actionable—to Westerners. Chinese mothers can say to their daughters, "Hey fatty—-lose some weight."
• Back at the piano, [7-year-old] Lulu made me pay. She punched, thrashed and kicked. She grabbed the music score and tore it to shreds. I taped the score back together and encased it in a plastic shield so that it could never be destroyed again. Then I hauled Lulu's dollhouse to the car and told her I'd donate it to the Salvation Army piece by piece if she didn't have "The Little White Donkey" perfect by the next day.
• [Recall those toothmarks on the piano keys from another anguished child]
  

And speaking of which, consider this article too:

Article 16

1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.
2. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Lastly, what would UNICEF suggest parents sensibly do?

• Respect children. Use positive and non-violent discipline, including respecting the child’s perspective.
• Communicate with children. Children and adults should actively and consistently talk to each other, sharing information and ideas in the home, school and community with mutual respect. Listen to, and take seriously, the views of both boys and girls. Ensure that vulnerable children are able to express their opinions and make decisions

She can say that the Convention is wishy-washy, that Chinese parents don't really abide by it, or that the US is right not to ratify it. However, not engaging with the Convention is a professional boo-boo. She seems to be pretty good at self-promotion, but not particularly at her job of understanding laws that pertain to things she's interested in--like parenting. Remember, she's the 'John M. Duff, Jr. Professor of Law,' not yours truly. Instead of attempting to generalize the experience of Chinese parents, she could have done any number of things like review the substantial literature on culturally-based parenting styles. I understand there are any number of academic journals on education, family studies, and cross-cultural differences. Or, she could have investigated why China has adopted the Convention while the United States not.

So, for (1) being ill-informed about a great many things the rest of us are aware of despite her high-faluting credentials [typical Amerocentrism]; (2) maltreating her kids in apparent contravention of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child [which only the US and a failed state have failed to ratify]; (3) exploiting her kids for shameless self-promotion [America is the land of Jerry Springer and the reality show]; and (4) hypocritically failing to mention that a nanny does a considerable part of the upbringing in their household [too many examples of US hypocrisy to cite]--I dub Amy Chua an American phenomenon. I won't even mention the dubious genealogical bit.

Why does this sort of wilful kidsploitation gain so much attention Stateside and virtually none to intelligent debate about passing meaningful international laws concerning the protection of children? It shows you just how skewed American priorities are towards rewarding cheap sensationalism. Surely, I know which nation is famous for acting out its behavioural issues in public. While Americans may be preoccupied with obvious US decline, my argument is that Amy Chua presents nothing more than a caricature of being a Chinese parent. Jerry Springer, Ricki Lake, Amy Chua...honestly, what's the difference?

Amy Chua, do us a favour: You're supposedly a lawyer. Do your job and tell us something about laws pertaining to topics you're interested in.

UN Soon to Ditch Millenium Development Goals?

Well, not really. But, a report suggests the MDGs are, well, incomplete. A recent Associated Press article clued me to the release of a new UN Research for Social Development (UNRISD) report reviewing the UN's efforts in helping promote development, particularly regarding use of the Millennium Development Goals. As someone who's taught international organization, let me say that even my head spins trying to identify the countless UN agencies dealing with development and what they do specifically. To make a long story short, think of UNRISD as the UN's near-equivalent of the World Bank's Independent Evaluation Group that invites others not usually involved in day-to-day activities to critique ongoing activities.

William Easterly aside, the UNRISD critique of the Millennium Development Goals fall under three main categories from what I can tell: First, inequality is given short shrift. Again, this makes sense since x amount of additional income would benefit poverty alleviation efforts more if spread evenly throughout the population instead of going mostly to those in the top income tiers, leaving those below in a struggle to meet income thresholds. Second, social policy needs to be more systematically addressed, perhaps as opposed to being boiled down to a number of indicators. Third, and this should come as no shocker, politics matter in development.

While I'm not generally a fan of the MDGs, perhaps the UNRISD critics miss the point of the MDGs in that they were meant to present simple, relatively hard targets to compare development progress across nations. Setting inequality aside for now, UNRISD talks more about "soft" indicators such as governance quality. At any rate, what follows is the beginning of the AP article:

The United Nations is ignoring the critical role of jobs and income equality in its strategy to fight world poverty and hunger, to the detriment of developing nations, the world body's own researchers said in a critique Friday. The U.N. has said it is on track to halve the number of people living on less than $1 a day by 2015, and that the picture is mixed for other Millennium Development Goals, or MDGs, in the fields of health, education and the environment.

But the 15-year antipoverty plan agreed to by governments in 2000 has serious failings, the Geneva-based U.N. Research Institute for Social Development said in its report. People need jobs to combat poverty, the report argued, calling for a shift in focus away from safety nets and welfare programs. It also urged new approaches to address rising income inequality.

"Despite an ambitious agenda, the MDGs nonetheless represent a cautious approach to social development," the 360-page report said. "A number of critical issues and obstacles to overcoming poverty have not been addressed." The criticism is surprising, given the U.N.'s decade-long advocacy of the goals as the greatest hope for eradicating extreme poverty, hunger and disease around the world.

And here are the policy implications identified in the policy brief for "Combating Poverty and Inequality." I will probably have more to say when I get the full report, but here's a taster:

Economic growth is important, but alone it does not necessarily reduce poverty and inequality. Employment represents an important channel through which additional income generated by growth can be widely distributed throughout a population. Where poverty has been reduced successfully and sustainably, governments used policy interventions to facilitate employment-centred structural transformations of their economies. They invested substantially in infrastructure; channelled credit to specific productive activities; and pursued well-managed industrial and agricultural policies, as well as social policies that improved the skill levels and welfare of the population.
„
Equality and redistribution matter for poverty reduction. The MDGs and PRSPs do not directly address inequality. It is often assumed that absolute poverty or income level, rather than distribution, matter. However, high levels of inequality make it difficult to reduce poverty even when economies are growing; and poor countries are generally more unequal than rich ones. Poverty and inequality are part of the same problem. Inequality manifests itself in relation to class or income status, gender and ethnicity, and also across various dimensions, such as employment, earnings and access to social services. There is a strong case for redistributive policies to address these dimensions of the poverty problem.

Social policy is an integral part of the development strategies of countries that have transformed their economies and reduced poverty relatively quickly. A number of welfare policies are feasible and affordable for countries at fairly low levels of income. For social policy to be effective as a transformative instrument against poverty and inequality, it must transcend its residual role of safety net and engage with broad public policy issues of distribution, protection, production and reproduction. Successful countries have tended to invest substantially in education and skills development, as well as in health and social protection. Social policies must also address the unpaid work that goes into sustaining families, households and societies by investing in infrastructure and basic services, and thus reducing the unpaid carework done largely by women.

The linkages between policies and institutions in the social, economic and political spheres must be recognized if poverty is to be fought effectively. Poverty reduction is not just about having the right economic policies; it is also about pursuing appropriate social policies and types of politics that elevate the interests of the poor in public policy. Similarly, policy coherence goes beyond effective implementation and coordination. Securing the benefits of potential synergies between policies requires conscious design of both economic and social policies, backed by sufficiently powerful coalitions to ensure their implementation.

Politics matters for poverty reduction. The protection of civic rights, active and organized citizens, well-organized and representative political parties, and effective states with redistributive agendas are all important for sustained progress towards poverty reduction. The participatory framework of the PRSPs (often “consultation” without the power to effect real change) is of limited effectiveness in the absence of these conditions. Strategies to reduce poverty and inequality require institutionalized rights that allow citizens to organize and contest public policies as autonomous actors; political parties that are embedded in broad social coalitions; social pacts that give a broad range of groups voice and influence in shaping development policies and outcomes; and democratic regimes that are sufficiently competitive to allow for periodic alternations in power and prevent ruling parties from becoming complacent.

There is no one right way to reduce poverty. Most countries that have successfully reduced poverty adopted heterodox policies that reflected their national conditions, rather than fully embracing market-conforming prescriptions. Countries and peoples must be allowed the policy space to adopt different models of development where aspects of livelihood and food security, land reform, cultural rights, gender equity, social policy and associative democracy figure prominently.
--------------------------------------

I should disclose that I've been asked to review some work for a UN publication, though I'm still free to say that I hope the full report is more substantial than some of the platitudes given above suggest. So institutions matters and so do politics. But what are the implications then for the framing of the MDGs, if any? Some like Easterly think they miss the point, while others think they need revamping. Hopefully, the UNRISD taps into this ongoing debate. 2015 is pretty near, after all.

What Now With Millennium Development Goals?

So here we find ourselves just five years away from the Millennium Development Goals' designated target date of 2015. Now comes another thought-provoking article from the LSE house journal Global Policy on "What Next for the Millennium Development Goals?" by Todd Moss of the US-based Center for Global Development (CGD). Followers of international development should be familiar with the criticisms of William Easterly that the goals are cast in such a way as to downplay the encouraging gains made by African nations in particular. In general, Easterly is famously critical of plans and targets.

However, what Moss emphasizes here is that the global mindset is often fixated on concepts like the "war on poverty" and other similarly high-faluting notions. Rather than fight that trend, he suggests recasting the MDGs in such a way that makes them both more palatable to development critics and more cognizant of the development challenges that result in material improvements in the lives of the poor. What follows is the concluding section of a rewarding read:

In an ideal world, we could avoid all the circus of UN summits and misleading use of targets and finger pointing by just abandoning utopian global goals. However, given the cycle of the past and the dynamics within international organizations, another round of MDG-like goals seems inevitable. A second-best approach is to try to fix them based on the following principles that directly try to address some of the shortcomings. Any new MDGs should be:

• Bottom up, not global down. New global goals should be based on the aggregation of each country's targets rather than setting a world goal and then retrofitting targets to country plans.

• Based on ambitious yet reasonably achievable expectations. New country-based goals must take into account the context and starting point of each country's circumstances, combined with bold yet practicable improvements. It took the United States from 1800 to 1905 to make the transition from 40 per cent school enrollment to universal coverage. Expecting countries currently at a similar 40–50 per cent level (like Ethiopia, Mali, Burkina Faso or Senegal) to race ahead to 100 per cent completion rates in just 15 years seems utterly unworkable.

• Aimed, where possible, on intermediate outcomes. A requisite for upholding even a modicum of accountability means picking targets that are more closely linked to things under control of the relevant actors. For instance, health officials and their partners in donor agencies have much more scope to influence immunization rates than overall child mortality rates.

• Considered warning markers rather than operational goals. Global goals are useful in letting us know where we are and as a signal for where we hope to be one day. They also can add pressure on governments, in both the rich and poor worlds, to identify where they may need to apply additional efforts and arm their own citizens with information. Yet such benchmarks are not necessarily useful either for making funding decisions or for assigning praise or condemnation to regimes or the development community as a whole.

• Able to identify success. Scorecards of progress should be able to identify and celebrate success of those countries ahead of the curve and being creative in enhancing the lives of their people.

There are many other goals that could be added to the mostly social indicators currently on the MDG list. My ideal set of goals would include things like job creation, access to electricity and, perhaps, bank accounts – things that help generate economic opportunity and are the only sustainable path out of poverty and aid dependency. If we fail to adapt the next round of international development goals, we are likely to remain stuck in a cycle of well-meaning but ultimately empty global aspirations – and destined to having the same debate, yet again, in 2030.

Let's Talk About Global Food Governance

Conflicts over resources are the stuff of history. In the previous century, petroleum was considered The Prize in the words of a Pulitzer Prize winning book by Daniel Yergin. In this day and age, new resource issues have emerged that attract interest from international relations / international political economy scholars in search of new areas of investigation over who gets what where and when. One is the struggle for water resources, especially in arid regions where growing nations compete for this increasingly scarce commodity. Another is that for food which tends to cut across the globe's (poorer) regions.

Like my particular area of research, migration, food security is an issue area whose global governance is overlapping yet tenuous. Alike for migration, food is a domain covered by a multiplicity of regional and international organizations that do not necessarily operate in a coordinated fashion. In plain English, there's a whole bunch of people who don't seem to bother checking how their efforts fit together with those of others. Heck, the United Nations contains a number of bodies alike the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Food Programme (WFP), and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) that not only fail to work together but also engage in turf wars over matters such as obtaining UN funding.

Overall, global food governance is something of a mess. Given increasing incidences of hunger that occurred in the wake of the global financial crisis, these concerns are not trivial ones. Yet, the existing infrastructure of international organizations has not acquitted itself well in recent times. While browsing Nature, I came across this interesting piece by Joachim von Braun who suggests what we can do to improve matters. The prescribed solutions deal more with organizational matters than with food production per se. What follows in his conclusion, though the rest of the article is well worth reading. In particular, he highlights the role that can be played by reform in making the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) act as the "quarterback." Adding to the complexity, however, the CFS itself is under the FAO. It is, in a word, complicated:

The establishment of global governance is a complex and sensitive political matter, so it is pragmatic to build on existing elements. The CFS was established in 1974 as a result of the food crisis of the 1970s. Long criticized as a talking shop, it has the potential to be much more. It is an ideal candidate for the overarching strategic body that is needed to synchronize action in the world food system.

The 2009 reform plan for the CFS aims to give the committee strong coordination roles at the global level. It pictures a group with wider membership, including representatives of all UN member governments, the UN organizations, international finance organizations, industry, foundations and non-governmental organizations. The committee would have a flat, non-bureaucratic structure and access to sound expert advice, enabling it to take quick, informed action.

Nothing currently stands in the way of government-to-government networks in food, nutrition and agriculture. They are simply not being created. A reformed CFS could identify people with an interest in such networking, connect them and give them access to science and policy expertise, and provide a forum in which they can meet.

The CFS reform plan, however, is not sufficient. The body remains under the control of UN organizations rather than being independent of them, and depends for funding on the very organizations it is supposed guide. It must be independent to provide sound global governance covering all aspects of food, agriculture and nutrition.

A system is only as strong as its weakest parts. Even with a robust and independent CFS, existing global bodies would need to respond to the criticisms of their independent reviews much more quickly than they are doing.

Governments must grant the CFS the authority it needs for these roles. A good place to start would be an agreement between the leaders of the G20 to establish the CFS as an independent intergovernmental body, endowed with the resources to operate effectively. There is already strong political momentum for this issue. The G8 and G20 discussed food security extensively at their 2008 and 2009 meetings, for example, and the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, this January had a greater focus on food issues than ever.

The G20 meeting on 26 and 27 June in Canada has food on its agenda, and the G20 chaired by South Korea later in the year could close the deal. Such a change in global food governance is sorely needed to help avert another food crisis.

Certainly, there is better time to get going as the present.

Introducing UNEP Climate Competitiveness Index

As if we didn't have enough measures of competitiveness already, here comes yet another one for us to consider. Given the rising prominence of environmental issues, it's only natural that they gained status as one of the emerging arenas for developing metrics for competitiveness. Certainly, this idea is not new. Harvard's legendary management guru Michael Porter identified it as far back as 1991 as the next arena for global contestation. Meanwhile, journalist Thomas Friedman basically ripped off Porter's idea in also identifying green technologies as an area where America can renew itself.

Not one to be left out it the environmental competitiveness craze, the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) has teamed up with environmental consultancy AccountAbility to develop a "climate competitiveness index" or CCI. (I suppose it's inevitable that they came up with another measurement of this sort in mimetic fashion.) Here is how UNEP defines ita as well as how it fits in with the grander scheme of things with the Copenhagen climate talks yielding decidedly mixed results. While we await the full report from UNEP, the executive summary has some interesting stuff. Here is the definition of climate competitiveness:

Climate Competitiveness is the ability of an economy to create enduring economic value through low carbon technology, products and services.

Climate competitiveness strategies have not been stalled by Copenhagen. Despite uncertainty about the international negotiations, businesses, governments and citizens around the world are getting on with the task of seizing opportunities in the emerging low carbon economy. The report identifies significant activity in the first quarter of 2010. India’s new commitments will create 1,200 energy efficiency projects and open up a market worth US$15 billion. Germany has already created 250,000 green jobs and aims to find 400,000 more, while China and the USA are neck and neck in the race to generate renewable energy.

The Climate Competitiveness Index 2010 identifies good practices in countries around the world. From the investment promotion agency in Finland and the Presidential office in Guyana to consumer watchdogs in New Zealand, key institutions are preparing for climate competitiveness. If such good practices are converted into meaningful national strategies, it will accelerate progress towards the low carbon economy.

The low carbon economy will be competitive. While economic value can eventually become widely shared and collaborative, the market in 2010 is fiercely competitive as people strive to achieve first mover advantages. Climate-related businesses could have revenues in excess of US$2 trillion by 2020. Investors are asking the leading companies in all sectors to show how they are winningmarket share. Smaller businesses, entrepreneurs, urban planners, policymakers, business associations, stock exchanges, investment agencies, labour unions and civil society organisations are all building support for climate competitiveness and prosperous, low carbon societies.

The Climate Competitiveness Index 2010 shows which countries and regions are best placed to thrive in the low-carbon economy. The Climate Competitiveness Index (CCI) is a new metric that analyses low carbon leadership, performance and accountability. The underlying model captures the key trends in a sample of 95 countries covering the vast majority of businesses and 97% of global economic activity, as well as 96% of global carbon emissions.

The CCI is a dynamic model assessing both accountability (the climate strategy is clear, ambitious, and supported by all stakeholders) and performance (the country has the track record and capabilities to deliver the strategy).

And here is a graphic explaining how climate competitiveness was determined based on various stakeholder inputs:

Lastly, the Climate Competitiveness Index 2010 has ten key findings...

1) Countries that have strong climate performance generally have higher levels of climate accountability. Lessstrong performers tend to be less accountable. While there are many exceptions to this pattern, and only anecdotal evidence as yet on causality between the two dimensions, prudent climate strategies will focus on
strengthening both dimensions.

2) There has been an increase in climate accountability since the UNFCCC Copenhagen conference in December 2009. Nearly half (46%) of the countries assessed have improved their climate accountability somewhat or significantly, suggesting the Copenhagen Accord has had a positive impact, with improved climate competitiveness registering in 32 countries. Major climbers include Rwanda, Kenya andGhana, and from the OECD, Republic of Korea and Ireland. These developments demonstrate the importance of debate and citizen action in strategy development.

3) There are examples of good practice to be shared in dozens of countries. In most countries, there is still plenty of room for improvement among many of the competitiveness actors. Specifically, much more can be done by business associations, competitiveness and investment agencies, stock exchanges and consumer groups to promote more business action.

4) Each country will have a distinctive competitiveness strategy, but some broad patterns are discernible in different regions and in different economic clusters. For example, Bolivia, Ghana, Vietnam and Bangladesh all demonstrate strong citizen concern coupled with limited business engagement. Emerging economies like Brazil and the Philippines enjoy strong government leadership. In other cases, leadership is evident in the business community, for example in Scandinavia and Singapore. However, climate leadership will increasingly require engagement from most or all stakeholders.

5) Climate accountability is becoming a vote-winner for governments and parliamentarians. Citizens are demanding visible, coherent and tangible climate leadership fromnational leaders. Many politicians are opening dialogues to gauge opinions. Climate accountability is becoming a key differentiator in elections, for example in Brazil, Japan and the UK. In Republic of Korea, the President’s office has engaged with numerous stakeholders to create the ‘Low Carbon Green Growth Strategy’.

6) Climate competitiveness is not dictated by income level, despite strong performance on the Index by many northern European countries. The Philippines is highly accountable and has made green jobs a political priority. Guyana, China, Chile, Mauritius and South Africa are all building distinctive strategies for low carbon competitiveness. There is no evidence for a climate Kuznets Curve or that resource endowments dictate national performance.

7) Consistency is the key to climate competitiveness. Northern European countries, notably Germany, France, the UK and Nordic countries, have the most consistent performance across the eight domains and between accountability and performance. In North America and Australia, there is a telling mismatch between citizen concerns and price signals, and divergent views within the business community and in politics. The BASIC states outperform the rest of the G20 on accountability. Latin American countries are stronger on performance than accountability. In Asia, the Middle East and in Africa, there is high variability in both performance and account-
ability, as indeed there is in the EU27 states.

8) Climate action in the private sector is crucial for climate competitiveness. Strong performance on the CCI by Japan, Republic of Korea, Germany, the Nordics and the USA is manifested by active engagement by the largest firms in reducing their emissions and offering low carbon products and services. The track record on carbon disclosure and management of the five largest companies headquartered in each country is a robust predictor of broader business action within the country. In some countries, action is still lacking even among the biggest firms, let alone the broader business community.

9) Companies and countries are scrambling to win share in new markets. The clean energy sector, estimated to be worth US$200 billion in 2010, has seen rapidly growing investment in recent years, with a moderate setback due to the 2009 downturn. Low carbon street lighting is a good example of fierce competition. Trials of rival LED technologies, running in Hong Kong, New York, Tianjin and Toronto will dictate success for companies in what is expected to be a US$1 billion market in 2010. Countries such as Turkey, Italy, the USA and China have all increased their investments in clean energy by over 100% in the last five years. It is of concern that significant investments are being made in some countries with only moderate levels of climate accountability.

10) The countries most vulnerable to climate change do not yet have the accountability and capacity they will require to adapt and thrive. Proactive adaptation policies are being developed in countries like Bangladesh, Cambodia and the Maldives, but international support will be needed for many countries to build climate resilient growth strategies. This support includes the current offerings of climate models, mitigation menus and strategy advice, but also needs to encompass capacity building for all the key actors in climate competitiveness, including business associations, trades unions, stock exchanges and civil society and consumer groups.