20 February 2007
Thinkwanks
There is a fine line between think tanks and think wanks. On the one hand enlivened debate with sharp analysts, on the other dreary cliche-fests with balding plodders. Tonight I walked the line. What is it about foreign policy discussions that attracts pompous, opinionated old men who love to float their well rounded vowels across a room, at length. Is it old age that leads them to confuse questions with soap boxes. Not content to enjoy the thoughts on offer they stand, with notes, and deliver a monologue of commentary, a conceptual jungle, swarming with anecdotes, the dropping of names, and a sprinkling of ideas stolen from this week's Economist. One ventures (one does) to suggest that this is the adult equivalent of student union meetings, albeit more tightly managed. Beware think tanks that masquerade as clubs that for the retrospectively fabulous. Humanity doth not advance in such rarefied surrounds.
19 February 2007
Bureaucratic activism - Dr Elbaradei (IAEA)
IAEA Director-General, Dr Mohamed Elbaradei spoke at school today. It's sad that his criticism of the nuclear weapons state's unwillingness to disarm (as required under the 35 year old Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) could be described as radical, but that's where the disarmament debate is at. Unusual (and welcome) to see an experienced international bureaucrat willing to stick his neck out to describe the shortcomings of the system, and a pleasant surprise to hear him talk passionately about development as a component of international security - "if we had more Mother Theresa's we'd have less suicide bombers." Here are some of his main points:
- The current security system is not sustainable because it is not equitable. States have legitimate security concerns that need to be met. For example Iran feels threatened by 140,000 US troops in Iraq, quasi-nuclear Israel, nuclear Russia, nuclear Pakistan and a history of regional conflict - these perceived vulnerabilities need to be offset somehow.
- Need an international security system that does not rely on nuclear weapons. So long as one state has them, proliferation will happen. Proliferation is not a technological issue, but a threat perception issue. Proliferants tend to be in unstable regions - the instability is a root cause of proliferation and must be addressed.
- Current peace and security architecture ignores the plight of those less strategically relevant (DRC, Rwanda, Sudan, etc). A new system needs to be based on human security. The individual right to security is entwined with the right to peace, dignity and freedom.
- There is a contradiction between nuclear weapons states modernising their arsenals (eg: UK Trident) while at the same time preaching to nuclear aspirants that nuclear weapons are not the path to their security. What possible use do nuclear weapons states have for 27,000 warheads "short of an alien invasion." Despite the legal obligations under the NPT, the issue needs political resolution.
- The unilateral approach to security is easier ("instant gratification"), but delivers less long-term benefits. Multilateralism is harder but the only way.
- On Iran, engagement is necessary. Sanctions are only one tool and need to be supplemented by direct engagement. "Isolation strengthens the hardliners, engagement empowers the moderates." Need also to deal with the longstanding bilateral grievances between the US and Iran.
- Elbaradei was particularly taken by Bill Clinton's view - Powerful states needs to build a world they would want to live in should they ever cease to be the big guys on the block.
- The current security system is not sustainable because it is not equitable. States have legitimate security concerns that need to be met. For example Iran feels threatened by 140,000 US troops in Iraq, quasi-nuclear Israel, nuclear Russia, nuclear Pakistan and a history of regional conflict - these perceived vulnerabilities need to be offset somehow.
- Need an international security system that does not rely on nuclear weapons. So long as one state has them, proliferation will happen. Proliferation is not a technological issue, but a threat perception issue. Proliferants tend to be in unstable regions - the instability is a root cause of proliferation and must be addressed.
- Current peace and security architecture ignores the plight of those less strategically relevant (DRC, Rwanda, Sudan, etc). A new system needs to be based on human security. The individual right to security is entwined with the right to peace, dignity and freedom.
- There is a contradiction between nuclear weapons states modernising their arsenals (eg: UK Trident) while at the same time preaching to nuclear aspirants that nuclear weapons are not the path to their security. What possible use do nuclear weapons states have for 27,000 warheads "short of an alien invasion." Despite the legal obligations under the NPT, the issue needs political resolution.
- The unilateral approach to security is easier ("instant gratification"), but delivers less long-term benefits. Multilateralism is harder but the only way.
- On Iran, engagement is necessary. Sanctions are only one tool and need to be supplemented by direct engagement. "Isolation strengthens the hardliners, engagement empowers the moderates." Need also to deal with the longstanding bilateral grievances between the US and Iran.
- Elbaradei was particularly taken by Bill Clinton's view - Powerful states needs to build a world they would want to live in should they ever cease to be the big guys on the block.
Dogs that ride
Every city has its quirk. London, it seems, remains committed to its long abandoned agrarian roots; sheepdogs and cattle in pastures green. Only this could explain their penchant for encouraging dogs on public transport. What I had first thought the act of a slightly loopy minority, turns out to be wholly acceptable behaviour.On my bus this morning were two dogs, both fresh from a good mudroll on hampstead heath, sweat-matted coats glistening with stinky droplets, a mere shimmy away from being sprayed across my lower half. Last week, at the peak of the morning rush hour, a man took his alsacian for a ride on the tube. Poor thing was buried beneath the crush of entangled humanity, panting for air. While it can be argued that there is no difference between the mangy armpit of a elderly male tube-rider, and the mangy coat of his dog, I'd argue that there is no difference between a dog and a rooster, or for that matter a cow. I'm a self-professed dog-sceptic, and am often branded strange for failing to enjoy a dog's lick, but this is a case of dogs-as-pseudo-humans gone haywire. Am I alone?
18 February 2007
News from a firehose
Thomas Friedman (whose world is flat) complains that absorbing the output of the ever expanding blogosphere is 'like drinking your news from a firehose.' Great line!
17 February 2007
The webification of talking heads
Our dependence on lateline/BBCworld etc is almost over. Talking heads are coming to your laptop via the web. I was struck by this site http://bloggingheads.tv
Here for example is a link to a dialogue with Francis Fukuyama on the way forward in Iraq
Here for example is a link to a dialogue with Francis Fukuyama on the way forward in Iraq
(http://bloggingheads.tv/video.php?id=199). This type of thing is really exciting for IR geeks (like me) - access to highly influential pontificators at the flick of a switch. This format is the way of the future - the challenge is to sort the wheat from the chaff.
16 February 2007
Funk was born again in Nigeria
Anyone familiar with Femi Kuti (or his daddy Fela 'the Great') would know that funk was reborn in Nigeria. So imagine Femi, coked to his eyeballs, driving his horn section like a mustang convertible - fist-in-the-air stuff! Such was I treated to last night at the Barbican - the 'African rebels tour.' 
Also in the lineup an Algerian group called 'Akli D' (great north african music - a la 'radio tarifa'). But highlight for me was 'Ba Cissoko' - a group of Kora players from Guinea. Just amazing. Check 'em out here www.ba-cissoko.com (you can listen to album samples).
Someone warned me Africa would get under my skin..... moments like this I know they were right. Immersed in soaring rhythmes and cross-hatched melodies I remembered the many sublime moments in southern Africa, the hole it has left, and ways I could revisit it. Praise be to such transformative music.
14 February 2007
On the Obama-Osama-Ohmamamia saga.....
So the world has shrunk. The global and the local are fused. It's always been fair game for federal leaders to diss state governments, and for states to diss the feds, but intercontinental dissing has generally been off-limits (excluding of course the Castro/Chavez/Latham hothead types). Most peculiar then to see the Obama-Howard fishslapping dance. Transcribe it, frame it and put it in the Tate Modern because this my friends is the trippiest piece of performance art I've seen in a while. We've not been treated to such freeform interpretive commentary since PK's 'recalcitrant' call. My more serious sentiments are best captured by The Australian's Geoff Elliot: here.
13 February 2007
Climate change projections
Here is an interesting NY Times article on climate change projections. Worth a read (for those with time to dabble in such things). I always like a de-emotionalised perspective. Gore's film served a purpose, and I'd prefer his 'shock&schmaltz' to 'shock&awe' anyday, but the evil carbon emitters (who kindly make our lights shine at night) are not swayed by schmultz alone. Facts facts facts are the key to winning 'em over. And undistorted ones at that - no place for urban myths even when it rains on a summer day.
9 February 2007
Without direct attribution....
So, clarification of the Chatham House rule:"When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed"). Here are some of the interesting ideas generated in the Middle East meeting.
Firstly, British policy in the Middle East is viewed within the region in the context of its prior imperial activities. Coloniser Britain acted on a civilising mission, driven by British ideals and values. Contemporary efforts are likewise driven by values-based foreign policy (democracy, human rights, etc). The latter bears more than a passing resemblance to the former. Western states need to move away from the presumption that they can 'decide what to do about the middle east'. The contemporary region is less and less amenable to the imposition of external priorities. The old 'hub and spoke' world view is outdated and delusional.
Second, there exists a perception in the Middle East that 'values' of Britain and the US are infused with Christianity - and that western countries lack self-awareness of this. Even if not embodied in the structures of state, Islam is culturally important to middle-eastern countries. The rationalisation of western foreign policy in terms of 'values' can be interpreted as a threat to the place of Islam in society. Democracy is not viewed as a universal value but western, and a trojan horse for westernisation. Further, conservative (not radical) societies support some values (human rights) but not necessarily others (democracy). This value structure is deeply embedded and must be respected.
Finally, policy makers should focus their energies on embedding human rights norms in the middle east (an attainable goal) rather than seeking to impose democracy. Iraq demonstrates that elections and parliaments are not sufficient foundations for stable societies. Further, democracy can serve to legitimise and mainstream radical fringe groups.
Interesting thoughts, appearing here in slimmed down form.
Firstly, British policy in the Middle East is viewed within the region in the context of its prior imperial activities. Coloniser Britain acted on a civilising mission, driven by British ideals and values. Contemporary efforts are likewise driven by values-based foreign policy (democracy, human rights, etc). The latter bears more than a passing resemblance to the former. Western states need to move away from the presumption that they can 'decide what to do about the middle east'. The contemporary region is less and less amenable to the imposition of external priorities. The old 'hub and spoke' world view is outdated and delusional.
Second, there exists a perception in the Middle East that 'values' of Britain and the US are infused with Christianity - and that western countries lack self-awareness of this. Even if not embodied in the structures of state, Islam is culturally important to middle-eastern countries. The rationalisation of western foreign policy in terms of 'values' can be interpreted as a threat to the place of Islam in society. Democracy is not viewed as a universal value but western, and a trojan horse for westernisation. Further, conservative (not radical) societies support some values (human rights) but not necessarily others (democracy). This value structure is deeply embedded and must be respected.
Finally, policy makers should focus their energies on embedding human rights norms in the middle east (an attainable goal) rather than seeking to impose democracy. Iraq demonstrates that elections and parliaments are not sufficient foundations for stable societies. Further, democracy can serve to legitimise and mainstream radical fringe groups.
Interesting thoughts, appearing here in slimmed down form.
8 February 2007
The problem with Chatham House is...
I went to a forum on Middle East issues last night at Chatham House - my first visit to the hollowed birthplace of the 'Chatham House rule'. The presentation was insightful and provocative but to my great frustration said rule prevents me sharing it with the world. Instead check www.chathamhouse.org.uk for some of their interesting research output.
7 February 2007
A Democrat vision of US foreign policy 2008
Professor Bruce Jentleson (Duke University) spoke at school last night. He was senior foreign policy advisor in the Clinton/Gore White House (and from the sounds of things remains fairly heavily engaged with Democrat policy). He laid out six dimensions of a rejuvenated US foreign policy post-Bush. I paraphrase heavily, though some of his more snappy phrases are included. Pie in the sky perhaps, but should '08 deliver a Democrat White House some ideas may find their way into policy.
1. US should act as a 'fulcrum, not a foil', of multilateralism. Need to rebuild trust between the UN and US. The United Nations must focus 'less on multilateralism's desirability and more on its doability' - ie: outcomes will increase esteem for its work. US should expand engagement with regional organisations and non-state actors (global governance considerations increasingly important).
2. The US needs a strategic outlook that is inclusive of other major powers not defensive against them. Should increase the stakes of other powers in global peace - this would be a more reliable base than US hegemony alone. Special focus required on relationship with China, Europe, Russia. Good signs with cooperation on Iran and North Korea. Common approach to non-core strategic issues like Darfur required.
3. US should be a security enhancer, not detractor. Increased focus on diplomacy required - 'Diplomacy is not a dirty word' and resort to it is "something real men can do." In disputes, US needs to emphasise 'policy change not regime change.' This worked in the case of Libya where proliferation policy, not political differences, drove effective diplomacy. Force must be used more judiciously. Security priorities should be 1) Terrorism - not monolithic and needs a nuanced response. Impact of terrorism is 'more Shakespeare than statistics' - ie: be realistic about the threat. Current engagement on terrorism one-way - allies such as Egypt, Indonesia may question value of cooperation. 2) Arab-Israeli dispute - Bush White House the first in four decades not to prioritise resolution of the conflict. 3) Iran - need a broad approach to the Iran-US relationship and recognition that it is a regional power. Must give sanctions time to work (see Jentleson's recent paper on Iran here). 4) Darfur - genocide unacceptable (Bush policy on Darfur not bad).
4. Development efforts should prioritise 'human security' beyond simply 'democracy promotion'. No democracy can be stable unless it delivers development dividends. 'Good governance' would be a better focus that 'democracy'. Need to build structures that recognise countries' different stages of economic and political development. Fukuyama was wrong when he suggested political/economic evolution would end with liberal market democracy. Poverty and inequality were missing dimensions of his analysis - and are key drivers of current global dissonance.
5. US should be a leader on global environment issues, not a laggard. US public debate is well behind that of Europe/UK. With leadership, US science could deploy its significant capabilities. Technology is an important part of the solution.
6. Must renew the domestic foundations of US foreign policy. Need to have house in order to act as a example to the world of how countries should be run. Katrina reflected badly on US priorities. Domestic debate needs to be freed up. 'Dissent is not disloyalty.'
He would not be drawn on which presidential candidate had enlisted his services (he advised the Kerry-Edwards campaign in '04), but suggested that candidates need to focus on ideas - what they would DO if elected as opposed to what they oppose. Further, '08 would be about US job security as much as it would be about Iraq.
1. US should act as a 'fulcrum, not a foil', of multilateralism. Need to rebuild trust between the UN and US. The United Nations must focus 'less on multilateralism's desirability and more on its doability' - ie: outcomes will increase esteem for its work. US should expand engagement with regional organisations and non-state actors (global governance considerations increasingly important).
2. The US needs a strategic outlook that is inclusive of other major powers not defensive against them. Should increase the stakes of other powers in global peace - this would be a more reliable base than US hegemony alone. Special focus required on relationship with China, Europe, Russia. Good signs with cooperation on Iran and North Korea. Common approach to non-core strategic issues like Darfur required.
3. US should be a security enhancer, not detractor. Increased focus on diplomacy required - 'Diplomacy is not a dirty word' and resort to it is "something real men can do." In disputes, US needs to emphasise 'policy change not regime change.' This worked in the case of Libya where proliferation policy, not political differences, drove effective diplomacy. Force must be used more judiciously. Security priorities should be 1) Terrorism - not monolithic and needs a nuanced response. Impact of terrorism is 'more Shakespeare than statistics' - ie: be realistic about the threat. Current engagement on terrorism one-way - allies such as Egypt, Indonesia may question value of cooperation. 2) Arab-Israeli dispute - Bush White House the first in four decades not to prioritise resolution of the conflict. 3) Iran - need a broad approach to the Iran-US relationship and recognition that it is a regional power. Must give sanctions time to work (see Jentleson's recent paper on Iran here). 4) Darfur - genocide unacceptable (Bush policy on Darfur not bad).
4. Development efforts should prioritise 'human security' beyond simply 'democracy promotion'. No democracy can be stable unless it delivers development dividends. 'Good governance' would be a better focus that 'democracy'. Need to build structures that recognise countries' different stages of economic and political development. Fukuyama was wrong when he suggested political/economic evolution would end with liberal market democracy. Poverty and inequality were missing dimensions of his analysis - and are key drivers of current global dissonance.
5. US should be a leader on global environment issues, not a laggard. US public debate is well behind that of Europe/UK. With leadership, US science could deploy its significant capabilities. Technology is an important part of the solution.
6. Must renew the domestic foundations of US foreign policy. Need to have house in order to act as a example to the world of how countries should be run. Katrina reflected badly on US priorities. Domestic debate needs to be freed up. 'Dissent is not disloyalty.'
He would not be drawn on which presidential candidate had enlisted his services (he advised the Kerry-Edwards campaign in '04), but suggested that candidates need to focus on ideas - what they would DO if elected as opposed to what they oppose. Further, '08 would be about US job security as much as it would be about Iraq.
5 February 2007
Top ten ripping guitar solos ever...
This is GOLD. What is it about blokes, fat guitar solos and lists. For my money Pearl Jam should get a mention for 'Alive', Hendrix deserves to take out at least the top 5 spots, and Slash from GnRs deserves something for his awesome hair/guitar juxtupositions. How about an arm wrestle between AC/DC and Clapton to sneak into the top 10 - I know who'd win. No Stairway and absolutely nothing Bohemian.
The bottling of 'Aussie values'.
I'm writing my Msc thesis on foreign ownership of Australian resource companies. The Qantas furore provides a colourful backdrop. I'd love to have a 10,000 word rant about iconic companies and their rarefied status (along the lines of this article), but alas must weave my story into the tedious continuum of IPE theory - yawn.
However, I think this is an interesting question - to what degree do we allow firms to sell us an idealised version of ourselves for profit. Qantas says very little about the mechanics of flying in its advertisements. You'd think 'Qantas' was a touring children's choir, a beach holiday broker, or a government department devoted to building national self-love. They do very well out of us too. So long as our superannuation investments are the primary beneficiaries, Qantas' profit is not a bad thing. But in the hands of private equity the profit will be split by the few. The jobs are important, but should we still love Qantas?
However, I think this is an interesting question - to what degree do we allow firms to sell us an idealised version of ourselves for profit. Qantas says very little about the mechanics of flying in its advertisements. You'd think 'Qantas' was a touring children's choir, a beach holiday broker, or a government department devoted to building national self-love. They do very well out of us too. So long as our superannuation investments are the primary beneficiaries, Qantas' profit is not a bad thing. But in the hands of private equity the profit will be split by the few. The jobs are important, but should we still love Qantas?
There is a shampoo brand in the UK called "Aussie." It is owned by multi-national Procter& Gamble who sold US$29 billion of beauty and health products globally in 2006. Aussie Hair products are produced in the UK and sport a kangaroo on their logo. There is NO link to Australia beyond an attempt to capture 'Aussie values' along these vacuous lines "there's more to life than hair, but its a good start - The Aussie philosophy." In the US the slogan is "add some roo to your do." The Aussie hair website is blatant, linking their Aussie hair products to Australian cuisine, travel, lifestyle etc. Check this out:
"Think of Australia and beautiful beaches, hunky surfers and hot beach babes instantly springs to mind, but we assure you - Australia is much much more! Aussie is inspired by the vibrancy and free spirit of Australia, from the incredible natural ingredients we use in our products to the everyday vitality of the Aussie way of life."
Does anyone else find such a rip-off objectionable? Perhaps the fact that Proctor&Gamble has an office in Australia excuses this. Is it any different to Qantas? It's not like they're saying bad things about us, or our 'values'. I just find it slightly creepy that our character as a nation can literally be bottled for profit - with zero benefit to our country. Who do you tell? The WTO? Ban Ki-Moon?
Does anyone else find such a rip-off objectionable? Perhaps the fact that Proctor&Gamble has an office in Australia excuses this. Is it any different to Qantas? It's not like they're saying bad things about us, or our 'values'. I just find it slightly creepy that our character as a nation can literally be bottled for profit - with zero benefit to our country. Who do you tell? The WTO? Ban Ki-Moon?
The retro-rationale of the neo-cons
There is a interesting article in the Washington Post by Charles Krauthammer on the Iraq blame game. A sample. . .
"......... We have made a lot of mistakes in Iraq. But when Arabs kill Arabs and shiites kill Shiites and Sunnis kill all in a spasm of violence that is blind and furious and has roots in hatreds born long before America was even a republic, to place the blame on the one player, the one country, the one military that has done more than any other to try to separate the combatants and bring conciliation is simply perverse. It infantilizes Arabs. It demonizes Americans. It willfully overlooks the plainest of facts: Iraq is their country. We midwifed their freedom. They chose civil war."
There are no easy answers to the Iraq quagmire, but here we have the emerging neo-con defence of their Iraq policy - It was a valiant attempt, with soaringly worthy goals, but pesky extraneous factors beyond our control got in the way, and so ...... hands washed, self-perception intact. Read the story here.
Fun in the big city
Not wanting to sound too city-struck, but London unveiled some of its fabulosity on the weekend (though perhaps I was just shocked that a colourful world exists beyond the library). Friday evening was spent admiring Turner's luminous paintings at the Tate, amidst DJs, cocktails, video projections and other Gen Y carrots. Apparently, the loveliest of Turner's ethereal landscapes were for many years shunned in a vault as 'unfinished' - such was the formality demanded by those-who-knew in the art world. This seems to me a perfect example of the worth of questioning norms.
En route home we passed through a moonlit Trafalgar Square (the jetstream of a passing plane was lit up like a comet. A choreographer had collaborated with some IT/lighting supremos to create an interactive version of Swan Lake. As we danced across the square, spotlights followed us, and lights shimmered to create a ripples-on-water effect. It reacted to our every step - truly amazing. I rode home past the raucus Leicester Square spillover, the clamour of Camden and the quiet chilly streets of Gospel Oak.
As I bike past nightlit monuments (Westminster, Downing St, Buckingham Palace, Nelson's Column) I can't help but feel like they've all been minaturised and floodlit just for my benefit. They're all so small next to their reputations. And so unnoticed at night by the passing traffic. Who would suspect that the lonely late night cyclist was enthralled beyond his boots.
Pictures of other weekend sightings below. Life is good.
En route home we passed through a moonlit Trafalgar Square (the jetstream of a passing plane was lit up like a comet. A choreographer had collaborated with some IT/lighting supremos to create an interactive version of Swan Lake. As we danced across the square, spotlights followed us, and lights shimmered to create a ripples-on-water effect. It reacted to our every step - truly amazing. I rode home past the raucus Leicester Square spillover, the clamour of Camden and the quiet chilly streets of Gospel Oak.
As I bike past nightlit monuments (Westminster, Downing St, Buckingham Palace, Nelson's Column) I can't help but feel like they've all been minaturised and floodlit just for my benefit. They're all so small next to their reputations. And so unnoticed at night by the passing traffic. Who would suspect that the lonely late night cyclist was enthralled beyond his boots.
Pictures of other weekend sightings below. Life is good.
Open day at London Council - flash!
* the image been messed with a little, but the staircase and atrium were just spectacular. Details of the building are here.2 February 2007
FTAs in Asia - The Indonesian perspective
Indonesia's Trade Minister, Dr Marie Pangestu, spoke to our department yesterday on the impact of proliferating FTAs in Asia. As a former trade economics academic (undergrad at ANU) she was impressively across her brief.
Points of interest follow:
- Distinct contrast between her views of FTAs as an academic (the product of "bureaucratic entrepreneurs") and as a practitioner (a necessary step in the absence of multilateral movement). RTAs are here to stay and will continue to proliferate. Indonesia late to the game but negotiating bilateally and with ASEAN with China, Korea, Japan, India, Aust/NZ, Europe. No likelihood of EFTA negotiations except as a "practice FTA" - resources too stretched already.
- But concerned at the 'spagetti bowl' effect of proliferating trade agreements in Asia (trade diverting and distorting). Keen to focus ASEAN on common negotiations and harmonisation of tariffs across FTAs.
- Need to focus on FTAs that facilitate market forces not increase business cost. Prefer FTAs that include multiple members - sliding scale of usefulness from multilateral through regional/ plurilateral to bilateral.
- Keen on APEC guidelines on FTA best practise - perhaps the WTO should accept FTA reality an focus energies on ensuring they are not trade damaging.
- Prospect of an APEC FTA limited. US keen, Australia "largely supportive", Asia less interested. Too many different economies to easily harmonise. Prospect of an APEC FTA not likely to be effective as a tool to encourage EU to give more in the Doha round (apparently the threat of APEC pushed the EU to the line in the Uruguay round....)
- Strongly pushing ASEAN's 2015 Blueprint for liberalisation in flows of trade, capital, investment, services and labour.
- ASEAN insisting on capacity building clauses in all new FTAs (Indonesia particularly seeking assistance on SPS issues - EU rule changes on shrimps challenging). Negotiating capacity of DCs stretched by concurrent FTAs. Also in some agreements seeking undertakings on increased investment as well as lower tariffs (Japan).
- Rules of origin have been an issue in some FTA negotiations (India) but not others (China).
- On the shape of regional integration, likely to begin with ASEAN, and ASEAN + 1 as a priority, then ASEAN + 3 and ASEAN + 6.
- No sensible talk of common regional currency - would require macro-coordination. Need to follow sequence of trade>macro-economic>monetary integration. In the meantime financial market coordination is important.
- On Indonesia specifically, noted the presence of reformist and non-reformist strands in parliament and public. Decentralisation of power a challenge to the implementation of common fees etc - direct election of governors will help. Anti-corruption drive making some gains but needs to filter down from islands of best practise - people need to 'own the issue'. Investment Law was more contested within parliament than public (contrary to expectations). Biggest challenge in reform is selling the message to the public - need subsidies to ease pain of adjustment. Some sectors must be protected (rice).
- On movement in the Doha Round she said she's moved from "suspended pessimism to cautious optimism" after Davos.
- Initiatives on south-south trade unlikely to extend beyond Asia, although Africa a prospect after discussions with South Africa - will not be PTAs - they don't work.
- Keen for academic research into design of 'good' FTAs.
Points of interest follow:
- Distinct contrast between her views of FTAs as an academic (the product of "bureaucratic entrepreneurs") and as a practitioner (a necessary step in the absence of multilateral movement). RTAs are here to stay and will continue to proliferate. Indonesia late to the game but negotiating bilateally and with ASEAN with China, Korea, Japan, India, Aust/NZ, Europe. No likelihood of EFTA negotiations except as a "practice FTA" - resources too stretched already.
- But concerned at the 'spagetti bowl' effect of proliferating trade agreements in Asia (trade diverting and distorting). Keen to focus ASEAN on common negotiations and harmonisation of tariffs across FTAs.
- Need to focus on FTAs that facilitate market forces not increase business cost. Prefer FTAs that include multiple members - sliding scale of usefulness from multilateral through regional/ plurilateral to bilateral.
- Keen on APEC guidelines on FTA best practise - perhaps the WTO should accept FTA reality an focus energies on ensuring they are not trade damaging.
- Prospect of an APEC FTA limited. US keen, Australia "largely supportive", Asia less interested. Too many different economies to easily harmonise. Prospect of an APEC FTA not likely to be effective as a tool to encourage EU to give more in the Doha round (apparently the threat of APEC pushed the EU to the line in the Uruguay round....)
- Strongly pushing ASEAN's 2015 Blueprint for liberalisation in flows of trade, capital, investment, services and labour.
- ASEAN insisting on capacity building clauses in all new FTAs (Indonesia particularly seeking assistance on SPS issues - EU rule changes on shrimps challenging). Negotiating capacity of DCs stretched by concurrent FTAs. Also in some agreements seeking undertakings on increased investment as well as lower tariffs (Japan).
- Rules of origin have been an issue in some FTA negotiations (India) but not others (China).
- On the shape of regional integration, likely to begin with ASEAN, and ASEAN + 1 as a priority, then ASEAN + 3 and ASEAN + 6.
- No sensible talk of common regional currency - would require macro-coordination. Need to follow sequence of trade>macro-economic>monetary integration. In the meantime financial market coordination is important.
- On Indonesia specifically, noted the presence of reformist and non-reformist strands in parliament and public. Decentralisation of power a challenge to the implementation of common fees etc - direct election of governors will help. Anti-corruption drive making some gains but needs to filter down from islands of best practise - people need to 'own the issue'. Investment Law was more contested within parliament than public (contrary to expectations). Biggest challenge in reform is selling the message to the public - need subsidies to ease pain of adjustment. Some sectors must be protected (rice).
- On movement in the Doha Round she said she's moved from "suspended pessimism to cautious optimism" after Davos.
- Initiatives on south-south trade unlikely to extend beyond Asia, although Africa a prospect after discussions with South Africa - will not be PTAs - they don't work.
- Keen for academic research into design of 'good' FTAs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
