Tomorrow’s Giants – Today

A transformational shift in global power is not on the way; it has already happened

Three recent figures tell us that our future is here. We are no longer talking about direction signs indicating some distant destination, these ones say: “Welcome, you have arrived.”

The figures come from Wall Street, Rio de Janeiro and the US Congress and tell us that systemic shifts in global power are all happening, right now.

The research firm Capital IQ, part of Standard and Poor’s, estimates that global stock offerings are down 15 per cent, and bond issuance down 25 per cent, on last year’s figures. Remember that 2009 was not a particularly great year for stock exchanges anywhere.

Trading in shares listed on the New York Stock Exchange was down from 2009 levels by 11 per cent in July and by almost 30 per cent in August. Citigroup analyst Keith Horowitz told the New York Times earlier this month that

“the summer was horrible for everyone . . . it’s coming back a little bit . . . but nowhere near enough to make up for what happened in July and August”.

Many now predict a substantial drop in Wall Street profits and bonuses this year, with more pessimistic forecasters talking of layoffs of up to 10 per cent of staff in US financial services later this year or early in 2010.

The view from Rio de Janeiro is somewhat different where Brazil’s state-owned energy conglomerate Petrobras recently sold more than €50 billion worth of shares in the world’s biggest-ever corporate issue. Brazil’s development bank BNDES is reported to have increased the government’s holding in Petrobras from 39 to about 50 per cent.

Brazil ranks fifth in terms of mergers and acquisitions and seventh in terms of rights issues in world tables. Petrobras, already the world’s fifth largest publicly listed oil and gas firm, plans to invest almost €170 billion over the next four years in its oil, natural gas and biofuels businesses.

It is hardly surprising that Dilma Rousseff, who is widely tipped to succeed President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in next month’s presidential election, cut her governmental teeth as his energy minister.

South America’s economies are collectively twice the size of India’s, and if you expand the picture to cover all of Latin America, including Mexico, you come up with an economic giant that is almost as big as China and growing just as fast.

Although the rise of new powers and the relative decline of older ones is a familiar historical narrative, the change in the actual nature of power we are now witnessing is something altogether new.

The research service of the US Congress reported at the beginning of September that global arms sales fell by 8.5 per cent in 2009 to their lowest level since 2005. The US still dominated those sales, accounting for almost 40 per cent of the total. But as any business will tell you having a dominant position in a shrinking market offers cold comfort.

While China, India, Brazil and other expanding economies are becoming new centres of our global economic order, none of them are expansionist military powers.

China and India may both be nuclear powers with significant armed forces but defence spending, unlike in the US, is well down their list of priorities.

The emerging economic powers do not seek to threaten each other, nor anybody else for that matter.

Some, such as China, never really bought into the post-cold war “Washington Consensus”, which held that the keys to economic success lay in unfettered free market policies with a shrinking role for the state. Others, such as Brazil under President Lula and most of Latin America, have actively rejected such policies.

All place significant emphasis on reducing poverty, increasing access to education and investing in new technologies.

Brazil is a world leader in ethanol, China in wind and solar power, and India a global software giant which is connecting an additional six million mobile telephone subscribers every month.

Ireland sits in the wreckage of its economy as though the world had not changed, as though consumer demand in the US and across the EU will suddenly pick up tomorrow and before we know it unemployment will vanish and the good times will roll once again.

Where is the European media’s coverage of the Brazilian presidential election? Where are our new language courses or our the new diplomatic and commercial missions?

If Ireland is to emerge from the economic hole our Government has worked so hard to excavate, we will have to attract at least as much interest from today’s economic giants as we once did from yesterday’s.

As the UK struggles to square the circle about how it could finance two aircraft carriers it cannot afford, does not need, and in any case lacks the aircraft to equip them, Nicolas Sarkozy concentrates on rounding up fewer than 15,000 Roma gypsies, Asian and Latin American leaders and businesses are forging the future.

A future that has already begun.

Posted in Changing World | Leave a comment

US Tea Party – Pipers and Tunes

What exactly was Glenn Beck’s Tea Party crowd in Washington demonstrating for? A closer look at who they were and how they came together offers some answers.

In August 1963 around a quarter of a million people joined the “March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom” to hear Martin Luther King deliver his famous “I have a dream” speech.

Fast forward to August 2010 and some 100,000 people gathered at the same spot for Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally with special guest Sarah Palin.

The 1963 demonstrators were predominantly young, and about two thirds of them were African American. Last week’s Tea Party inspired manifestation was overwhelmingly white and significantly middle-aged.

The two meetings sought to achieve diametrically opposite results. The civil rights demonstrators demanded government action. The 2010 gathering wanted a libertarian society self-regulating itself through the application of selected religious principles, with minimal government.

Anyone who has ever tried to organise their fellow humans knows just how fraught a process it can be. It takes time, experience, logistics and resources. Organising a national rally in a country as vast as the USA requires massive preparation, effort and resources.

Martin Luther King’s Jobs and Freedom march was organised through a number of experienced organisations. These included his own Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the NAACP civil rights organisation, trade unions such as A. Philip Randolph’s Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, and student bodies like the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.

Officials and activists from these bodies had, over years, learned their organisational skills in America’s prisons, pulpits and picket lines. Skills that would help make the 1963 march the epoch-changing success it became.

A similar network of seasoned organisations did not feature in the organisation of last weekend’s bash.

Glenn Beck is a talented, if abrasive, broadcaster and writer. His Glen Beck Program is syndicated on radio stations across the US while his television show on the Fox News channel draws considerable audiences. His personal voyage from the Catholic to the Mormon church and his struggle with substance abuse have undoubtedly left him with a wealth of experiences but mass organisation is not one of them.

Sarah Palin’s organisational experience as Mayor of Wasilla and its 10,000 inhabitants and later as Governor of Alaska for a couple of years is hardly the stuff of national rallies either.

This begs the practical question of just how the “Restoring Honor” rally was organised. Who reached out to those who travelled from all across the US? Who booked the hotels and sound systems? Who printed the badges and organised the security? Since there was no seasoned organisational structure, that effort had to come from competent professionals. Such a use of professionals leads to the twin questions of who paid and why?

Dig a little and you find resources and ideas flowing from bodies such as the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Patients United Now, the Institute for Justice, the Institute for Humane Studies, the Bill of Rights Institute, the Independent Women’s Forum, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Virginia, the Heritage Foundation, the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, and many others.

The Texas branch of Americans for Prosperity gave its Blogger of the Year Award to a young woman named Sibyl West. She who, last June, described Obama as the “cokehead in chief” on her site.

A little further research into these bodies and their funding them and certain wealthy American family names start to regularly appear. The Olins, the Mellons, and most generously of all the Koch brothers, Charles (74) and David (72). The Koch conglomerate is involved in oil, chemicals, wood, paper and a host of other sectors and is, in the words of David Koch “the largest company that you’ve never heard of.” Their combined fortune of $35bn puts them in third place in the personal wealth stakes behind Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Forbes ranks Koch Industries as the second-largest private company in the USA.

As Jane Mayer explains in the current edition of the New Yorker* the Koch brothers have very quietly spent over $250 million on right wing political campaigns during the last ten years.

The Koch brothers are far from being novices, it’s just their approach and profile which has changed over the years. The then 39-year-old David Koch stood as the ultra-right Libertarian Party’s vice-presidential candidate in 1980 – running against Ronald Reagan from the right on a ticket with Ed Clark.

As a candidate there was no limit to the personal funds David Koch could commit to the campaign. Electoral observers believe his final bill was of the order of $2 million. The Libertarian Party achieved its best ever result in 1980 – just over one percent of the popular vote.

Accepting that they could not persuade US voters to support them, the brothers (along with many others) set out to change the parameters of US political debate. They poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think-tanks, foundations, research centres and amenable academics.

These were among the bodies which contributed so much to getting George W Bush into the White House for eight years. These are the bodies which are now very discreetly funding many of the local and state Tea Party initiatives.

No wonder Obama’s senior adviser David Axelrod commented acerbically on “a grassroots citizens’ movement brought to you by a bunch of oil billionaires.”

Knowing who has paid the piper often helps you understand the tune.

(a shorter version of this article appeared in The Irish Times on Monday September 13, 2010: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0913/1224278755542.html)

*http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

Posted in European Politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Old Rituals, Altered Realities and Troubled Waters

The cold waters of the River Foyle and their altogether warmer cousins in the Eastern Mediterranean now bear silent witness to distressingly similar historic state failures.

Every divided society develops combative rituals, broadly understood and generally respected by the protagonists, who perform in them against a background of declining interest.

Every so often their underpinning realities shift, and then those rituals transformationally explode to systemically alter the protagonists’ political realities.

In October 1968 less than five hundred protestors took part in the second protest march organised by the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA). Their route took them across a bridge over the River Foyle in Derry.

Northern Ireland’s sclerotic Unionist administration duly banned the march, and NICRA duly maintained it. Established ritual called for officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to whack a few heads, the marchers to disperse, and for Nationalist politicians and media to complain.

Belfast failed to grasp new realities such as a changing world, a Labour government in London and the existence of Ireland’s national television station RTE. The march was led by Members of the Northern Irish and UK parliaments, including the widely respected Labour MP Paul Rose, dressed in their standard suits and ties.

Many will be familiar with the black-and-white TV footage of suit-wearing parliamentarians facing an RUC line when the police laid into them with their batons.

Northern Ireland’s BBC and UTV crews were unsighted, but an RTE cameraman shot the footage before rapidly heading for Dublin. By the time Labour backbenchers raised the question the world had seen UK policemen clubbing peaceful Members of the House of Commons.

Although the manner, cost and speed of its demise remained to be bloodily determined, the old Northern Ireland regime doomed itself on Sunday, October 5, 1968.

A similar, though altogether more dramatic, event took place in the international waters of the Eastern Mediterranean during the night of May 30, 2010 when poorly led, badly trained and inadequately equipped Israeli Shayetet 13 naval commandos made a complete mess out of boarding the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara.

Senior Israeli officers have been complaining for years that IDF troops spend far too much of their service time operating checkpoints in the occupied West Bank, and too little time training for military missions.

These inadequately prepared conscripts then become brutalised lords of their checkpoints. They operate with only two standard options, barking orders and opening fire.

As they arrived one-by-one down their ropes on to deck of the Mavi Marmara they encountered not the cowed Palestinians they are accustomed to dealing with, but determined international activists. They rapidly fell back on their default option, the use of lethal force.

The bloody debacle that ensued was as enormous a political victory for Hamas and it is a divisive reversal for the Israeli government, and a further challenge for Cairo’s creaking regime.

The world has been, once again, reminded of the horrific reality of the Israeli-Egyptian siege of Gaza and the image of the Israel’s invincible armed forces has been further tarnished.

A torrent of press criticism has been unleashed in Israel itself, with the Likud-led coalition government under attack for its political and military incompetence. Turkey, a vital friend of Israel, has been humiliated, its territorial integrity violated and Turkish citizens have been killed by a foreign army.

In 2005 Mario Vargas Llosa, the renowned Peruvian author who considers himself a friend of Israel, warned that the Israeli occupation was approaching its grotesque phase. Llosa who won the Jerusalem Prize for the Freedom of the Individual in Society in 1995, has now seen the grotesque spill over into absurd and incompetent barbarity.

Could this be the long awaited turning point in Israel’s approach to its own survival and security? The moment when enough Israelis begin to grasp that military power can never solve political problems? Can Jerusalem begin to grasp the new realities of world power, that regional players like Turkey have become at least important as the USA?

One can only hope so, in which case the tragic loss of life on the Mavi Marmara may yet serve some useful purpose.

Otherwise it will just add another bloody signpost on Israel’s road to nowhere.

Posted in Global Conflicts | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

UK Elections – Endangered Tribes?

As the UK’s first true coalition government in almost a century takes office, it opens up possibilities for the official assimilation of radical changes which have already taken place in British society and could, just, lay the basis for the transformation of British politics.

If London did unsurprisingly have a national unity government during WW2, you really have to go back to the beginning of the 20th century to locate a coalitions-as-normal epoch. Labour was emerging to challenge the Liberals – and there were 100 or so troublesome Irish MPs to contend with.

If every electoral system has its foibles, the British First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) one has more than most. The most obvious one is that it has allowed parties to win handsome majorities in the House of Commons on the basis of minority vote as set out in the table below1:

Year Victor Votes Seats
1979 Margaret Thatcher – Conservative 43.9% 53.4%
1997 Tony Blair – Labour 43.3% 63.3%
2005 Tony Blair – Labour 35.2% 55.1%

A second, but less often discussed, effect is that the system favours large “broad-church” parties such as Conservative or Labour. Both parties are in effect coalitions of different forces and tendencies held together by the most basic of human instincts – survival.

The Conservative Associations of England’s rural counties have little in common with those from the urban middle classes who provide much of the party’s English electorate. This distinction is particularly stark in questions of religious belief, human rights, and views of the world beyond Britain’s shores.

There is a similar chasm between those in the Labour party who cling almost nostalgically to those classic socialist slogans which once played well in areas dominated by mining and heavy industry and a current membership that is de facto middle class. Some Labour Members of Parliament are distinctly uncomfortable with the reality that teachers probably outnumber miners by over 100-to-1 in today’s party.

This list of what distinguishes different elements within both parties could be extended to include regional and other factors.

The figures always favoured a Lib Dem-Conservative deal, but a progressive Lib Dem-Labour deal with support from other parties was possibility, albeit an outside one. A possibility that was sabotaged when MPs from Labour’s more traditional wing made it clear they would not support  electoral reform legislation proposed by a Lib-Lab government.

Even those Liberal Democrats most attracted to cutting a deal with Labour then realised that such a government could neither survive nor deliver. The discussions between the David Cameron and Nick Clegg teams quickly became the only game in town.

Labour traditionalists like David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary, knew exactly what they were doing when they set out to torpedo the coalition talks which he decried as being “scandalous” in theYorkshire Post on May 11. Their core faith is that Labour, following a period of purification on the opposition benches, will sweep back into power in some future election.

The new coalition government is however committed to proposing electoral reform. While the favoured Alternative Vote system falls well short of being fully proportional, it does mean that a candidate has to have over 50% of the vote in their constituency in order to be elected.

Estimates suggest that had the recent election been fought on such a system the Liberal Democrats would have emerged with close to 100 seats. Such a result would certainly further empower the party and lend force to its arguments for an even more representative voting system.

Should the UK ever get there, such a system would dissolve the cement that holds the two mammoth parties together.  Labour traditionalists and modern social democrats would no longer be obliged to combine within a single party in order to survive. They could reasonably hope to win more seats separately than they ever could together.

Their negotiations would then take place between elected MPs in the process of forming a governing coalition rather than within their party structures as they do today.

The 43 year old David Cameron has helped pilot a remarkable coup in offering the Liberal Democrats a full coalition. This provides him with a useful counterbalancing force for use against the more Eurosceptic and deeply reactionary elements within his own party. As Prime Minister of a coalition he has far greater room to manoeuvre in terms of his own party than he would ever have had as a Prime Minister with a massive Tory majority.

Opinion polls suggest that British voters are open to electoral reform. The results of last week’s election where the Conservatives won 306 seats on 36% of the vote, Labour 258 for 29% and the Liberal Democrats 57 for 23% are unlikely to dissuade them.

Should the new government achieve electoral reform, the days of parties-that-are-coalitions will be numbered. Those who nostalgically long for a past where the UK was White and Christian, or one where miners marched solidly behind their union banners will be heartbroken.

But they will be a small minority.

Posted in European Politics | 2 Comments