Catarina's World

Even in the West, inequality and poverty are on the rise. Poverty has, in fact, reached the levels of 1933. Devote 4 minutes to watching Thomas Pogge, professor of Yale University, talking about the current international system that allows a large part of the world's population to live in abject poverty:  

The global economic downturn has been pushing millions of people into poverty, or worse, extreme poverty. Add to that the fact that people all over the world are moving into urban areas to seek their fortune and we have a danger of slums increasing tremendously. 

How do we keep them safe in urban areas?

There hence is a huge need to reduce vulnerability in urban settings. Half the world's people now live in cities, a share that will rise to 70 percent by 2050.  

So what are we going to do to give more people in the world a decent life? If we don't do anything the amount of people living in shantytowns will rise, everywhere. Or call them homeless, if you wish. 

Extreme poverty leads to crime – or worse

Countries with a lot of poverty easily gets trapped in crime or worse, become failed states. And I don't need to tell you how easily failed states can follow in the steps of Afghanistan and Somalia, do I? So it's in the interest of all of us to start eradicating poverty in the world. 

And let's not forget poverty in the developed world

Frankly find it unbelievable that child poverty is on the increase even in a country like Sweden. So is poverty in all age groups, for that matter. And the same applies to Europe as a whole and the United States. Like South Koreans a decade ago, people are starting to committ suicide in Europe due to being wiped out financially. Isn't it, like Thomas Pogge put it, a crime against humanity? 

Isn't it time to put Milton Friedmans theories on the shelf and, again, start implementing what Keynes ordered? Or do we really want a world where poverty is increasing and the middle classes are in decline? By now we know the side effects of Friedman's ideas as mentioned in do you concur with Joseph Stiglitz on market fundamentalism? Just look at what has happened the last few decades in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Russia. And since 2007 the American middle class has been severely affected by the same side effects of his policies. The Euro zone is currently being hit which has an impact on Europe as a whole. China has been spared to some extent since it implemented Friedman's ideas but never completely opened up their markets. And Iraq failed miserably because the shock theraphies implemented there went too far.

Negative for much of the world's population

One hundred faculty members at University of Chicago wrote a letter of protest when university president Robert ZImmer announced the creation of a $200m Milton Friedman Institute stating that "The effects of the neoliberal global order … strongly buttressed by the Chicago School of Economics, have by no means been unequivocally positive. Many would argue that they have been negative for much of the world's population." Since the time when Reagan was president the Chicago boys have dominated not only Washington but the world, not least through the IMF. So now when the recession keeps on causing substantial increases in misery isn't it time to stop implementing policies that favour multinational companies at the expense of the majority of people in the world?

Do you agree with Pogge that many of the people who support the current international system are like passive Germans during the Nazi era? Do we really want the world's middle classes and poor to be worse off? Is it really a good idea to have more people across the globe living in shantytowns? Or being homeless? No wonder Occupy Wall Street swiftly spread to 1,500 cities all over the world. Is it the beginning of a new era where 99% of the world's population say enough is enough and demand to get a share of what now goes to the top one percent? Is equality only justified if it benefits all human beings? What's your opinion? Is it time to put market fundamentalism aside and start stimulating economies in order to grow again and give more people a decent life? The Euro zone would make a good start.  Or are you of the opinion that Friedman's version of capitalism is the way forward?

(Video: carnegiecouncil – You Tube)

The combination of the rapidly expanding global fashion and beauty industry and the internet is providing opportunities for developing countries.

Environmentally responsible fashions can become cultural ambassadors that change global value sets and lead to other economic changes that also foster greater respect for the environment.

It enables them to use their creative talents and cultural heritages to create jobs and sell products that are environmentally responsible. And even better, results can come swiftly thanks to the internet. Their ideas, designs, and products can be displayed online and sold rapidly around the world.

Small businesses leading the way

Experts at UNCTAD’s “Best of Nature” conference believe fashion, cosmetics and perfume can lead to significant increase of employment in developing countries. We are mainly talking about small businesses which there, as well as in the rest of the world, is an important component of progress. With the right marketing such creative work can be not only profitable but promote different cultures and biodiversity as well.

Scents of the developing world

Biodiversity is a source of creativity and new products for the perfume industry. It is vital for supply chains to be transparent so that natural ingredients are responsibly harvested to make sure that the supply of valuable plants is not exhausted, Michel Mane, President of Mane USA said. He added that “by establishing techniques for the growth of perfume ingredients in developing countries we are able to ensure the ecological viability of our ingredients. By using both cutting-edge, environmentally benign agricultural practices and providing local employment we are able to ensure the ecological viability of our ingredients”.

Sustainable use of water & soil

More than 40% of Unilever’s turnover is now in developing countries, said Giulia DiTommaso, Unilever’s Director of External Affairs for Africa, the Middle East and Turkey. They are one of the largest buyers in the world of ingredients such as palm oil and have noticed increased consumer interest in environmentally friendly products. Unilever is hence focusing on sustainable use of water, soils and, not to forget, respect for biodiversity.

A vital issue is how environmentally responsible products can be certified and traced. We want to be sure of what we are buying. According to Sean Ansett, Managing Partner of At Stake Advisors, “customers will want to be able to trace their purchases “from farm to fork and from mine to mobile phone”. Current technology is showing that such traceability is now possible, if difficult”.

“Environmentally transparent” supply chains

“There are “tool sets” to allow corporations to improve the transparency of their supply chains. Doing so generates brand trust and loyalty, especially as customers increasingly demand that products be environmentally responsible”, Tim Wilson of Historic Features said. They supply such tools to customers like Wal-Mart.

Definitions of “natural” and “organic” still have not been set by for instance the European Union, but are under development and definitions hence still vary from country to country.

Organic African fashion popular in the West

African fashion is increasingly popular in the developed world and is creating thousands of jobs in Africa. There is for instance a fashion school in Niger that’s helping 150 African designers develop their talents.

What Africa needs is the capacity to mass produce fashion, says Anggy Haif, a Cameroonian fashion designer. The continent lacks the infrastructure and industry needed for widespread production of natural-fibre clothes. But there is a huge market for that kind of clothes and many jobs depend on developing such facilities.

So now that concern over the environment is mounting, and words such as “green” and “sustainable” and “responsible” are heard widely, environmentally responsible fashion and beauty products have the opportunity to shift from niche products to being much more widely used. Environmentally responsible fashions can become cultural ambassadors that change global value sets and lead to other economic changes that also foster greater respect for the environment.

Wouldn’t it hence be an idea for aid and donor organisations to devote more time and money to assisting developing countries with getting the infrastructure and know-how needed to develop more such companies? To do so would lead to sustainable development that would enable the nations to gradually work and trade themselves to a better standard of living. As opposed to most aid it would not just have a temporary effect but would assist the developing world long term starting now.

photo: Ethan Allen Flickr

Can’t help wondering why two UN Human Rights watchdogs and the Archbishop of Canterbury seem to believe the world would have been a better place if “Geronimo” had been captured alive?

Would it have been possible to treat Osama bin Laden the same way as any other human being and consider him innocent until proven guilty?

Would it? In theory, yes. We all agree that all human beings deserve a fair trial and should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. If it had been a minor Al Queda leader most likely he would have been captured alive. But there’s an exception to every rule, and to this one Osama bin Laden probably is.

Are you presumed innocent after repeatedly pleading guilty?

He has voluntarily declared himself guilty numerous times, not only to 9/11 but several other terrorist attacks around the world. Can he then be presumed innocent? He was even proud of what he had done and boasted about it. In fact, even encouraged his followers to kill innocent people to further his own interest.

Would he have allowed the Americans to capture him alive?

Bin Laden was an intelligent man. So clever he was able to be in hiding for at least five years in a house 500 meters from Pakistan’s military academy. Have actually been to Abbottabad and it seems to me the place was chosen since it’s next to Kashmir and India, which could have come in handy for him.

Seriously doubt a man as proud and vain as he was would have allowed himself to be captured and become a trophy for the hated Americans. He carefully created his image and I seriously doubt that’s the way he intended to end his life. In the presumable absence of a cyanide capsule, he knew that just one threatening gesture would have made the Navy Seals kill him.

Where would the trial have taken place?

Where could Osama bin Laden have been held awaiting trial? A whole army of suicide bombers would have volunteered to take revenge and thousands and thousands of innocent people would have died as a result.

Am sure the Americans decided against having the trial in the US for security reasons and he could not have been tried in the International Criminal Court in the Hague since its jurisdiction only runs from 2002. And trying him before a military commission in Guantanamo would render the validity dubious.

So where could the trial have taken place in order to please both Western civilians and adherents of Sharia law?

Who would have been prepared to work on his trial?

The prosecutor, judge and jury’s days would be numbered. They and their families would never be safe again and need to be provided with fake identities. So it would have had to be people willing to risk their lives, or die, in order to convict “Geronimo”.

And they would all have had to be men since religious fanatics like Osama bin Laden refuse to be anywhere near women who are not family. The joke in Saudi Arabia was that it was a good idea to marry such a man since he wouldn’t even look at another woman.

Why would Osama have spilled his guts?

It would definitely have been interesting if “Geronimo” had been put on trial and told the truth under oath.

But would he have done that? Definitely not. He would not have given away any information worth having. Probably instead gone on a hunger strike and done everything in his power to convey a picture of him as a martyr and further his cause as much as possible. The information gathered during the raid is probably of more interest than what he would have revealed in a trial.

Would a civilian US court have found him guilty?

If he had been found guilty he would have faced the death penalty. If so he would instead of being shot have been given a lethal injection.

But would he have been found guilty? It would have been difficult for a civilian court to reach a verdict that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that he, and his followers know he is and that he has actually pleaded guilty may not have been enough to reach such a verdict. A clever lawyer would probably have been able to work wonders for him.

Putting him on trial would have given Al Queda the enormous boost it needs. After all its followers are supporters of Osama bin Laden’s and not the network as such. And what would the world have gained from strengthening Al Queda?

Am against the death penalty, but when I lived in Riyadh I understood that the ways the Saudis deal with terrorist is the only way to handle such fanatics. They will never walk the streets again unless they are reformed. And they know that if they are up to no good again they will follow convicted terrorists to chop-chop square. It’s interesting to note that the Saudis are actually successful in making followers of Osama bin Laden’s see their errors and change for good.

We don’t need a revived Al Queda

Putting him on trial would have made him even more of a martyr than he already is to his followers. And Al Queda would have been strengthened. It’s bad enough that they have stated they will avenge his death. But the carnage would have been much greater if he had become a cult figure awaiting trial. Thousands and thousands of innocent people would have died as a result of giving him a fair Western trial.

Am against targeted killings. But was there really much of a choice in the case of Osama bin Laden? What do you think? Would bin Laden have allowed the Americans to capture him alive? Where could his trial have taken place? Is it likely that he would have told the truth under oath? Would he have been found guilty in a civilian US court? How many innocent people would have died as a result of trying him? Would Al Queda have been given a huge boost by a bin Laden trial? Or should he simply have been left in peace in Abbottabad planning further terrorist attacks? Would anything positive really have come out of capturing him alive? And would it have made the world a better place place for all, not just for Al Queda?

(photo: Flickr – Adam Jones, Ph.D.)

What was new about the “WikiLeak scoop” a few days ago? Anybody following international news have heard about alleged Pakistani involvement in Afghanistan from US officials.

Anybody following international news have heard about alleged Pakistani involvement in Afghanistan from Hillary Clinton and other US officials.

Last week Hillary Clinton actually said there must be someone in the Pakistani government that knows Osama bin Laden’s wheeabouts. Can you get more blunt than that?

So what was the point of making the trove of 90,000 classified military documents public? The only reason they got so much attention was by only released them to The New York Times, Guardian and Der Spiegel. They were no scope and I don’t understand why they caused so much consternation? The only difference they make is that now some Afghans lives are in danger.

WIkiLeaks goal in disclosing secret documents is to reveal “unethical behavior” by governments and corporations. Catch is since it was founded in 2006 it has only been able to disclose secrets from Western countries.

But what about secrets from inside the ISI or Pakistani government? If the 90,000 documents were from inside the ISI they would have been truly sensational. Or if WikiLeaks published classified information from say, the Iranian, North Korean, Russian or Chinese government.

But chances of that ever happen are next to none. Who inside such regimes would dare to take the risk? Pity since that kind of information would make WikiLeaks a worth while organisation. As it is they provide one sided information from the West without being able to deliver information that would really make a difference.

What does WikiLeaks want to accomplish?

Part of me likes what they are doing, but since they will only be able to reveal secrets from the West I don’t think they have a mission to fulfil. At least not if they continue leaking “scoops” that are common knowledge.

WikiLeaks and Julian Assange are a bit of a question mark. He says he’s a journalist but according to the New York Times he is not. They call him an activist but to what end isn’t clear. If it is his desire to promote peace I don’t think he has accomplished anything so far.

So what did he accomplish by bringing his organization into the debate on Afghanistan? WikiLeaks had to close some time ago due to lack of funding so presumably the aim was to get sponsors? Or just become famous? Some people go to extremes for fame and glory.

The pr coup he achieved was brilliant. He is now a household name and so is Wikileaks. Just a pity that by showing little regard for the hard moral choices and dearth of good policy options facing decision-makers, he is as reckless and destructive as soldier or soldiers who leaked the documents in the first place.

All WikiLeaks has achieved so far is, putting Afghans who provided leaks to the US in danger as well as – again – show us that technology has diminished our control over what the world knows. So now WikiLeaks needs to step up to the plate and deliver scoops of classified information from inside totalitarian states. That would justify their existence. If not, what can such an organisations accomplish?

(Photo: US Department of State – Flickr)

Seems to me that most political ideologies are on the shelf at the moment. Or maybe they have just gone on leave? Many social scientists currently consider political ideologies dead, but I wouldn’t go that far because it would imply the end of innovative and creative development in the intellectual world. And that wouldn’t only be an unlikely but also disastrous development.

My father was an international entrepreneur already in the 1950's, leading his life and businesses in global ways that were unusual then.

Capitalism and individualism, for instance, are alive and kicking, but then again, they have been since time immemorial, and always will be.

But sure, communism is dead in all but name and socialism today lacks innovative, new ideas. Its proponents keep on repeating the same old slogans that are no longer relevant. And where can you find true conservatism today?

Liberalism or center right politics has been the name of the game for quite some time. But even those ideologies are now being questioned after the global crisis hit and leading economists couldn’t agree on how it could have happened, why it wasn’t spotted and, worse, can’t agree on how to fix it.

Ideologies make politics lively and exciting so it’s most likely just a question of how long it will take before new ideologies take shape. Actually if we don’t, politics will be even more of a status quo than it is, so some new political ideologies would be most welcome.

Maybe it would be an idea to concentrate on globalism for the time being instead? The original use of the word in business context goes back to Harvard Business Review in the 1940′s. The idea signified the freer movement of goods, services, ideas and people around the world. My father was an international entrepreneur already in the 1950′s, leading his life and businesses in global ways that were unusual then. In those days airports were like small clubs where they all knew each other, unlike today when everybody’s flying. How often do we meet people we know at an airport nowadays? Unusual, even in first class lounges. With a father like that it probably makes sense that I’m as international as I am.

In some ways politics is actually getting more and more global. Look at the G20, ASEAN and the EU, for instance. We are more and more taking part in multinational, multicultural alliances attempting to align national politics with international aims for the greater good. The problem is that there are, and has been for a long time, far to many vested interests resulting in agreements only benefitting one group. And as we all know, agreements, or business deals for that matter, that don’t benefit all interests don’t last. So maybe it’s time to try and find long lasting solutions that will increasingly create better terms of living for more people on a global scale?

It is in everybodys interest that we elaborate the global perspective even further and work towards a world where everybody can eat three meals a day, have basic schooling and access to health care. That doesn’t mean that we should leave free markets and the ability to earn a lot of money behind. Cultural and national differences will always be there thankfully, since it would be seriously boring if all human being were all the same.

International issues should be a more important part of new political ideologies. We are just one big integrated global market. Even Coca Cola nowadays considers themselves an international and not just an American company. So why shouldn’t politics follow suit? After all where would Coca Cola be today if they had concentrated on only the US?

(Re-published on request)

G20 rich and emerging countries have been quite successful in holding protectionist pressures in check in recent months.

Will G20 leaders continue to be successful in keeping trade protectionism at a minimum?

However, some G20 countries, in contradiction to pledges at their London and Pittsburgh summits last year, have actually implemented new measures to restrict trade. Luckily however their scope has been limited and the group has continued to avoid an escalation of protectionism.

The Financial Times noted that the new import-restricting measures imposed over the past six months by G20 countries had affected at most 0.7 percent of G20 goods imports. Or to put it in another way – or 0.4 percent of world imports about half the increase in the previous six months.

G20 must remain vigilant however since when a global recession is easing off the temptation to resort to protectionism is huge. And we don’t want the world to go down that road, do we? In today’s global market it is of vital importance to facilitate trade and not to restrict it, so let’s hope G20 continues to battle protectionism.

(photo:downingstreet – flickr)

Negative events have dominated the news for a couple of years. So now when the wind’s turning let’s capitalise on it and be optimistic. How about we all make it our new years resolution to be optimistic? What have we got to lose? After all without hope there’s just time. And if time is all that’s left in the world we will be in the sorry state of just killing time. So let’s start a new chapter and make 2010 The Year of Optimism!

Let's all make a chain of optimism around the world and make sure 2010 will be remembered as The Year of Optimism!

Leaders owe it to their followers to spread optimism without excluding reality. We need to inspire and give people not only hope but resilience. What’s going to happen to your company, your job or you if you are not optimistic and keep making intelligent attempts to succeed?

Sure we have to be clear about the challenges we face due to external factors. But we also have to look not only at what mistakes we did but also at what we did right. Let’s find new ways of doing things. Tough times after all does provide new opportunities to succeed.

Now is not the time to throw in the towel but to have the courage to move on to pastures new. Highlight the good things companies and people are doing now despite the tough times.

Look at how the recession is affecting the business, both positively and negatively. Don’t forget your customers and their buying habits and how you can serve their current needs better. When you are able to provide an equally good, or even better, service during a recession, your customers will never forget you.

Adversity does bring opportunities as well as positive changes if you let it. Don’t be negative and overcautious since that will squash all possibilities of turning this recession into a success. Having said that I should add the importance of not promising something you can not deliver. Much better to undersell and overdeliver!

It’s possible that hard times are here to stay for quite some time yet, but you still have to be optimistic. Sooner or later the tide will turn and you have to look at possibilities instead of concentrating on what can’t be done and being too cautious to take a calculated risk. If you do you will be left behind when good times are here again.

Pessimists actually have a 19 percent higher mortality rate than optimists, according to a Mayo Clinic study. So let’s do things that make us happy and be optimistic in 2010. That will make us more motivated to make a difference and improve the performance of our company, our work, our lives and altogether have an impact on the performance of the whole world.

Let’s make 2010 the year when we all join forces, are optimistic and aim for the stars!  The worst that can happen is that we will have even better health, more friends and better quality of life.

Wishing you all A Fantastic New Year!   2010 – THE YEAR OF OPTIMISM

Photo: PhotoXpress Peter Barrett