for The EU Cannot Build a Foreign Policy on Regulatory Power Alone By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 16:33:26 +0000 11 February 2020 Alan Beattie Associate Fellow, Global Economy and Finance Programme and Europe Programme @alanbeattie LinkedIn Brussels will find its much-vaunted heft in setting standards cannot help it advance its geopolitical interests. 2020-02-11-Leyen.jpg EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen speaks at the European Parliament in Strasbourg in February. Photo: Getty Images. There are two well-established ideas in trade. Individually, they are correct. Combined, they can lead to a conclusion that is unfortunately wrong.The first idea is that, across a range of economic sectors, the EU and the US have been engaged in a battle to have their model of regulation accepted as the global one, and that the EU is generally winning.The second is that governments can use their regulatory power to extend strategic and foreign policy influence.The conclusion would seem to be that the EU, which has for decades tried to develop a foreign policy, should be able to use its superpower status in regulation and trade to project its interests and its values abroad.That’s the theory. It’s a proposition much welcomed by EU policymakers, who know they are highly unlikely any time soon to acquire any of the tools usually required to run an effective foreign policy.The EU doesn’t have an army it can send into a shooting war, enough military or political aid to prop up or dispense of governments abroad, or a centralized intelligence service. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has declared her outfit to be a ‘geopolitical commission’, and is casting about for any means of making that real.Through the ‘Brussels effect’ whereby European rules and standards are exported via both companies and governments, the EU has indeed won many regulatory battles with the US.Its cars, chemicals and product safety regulations are more widely adopted round the world than their American counterparts. In the absence of any coherent US offering, bar some varied state-level systems, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the closest thing the world has to a single model for data privacy, and variants of it are being adopted by dozens of countries.The problem is this. Those parts of global economic governance where the US is dominant – particularly the dollar payments system – are highly conducive to projecting US power abroad. The extraterritorial reach of secondary sanctions, plus the widespread reliance of banks and companies worldwide on dollar funding – and hence the American financial system – means that the US can precisely target its influence.The EU can enforce trade sanctions, but not in such a powerful and discriminatory way, and it will always be outgunned by the US. Donald Trump could in effect force European companies to join in his sanctions on Iran when he pulled out of the nuclear deal, despite EU legislation designed to prevent their businesses being bullied. He can go after the chief financial officer of Huawei for allegedly breaching those sanctions.By contrast, the widespread adoption of GDPR or data protection regimes inspired by it may give the EU a warm glow of satisfaction, but it cannot be turned into a geopolitical tool in the same way.Nor, necessarily, does it particularly benefit the EU economy. Europe’s undersized tech sector seems unlikely to unduly benefit from the fact that data protection rules were written in the EU. Indeed, one common criticism of the regulations is that they entrench the power of incumbent tech giants like Google.There is a similar pattern at work in the adoption of new technologies such as artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things. In that field, the EU and its member states are also facing determined competition from China, which has been pushing its technologies and standards through forums such as the International Telecommunication Union.The EU has been attempting to write international rules for the use of AI which it hopes to be widely adopted. But again, these are a constraint on the use of new technologies largely developed by others, not the control of innovation.By contrast, China has created a vast domestic market in technologies like facial recognition and unleashed its own companies on it. The resulting surveillance kit can then be marketed to emerging market governments as part of China’s enduring foreign policy campaign to build up supporters in the developing world.If it genuinely wants to turn its economic power into geopolitical influence – and it’s not entirely clear what it would do with it if it did – the EU needs to recognize that not all forms of regulatory and trading dominance are the same.Providing public goods to the world economy is all very well. But unless they are so particular in nature that they project uniquely European values and interests, that makes the EU a supplier of useful plumbing but not a global architect of power.On the other hand, it could content itself with its position for the moment. It could recognize that not until enough hard power – guns, intelligence, money – is transferred from the member states to the centre, or until the member states start acting collectively, will the EU genuinely become a geopolitical force. Speaking loudly and carrying a stick of foam rubber is rarely a way to gain credibility in international relations.This article is part of a series of publications and roundtable discussions in the Chatham House Global Trade Policy Forum. Full Article
for A comprehensive evaluation of a typical plant telomeric G-quadruplex (G4) DNA reveals the dynamics of G4 formation, rearrangement, and unfolding [Plant Biology] By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: 2020-04-17T00:06:05-07:00 Telomeres are specific nucleoprotein structures that are located at the ends of linear eukaryotic chromosomes and play crucial roles in genomic stability. Telomere DNA consists of simple repeats of a short G-rich sequence: TTAGGG in mammals and TTTAGGG in most plants. In recent years, the mammalian telomeric G-rich repeats have been shown to form G-quadruplex (G4) structures, which are crucial for modulating telomere functions. Surprisingly, even though plant telomeres are essential for plant growth, development, and environmental adaptions, only few reports exist on plant telomeric G4 DNA (pTG4). Here, using bulk and single-molecule assays, including CD spectroscopy, and single-molecule FRET approaches, we comprehensively characterized the structure and dynamics of a typical plant telomeric sequence, d[GGG(TTTAGGG)3]. We found that this sequence can fold into mixed G4s in potassium, including parallel and antiparallel structures. We also directly detected intermediate dynamic transitions, including G-hairpin, parallel G-triplex, and antiparallel G-triplex structures. Moreover, we observed that pTG4 is unfolded by the AtRecQ2 helicase but not by AtRecQ3. The results of our work shed light on our understanding about the existence, topological structures, stability, intermediates, unwinding, and functions of pTG4. Full Article
for N{alpha}-Acetylation of the virulence factor EsxA is required for mycobacterial cytosolic translocation and virulence [Molecular Bases of Disease] By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: 2020-04-24T06:08:45-07:00 The Mycobacterium tuberculosis virulence factor EsxA and its chaperone EsxB are secreted as a heterodimer (EsxA:B) and are crucial for mycobacterial escape from phagosomes and cytosolic translocation. Current findings support the idea that for EsxA to interact with host membranes, EsxA must dissociate from EsxB at low pH. However, the molecular mechanism by which the EsxA:B heterodimer separates is not clear. In the present study, using liposome-leakage and cytotoxicity assays, LC-MS/MS–based proteomics, and CCF-4 FRET analysis, we obtained evidence that the Nα-acetylation of the Thr-2 residue on EsxA, a post-translational modification that is present in mycobacteria but absent in Escherichia coli, is required for the EsxA:B separation. Substitutions at Thr-2 that precluded Nα-acetylation inhibited the heterodimer separation and hence prevented EsxA from interacting with the host membrane, resulting in attenuated mycobacterial cytosolic translocation and virulence. Molecular dynamics simulations revealed that at low pH, the Nα-acetylated Thr-2 makes direct and frequent “bind-and-release” contacts with EsxB, which generates a force that pulls EsxB away from EsxA. In summary, our findings provide evidence that the Nα-acetylation at Thr-2 of EsxA facilitates dissociation of the EsxA:B heterodimer required for EsxA membrane permeabilization and mycobacterial cytosolic translocation and virulence. Full Article
for Mechanistic insights explain the transforming potential of the T507K substitution in the protein-tyrosine phosphatase SHP2 [Signal Transduction] By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: 2020-05-01T00:06:09-07:00 The protein-tyrosine phosphatase SHP2 is an allosteric enzyme critical for cellular events downstream of growth factor receptors. Mutations in the SHP2 gene have been linked to many different types of human diseases, including developmental disorders, leukemia, and solid tumors. Unlike most SHP2-activating mutations, the T507K substitution in SHP2 is unique in that it exhibits oncogenic Ras-like transforming activity. However, the biochemical basis of how the SHP2/T507K variant elicits transformation remains unclear. By combining kinetic and biophysical methods, X-ray crystallography, and molecular modeling, as well as using cell biology approaches, here we uncovered that the T507K substitution alters both SHP2 substrate specificity and its allosteric regulatory mechanism. We found that although SHP2/T507K exists in the closed, autoinhibited conformation similar to the WT enzyme, the interactions between its N-SH2 and protein-tyrosine phosphatase domains are weakened such that SHP2/T507K possesses a higher affinity for the scaffolding protein Grb2-associated binding protein 1 (Gab1). We also discovered that the T507K substitution alters the structure of the SHP2 active site, resulting in a change in SHP2 substrate preference for Sprouty1, a known negative regulator of Ras signaling and a potential tumor suppressor. Our results suggest that SHP2/T507K's shift in substrate specificity coupled with its preferential association of SHP2/T507K with Gab1 enable the mutant SHP2 to more efficiently dephosphorylate Sprouty1 at pTyr-53. This dephosphorylation hyperactivates Ras signaling, which is likely responsible for SHP2/T507K's Ras-like transforming activity. Full Article
for The Struggle for Reform in Iraq and Lebanon By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 16:45:01 +0000 Research Event 3 December 2019 - 9:30am to 10:45am Chatham House | 10 St James's Square | London | SW1Y 4LE Event participants Renad Mansour, Research Fellow, Middle East and North Africa Programme, Chatham HouseAlia Moubayed, Managing Director, JefferiesChair: Lina Khatib, Head, Middle East and North Africa Programme, Chatham House Over recent weeks, widespread popular protests have engulfed Iraq and Lebanon. What began as calls for reform in the context of high unemployment and endemic corruption have evolved into direct challenges to the existing political order in both countries.In response, ruling elites have moved to protect the systems from which they draw power. In Iraq, the state has responded to protests with violence, killing more than 300 people and injuring over 15,000. In Lebanon, protesters are facing attempts at co-optation and intransigence by their leaders. These developments have served to underline the widening gap between elites and ordinary citizens and to highlight geopolitical tensions in the region that have contributed to both countries' woes.This event will delve into what is at stake for those mobilizing in Iraq and Lebanon. Speakers will discuss the obstacles to meaningful reform and possible routes out of the current crises.To attend this event, please e-mail Reni Zhelyazkova. Department/project Middle East and North Africa Programme Reni Zhelyazkova Programme Coordinator, Middle East and North Africa Programme +44 (0)20 7314 3624 Email Full Article
Reni Zhelyazkova Programme Coordinator, Middle East and North Africa Programme +44 (0)20 7314 3624 Email
for The Struggle for the State in Syria By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 10:50:01 +0000 Research Event 11 March 2020 - 9:00am to 6:30pm Chatham House | 10 St James's Square | London | SW1Y 4LE This conference brings together policymakers, experts, academics and civil society leaders to explore the current condition of the state in Syria. It examines the structure, interrelations and importance of the regime’s core institutions and their interactions with international actors. It also highlights the regime’s different approaches in dealing with state institutions and non-state actors.The speakers discuss governance dynamics in north-western Syria and the east Euphrates region and will analyse governance variations between regions within the regime-controlled areas after the dramatic changes in 2018 and 2019.The conference also aims to evaluate the possibility for Syrians to move from a regime-led state to one that is accountable to its citizens and is governed by the rule of law. Event attributes Livestream Department/project Middle East and North Africa Programme, Syria from Within Reni Zhelyazkova Programme Coordinator, Middle East and North Africa Programme +44 (0)20 7314 3624 Email Full Article
Reni Zhelyazkova Programme Coordinator, Middle East and North Africa Programme +44 (0)20 7314 3624 Email
for Prospects for Reforming Libya’s Economic Governance: Ways Forward By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 15:45:02 +0000 Invitation Only Research Event 6 February 2020 - 10:30am to 12:30pm Chatham House | 10 St James's Square | London | SW1Y 4LE Event participants Jason Pack, Non-Resident Fellow, Middle East InstituteTim Eaton, Senior Research Fellow, Middle East and North Africa Programme, Chatham HouseChair: Elham Saudi, Director, Lawyers for Justice Libya There is a broad consensus that Libya’s rentier, patronage-based system of governance is a driver, and not only a symptom, of Libya’s continuing conflict. The dysfunction of Libya’s economic system of governance has been exacerbated by the governance split that has prevailed since 2014 whereby rival administrations of state institutions have emerged. Despite these challenges, a system of economic interdependence, whereby forces aligned with Field Marshal Haftar control much of the oil and gas infrastructure and the UN-backed Government of National Accord controls the means of financial distribution, has largely prevailed. Yet, at the time of writing, this is under threat: a damaging oil blockade is being implemented by forces aligned with Haftar and those state institutions that do function on a national basis are finding it increasingly difficult to avoid being dragged into the conflict.This roundtable will bring together analysts and policymakers to discuss these dynamics and look at possible remedies. Jason Pack, non-resident fellow at the Middle East Institute, will present the findings of his latest paper on the issue which recommends the formation of 'a Libyan-requested and Libyan-led International Financial Commission vested with the requisite authorities to completely restructure the economy.' Tim Eaton, who has been leading Chatham House’s work on Libya’s conflict economy, supporting UNSMIL’s efforts in this field, will act as respondent.Attendance at this event is by invitation only. Event attributes Chatham House Rule Department/project Middle East and North Africa Programme, Libya’s Conflict Economy Full Article
for Why is it So Hard for Iraq to Form A Government? By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 17:03:58 +0000 25 April 2020 Dr Renad Mansour Senior Research Fellow, Middle East and North Africa Programme; Project Director, Iraq Initiative @renadmansour Mustafa al-Kadhimi has emerged as the compromise prime minister designate, but his potential appointment is built on shaky foundations. 2020-04-25-Iraq-Security-COVID A member of Iraqi security forces stands guard behind a yellow line after the government declared curfew due to coronavirus. Photo by Fariq Faraj Mahmood/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images. On April 9, Iraqi President Barham Salih gathered the Shia, Kurdish and Sunni political blocs at the presidential palace to task head of intelligence Mustafa al-Kadhimi with forming a government.Kadhimi is the third prime minister-designate assigned since Prime Minister Adil abd al-Mehdi resigned in November, in the wake of mass protests against government corruption and the country’s ethno-sectarian based political system.Kadhimi’s two predecessors, Muhammad Tawfiq Allawi and Adnan al-Zurfi, both failed to form a government. This third attempt came as Iraq struggles with repeated crises since October 2019, when the government began responding with deadly force to large-scale mass protests, killing more than 600 and injuring tens of thousands.In January, the assassination of Qasem Soleimani escalated tensions between the United States and Iran, with Iraq stuck in the middle and becoming the home for regular tit-for-tat attacks. The Islamic State — never completely defeated — took advantage of these crises and increased its attacks in disputed territories.The outbreak of COVID-19 challenges the country’s fragile public health sector, while the decline in the price of oil will make it harder for leaders to pay the public salaries that keep the system (and patronage) moving.What does the delay in forming a government amid multiple crises mean for the post-2003 Iraqi political system? Iraq’s post-2003 political system is designed to withstand crisis. Over the years, political parties reflecting the country’s ethnic and sectarian divides have had a tacit understanding that crises represent a risk to their collective interests. These elite stakeholders have together weathered civil war, insurgency and multiple protests — despite deep conflicts with one another.For instance, in September 2018 protesters attacked most major political party headquarters and the Iranian consulate in Basra, and authorities killed some 20 protesters.Since the May election of that year, the fragmented Shia elite had been unable to even declare which side has the largest parliamentary bloc, let alone decide on a government.But after the September crisis, the previously gridlocked parties swiftly came together to form an “understanding” that pushed through the impasse leading to the Mehdi government. In 2020, however, Iraq’s political parties were slower to come back together despite the multiple crises — far greater than 2018. The system is less able to swiftly fix itself, based primarily on the fragmentation of the elite — and their determination to prevent any challenge to their rule.Why did the two prior attempts fail? The two previous prime minister-designates each fell short for different reasons. When I met Allawi in February at the prime minister’s guesthouse in Baghdad, he was very clearly convinced that his mandate was to sideline the parties.He hoped that simply choosing technocratic ministers outside the elite pact, with the support of Moqtada al-Sadr behind him, would garner support from protesters and the disillusioned public. He failed, however, because his cabinet had to go through parliament and the parties rejected what they saw a threat to the elite pact and the system.Zurfi similarly failed after being directly appointed in March by Salih after the Shia parties failed to come up with a candidate. From the beginning, then, Zurfi faced challenges because parties were not in agreement. He attempted to directly confront his opposition, and spoke out against Iranian influence in Iraq. As a result, Zurfi was unable to even get to parliament with his proposed cabinet, as the Shia parties got back together to bring him down.The failure of both strategies — Allawi attempting to work outside the elite party system and Zurfi trying to target certain parties — reveals tensions in Iraq’s political system. This fragmentation strains the parties’ ability to swiftly unite, and the system’s ability to withstand crises.The endemic problems are a consequence of fragmentation, including the failure following the 2018 elections to declare governing parliamentary bloc. Moreover, after that election, newcomers into the political system (two-thirds of the MPs are serving their first term) are increasingly making their own demands and less willing to blindly toe party lines.Can Kadhimi overcome the impasse?Kadhimi’s appointment as prime minister-designate nonetheless is on shaky foundations. His appointment had previously faced a veto from Iran and its allied groups which make up the Fateh bloc. Kataeb Hezbollah, an armed group close to Iran and linked to the Popular Mobilization Units, issued a statement accusing Kadhimi with blood on his hands for the deaths of Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.Many Fateh bloc members had for months vetoed Kadhimi’s name due to this allegation. Immediately before Kadhimi addressed the nation for the first time, Iraqi state television broadcast a prerecorded statement by PMU (and Fateh) leader Qais al-Khazali, who had also previously accused Kadhimi of spying for the Americans and being complicit in the two killings.Khazali, who commands the second-largest party within Fateh, accepted the party line to back Kadhimi but came out with his own conditions on television. However, the concerns about the COVID-19 crisis and the collapse of the price of oil finally brought all sides to compromise — a design of the political system.Kadhimi has signalled he will play by the old rules with these stakeholders. Because of the magnitude of these simultaneous crises, Iraqi politics is moving back to the post-2003 norm. The ethno-sectarian based political system is geared to weather such existential crises more than it is to handling day-to-day governance. Despite the notion of “post-sectarianism” in Iraq, this system is based on ethno-sectarian political party compromise.In his television address, Khazali, who had previously attempted to move away from sectarian language, explained that the process of selecting a prime minister is reserved to the Shia, who have the right as the majority, and not to Salih, a Kurd.Over the years Kadhimi has expressed an admiration of the bravery of the protesters and of the importance of civil society. Many Iraqi civil society activists owe their lives to the work of the former intelligence chief. However, he has also been part of the same system that has violently suppressed protesters.As the compromise prime minister-designate, he will find it difficult to transform his country as long as he plays by the rules of post-2003 Iraq — an irony not lost on the protesters who immediately rejected the candidacy of a man whom until recently many protesters had supported.This article was originally published in The Washington Post Full Article
for Webinar: Will COVID-19 Mark the Endgame for Iraq's Muhasasa Ta'ifia? By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 13:50:01 +0000 Research Event 30 April 2020 - 2:00pm to 3:00pm Event participants Ahmed Tabaqchali, Chief Investment Officer, Asia Frontier Capital Iraq Fund; Adjunct Assistant Professor, American University of Iraq SulaimaniModerator: Renad Mansour, Senior Research Fellow, Middle East and North Africa Programme, Chatham House Control of oil rents underpins Iraq’s post-2003 political order. This political order, known as Muhasasa Ta’ifia (ethno-sectarian apportionment), features an elite bargain inclusive of all major ethnic and sect-based political groups. It has enabled the state's continuity and apparent stability through multiple crises, including the 2008 financial crisis, the 2014 oil crisis, and the war with ISIS.In a recent article, Ahmed Tabaqchali examines how the crash in oil rents, brought about by COVID-19’s disruption of the world economy, exposes the structural inconsistencies and inherent contradictions of the Muhasasa Tai’fia system. The article argues that the current Iraqi political elite is ill-equipped to resolve the multi-faceted challenge facing the country because of its increasing fragmentation and the erosion of its legitimacy, advanced institutional decay and fundamentally different oil dynamics.In this webinar, part of the Chatham House project on the future of the state in the Middle East and North Africa, the article’s author will discuss the deficiencies of the Muhasasa Ta’ifia system and will offer his insight into the future of this governance model in the context of a worsening economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and existing demographic pressures. You can express your interest in attending by following this link. You will receive a Zoom confirmation email should your registration be successful. Alternatively, you can watch the event live on the MENA Programme Facebook page. Department/project Middle East and North Africa Programme, The Future of the State in the Middle East Reni Zhelyazkova Programme Coordinator, Middle East and North Africa Programme +44 (0)20 7314 3624 Email Full Article
Reni Zhelyazkova Programme Coordinator, Middle East and North Africa Programme +44 (0)20 7314 3624 Email
for Breaking the Cycle of Violence: Transitional Justice for the Victims of ISIS in Syria By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 15:50:01 +0000 28 April 2020 This paper aims to assist the region’s local authorities, and their key foreign backers, in understanding how transitional justice can provide alternative avenues for holding local ISIS members to account while contributing to the healing of communities. Read online Download PDF Haid Haid Senior Consulting Fellow, Middle East and North Africa Programme @HaidHaid22 2020-04-28-Syria-prison.jpg A fighter with the Syrian Democratic Forces monitors prisoners accused of being affiliated with ISIS, at a prison in the northeastern Syrian city of Hassakeh on 25 October 2019. Photo: Getty Images. SummaryFollowing the territorial defeat of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in northeastern Syria, the Kurdish-led autonomous administration in the region is now grappling with the task of quickly dealing with thousands of the group’s detained members while bringing justice to their victims. To that end, local authorities are focusing on the use of counterterrorism laws and courts to charge captured ISIS members and determine their guilt accordingly.The piecemeal approach to justice is deeply flawed, and raises particular concerns about due process. No precise instruments exist to determine the personal responsibility of ISIS individuals for specific crimes, or for their role in war crimes committed by the group. In any event, the scale of the crimes and the number of victims – as well as severe shortages of resources and workers – make dispensation of justice extremely difficult through the traditional legal system.Not all detained ISIS members receive prison sentences. Individuals who did not hold senior roles in the group’s apparatus and are not accused of ‘major’ crimes (in practice, largely defined as fighting for ISIS and murder) are being released under limited reconciliation deals with tribal leaders. But the involvement of local community leaders in those efforts is not enough to ensure positive results. Many victims are upset at seeing ISIS members walk free without even admitting their guilt publicly or apologizing for the pain they caused.To overcome the limitations of the current, counterterrorism-focused framework, a ‘transitional justice’ approach could provide judicial and non-judicial instruments to establish accountability for ISIS crimes and reduce community resistance to the reintegration of group members. A combination of non-judicial mechanisms such as truth commissions, missing persons’ committees, and reparations and victim-healing programmes could play a vital role in providing ISIS victims with a sense of justice while contributing to peacebuilding and stability.Ignoring the urgency of developing a long-term plan to serve justice and contribute to community healing will almost certainly allow ISIS to continue to prevent the recovery and development of northeastern Syria. This, in turn, risks undermining the stability of the country and the region at large. Department/project Middle East and North Africa Programme Full Article
for Can Protest Movements in the MENA Region Turn COVID-19 Into an Opportunity for Change? By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 14:07:38 +0000 29 April 2020 Dr Georges Fahmi Associate Fellow, Middle East and North Africa Programme @GeorgesFahmi The COVID-19 pandemic will not in itself result in political change in the MENA region, that depends on the ability of both governments and protest movements to capitalize on this moment. After all, crises do not change the world - people do. 2020-04-28-covid-19-protest-movement-mena.jpg An aerial view shows the Lebanese capital Beirut's Martyrs Square that was until recent months the gathering place of anti-government demonstrators, almost deserted during the novel coronavirus crisis, on 26 March 2020. Photo by -/AFP via Getty Images. COVID-19 has offered regimes in the region the opportunity to end popular protest. The squares of Algiers, Baghdad, and Beirut – all packed with protesters over the past few months – are now empty due to the pandemic, and political gatherings have also been suspended. In Algeria, Iraq and Lebanon, COVID-19 has achieved what snipers, pro-regime propaganda, and even the economic crisis, could not.Moreover, political regimes have taken advantage of the crisis to expand their control over the political sphere by arresting their opponents, such as in Algeria where the authorities have cracked down on a number of active voices of the Hirak movement. Similarly, in Lebanon, security forces have used the pandemic as an excuse to crush sit-ins held in Martyr’s Square in Beirut and Nour Square in Tripoli.However, despite the challenges that the pandemic has brought, it also offers opportunities for protest movements in the region. While the crisis has put an end to popular mobilization in the streets, it has created new forms of activism in the shape of solidarity initiatives to help those affected by its consequences.In Iraq, for example, protest groups have directed their work towards awareness-raising and sharing essential food to help mitigate the problem of food shortages and rising prices across the country. In Algeria, Hirak activists have run online campaigns to raise awareness about the virus and have encouraged people to stay at home. Others have been cleaning and disinfecting public spaces. These initiatives increase the legitimacy of the protest movement, and if coupled with political messages, could offer these movements an important chance to expand their base of popular support.Exposes economic vulnerabilityEconomic grievances, corruption and poor provision of public services have been among the main concerns of this recent wave of protests. This pandemic only further exposes the levels of economic vulnerability in the region. COVID-19 is laying bare the socio-economic inequalities in MENA countries; this is particularly evident in the numbers of people engaged in the informal economy with no access to social security, including health insurance and pensions.Informal employment, approximately calculated by the share of the labour force not contributing to social security, is estimated to amount to 65.5% of total employment in Lebanon, 64.4% in Iraq, and 63.3% in Algeria. The crisis has underscored the vulnerability of this large percentage of the labour force who have been unable to afford the economic repercussions of following state orders to stay at home.The situation has also called attention to the vital need for efficient public services and healthcare systems. According to the fifth wave of the Arab Barometer, 74.4% of people in Lebanon are dissatisfied with their country’s healthcare services, as are 67.8% of people in Algeria and 66.5% in Iraq.Meanwhile, 66.2% of people in Lebanon believe it is necessary to pay a bribe in order to receive better healthcare, as do 56.2% of people in Iraq and 55.9% in Algeria. The COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the need for more government investment in public healthcare systems to render them more efficient and less corrupt, strengthening the protesters’ case for the need for radical socio-economic reforms.On the geopolitical level, the crisis puts into question the stability-focused approach of Western powers towards the region. For years, Western powers have directed their aid towards security forces in the interests of combating terrorism but COVID-19 has proved itself to be a much more lethal challenge to both the region and the West.Facing this new challenge requires international actors to reconsider their approach to include supporting health and education initiatives, as well as freedom of expression and transparency. As argued by Western policymakers themselves, it was China’s lack of transparency and slow response that enabled the proliferation of the virus, when it could have been contained in Wuhan back in December 2019.This crisis therefore offers regional protest movements the opportunity to capitalize on this moment and push back against the policies of Western powers that have invested in regional stability only to the extent of combating Islamic jihad. But crises do not change the world, people do. The COVID-19 pandemic will not in itself result in political change in the MENA region. Rather, it brings opportunities and risks that, when exploited, will allow political actors to advance their own agendas. While the crisis has put an end to popular mobilization and allowed regimes to tighten their grip over the political sphere, behind these challenges lie real opportunities for protest movements.The current situation represents a possibility for them to expand their popular base through solidarity initiatives and has exposed more widely the importance of addressing socio-economic inequalities. Finally, it offers the chance to challenge the stability-focused approach of Western powers towards the region which until now has predominantly focused on combating terrorism. Full Article
for Webinar: Breaking the Cycle of Violence: Transitional Justice for the Victims of ISIS in Syria By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 09:05:01 +0000 Research Event 12 May 2020 - 2:00pm to 3:00pmAdd to CalendariCalendar Outlook Google Yahoo Haid Haid, Senior Consulting Fellow, Middle East and North Africa Programme, Chatham HouseSara Kayyali, Syria Researcher, Middle East and North Africa Division, Human Rights WatchModerator: Lina Khatib, Director, Middle East and North Africa Programme, Chatham House You can register your interest here. Alternatively, you can watch the webinar live on the MENA Programme Facebook page.Following the territorial defeat of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in northeastern Syria, the Kurdish-led autonomous administration in the region is now grappling with the task of quickly dealing with thousands of the group’s detained members while bringing justice to their victims. To that end, local authorities are focusing on the use of counterterrorism laws and courts to charge captured ISIS members and determine their guilt accordingly.In a recent research paper, author Haid Haid argues that this approach to justice is deeply flawed as it raises concerns about due process and lacks the precise instruments to determine the personal responsibility of ISIS individuals for specific crimes, or for their role in war crimes committed by the group. The paper proposes that a ‘transitional justice’ approach could provide judicial and non-judicial instruments to establish accountability for ISIS crimes and reduce community resistance to the reintegration of group members.In this webinar, part of the MENA Programme’s Online Event Series, speakers will examine the benefits of such an approach to justice for overcoming the limitations of the current, counterterrorism-focused framework. Panelists will discuss the alternative mechanisms local authorities and their key foreign backers can use to hold local ISIS members to account while contributing to the healing of communities. The event will be held on the record. Reni Zhelyazkova Programme Coordinator, Middle East and North Africa Programme +44 (0)20 7314 3624 Email Department/project Middle East and North Africa Programme, Syria from Within Full Article
Reni Zhelyazkova Programme Coordinator, Middle East and North Africa Programme +44 (0)20 7314 3624 Email
for COVID-19 Crisis – Business as Usual for Gaza? By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Wed, 06 May 2020 14:48:14 +0000 6 May 2020 Mohammed Abdalfatah Asfari Foundation Academy Fellow @mhalabi258 LinkedIn The COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented challenges, economic collapse and strict lockdowns in many parts of the world. For the people of Gaza, this reality is nothing new. 2020-05-06-covid-19-gaza.jpg Palestinians light fireworks above the rubble during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan amid concerns about the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), in Gaza City , 30 April 2020. Photo by Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto via Getty Images. In August 2012, when the UN released its report Gaza in 2020: A liveable place?, they could not have imagined what the world would look like in 2020: cities under lockdown, restrictions on movement, border closures, widespread unemployment, economic collapse, fear and anxiety and, above all, uncertainty about what the future holds.For Gaza’s population of 2 million people this reality is nothing new. The conditions that the rest of the world are currently experiencing as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic is similar to the tight blockade Gaza has been living under ever since Hamas took over in 2007. Israel has imposed severe restrictions on the movement of people and goods, youth unemployment has reached 60 per cent, and over 80 per cent of Gaza’s population are now dependent on international aid.The people of Gaza are having to face the COVID-19 crisis already at a disadvantage, with poor infrastructure, limited resources and a shortage of the most basic services, such as water and power supply. It also has a fragile health system, with hospitals lacking essential medical supplies and equipment, as well as the capacity to deal with the outbreak as there are only 84 ICU beds and ventilators available. Meanwhile, intra-Palestinian divisions have persisted and were evident in the initial reaction to the pandemic. When President Mahmoud Abbas announced a state of emergency, it took two days for the Hamas-led government in Gaza to follow suit and shut down schools and universities. They later made a separate emergency appeal to address the crisis and prepare for a COVID-19 response in Gaza. This lack of coordination is typical of the way the Palestinian Authority and Hamas approach crisis situations.After the initial uncoordinated response, Hamas, as the de-facto ruler of Gaza, has asserted its ability to control Gaza’s borders by putting in place quarantine measures for everyone who enters the strip, whether through the Erez checkpoint with Israel or the Rafah border with Egypt. They have also assigned 21 hospitals, hotels, and schools as compulsory quarantine centres for all arrivals from abroad, who have to stay in quarantine for 21 days. In comparison, there are 20 quarantine centres in the West Bank. These strict measures have prevented the spread of the virus in the community and confined it to the quarantine centres, with only 20 confirmed cases of COVID-19 as of 6 May. Gaza’s de-facto authorities have also been able to monitor markets and prices to ensure the availability of essential goods.Faced with a major crisis, Al-Qassam Brigades – the armed wing of Hamas – have tried to play the role of a national army by participating in efforts to fight the pandemic. They have relatively good logistical capacity and have contributed to the construction of two quarantine facilities with a total capacity of 1,000 units to prepare for more arrivals into Gaza. At the local level, municipalities have been disinfecting public spaces and facilities in addition to disseminating information about the virus and related preventative and protective measures. Other precautionary measures put in place include closing the weekly open markets, and restricting social gatherings like weddings and funerals.Despite COVID-19, it’s business as usual when it comes to international dealings with Gaza. The key parties in the conflict – Israel, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority – along with the main external actors – Egypt, the United Nations and Qatar – have continued to stick to their policies aimed at keeping the security situation under control and preventing further escalation. Although Israel has allowed entry of pharmaceutical supplies and medical equipment into Gaza during the pandemic, it has kept its restrictions on the movement of goods and people in place, while keeping a close eye on the development of the COVID-19 outbreak in Gaza – a major outbreak here would be a nightmare scenario for Israel.Meanwhile, Qatar has continued to address the humanitarian and economic needs of Gaza in an attempt to ease the pressure and prevent further escalation. It has pledged $150 million over the next six months to help families in Gaza from poorer backgrounds. Gaza has also been discussed by the Middle East Quartet, as Nickolay Mladenov, the UN special coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, expressed his concern about the risk of a disease outbreak in Gaza during a call with the members of the Quartet.Amid the pandemic, threats are still being exchanged between Israel and Hamas. The Israeli defence minister, Naftali Bennett, requested that in return for providing humanitarian aid to Gaza, Hamas agrees to return the remains of two Israeli soldiers killed in the 2014 war. While openly rejecting Bennett's statement, the leader of Hamas in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, has offered to move forward with a prisoner swap deal if Israel agrees to release elderly prisoners and detainees in addition to detained women and children. Though dealing with its own COVID-19 outbreak, Egypt has started to mediate between the two parties in an attempt to stabilize the situation and reach a prisoner swap deal.In the wake of this pandemic, lessons should be learned and policies should be examined, by all parties. Firstly, Israel should re-evaluate its security measures towards Gaza by easing restrictions on movement and trade which would have a positive impact on living conditions for Gaza’s population. The current measures have proven to be unsustainable and have contributed to the endless cycle of violence. Secondly, the intra-Palestinian division should end, to save Palestinians from contradictory policies and insufficient capacity on both sides. In fact, all previous attempts have failed to end this self-destructive division and this is due to the absence of political will on both sides. Elections seem to be the only viable path towards unity. Finally, efforts by the international community should go beyond stabilizing the security situation and ongoing crisis inside Gaza, where disruption of normal life is the norm.While the world has reacted to this pandemic with a whole host of new policies and emergency measures, it has remained business as usual when dealing with Gaza. Should COVID-19 spread in Gaza, its people – who have already paid the price of a continuous blockade and intra-Palestinian division for 13 years – will pay a heavy price yet again. However, this time it is not a crisis that they alone will have to face. Full Article
for Global Speaker Line-up for The London Conference 2015 By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 15:55:58 +0000 21 May 2015 Chatham House is pleased to announce the speaker line-up for its second annual London Conference, at Lancaster House on 1-2 June 2015. 20140521ShardLondon.jpg Photo by Sean Randall/Getty Images. Chatham House’s annual London Conference looks at the big issues that confront the world at this key moment in history, and at how to design the new systems and institutions that will shape the international landscape of the future.Speaker highlights Fernando Henrique Cardoso, President of Brazil (1995-03)Kevin Rudd, President, Asia Society Policy Institute; Prime Minister of Australia (2013; 2007-10)Yannis Stournaras, Governor, Bank of Greece; Minister of Finance, Greece (2012-14) Børge Brende, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Norway Sergey Karaganov, Foreign policy adviser to the Presidential Administration, Russia (2001-13) Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Secretary General, NATO (2009-14); Prime Minister of Denmark (2001-09) Dr Barham Ahmed Salih, Prime Minister of Iraqi Kurdistan (2009-12); Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq (2006-09) This year's London Conference takes places ahead of the G7 summit in Germany. The themes – demographic changes, urbanization, technological disruptions and resource constraints – are woven throughout the sessions. The aim is not only to discuss the major challenges that these issues present, but also ‘how’ and ‘by whom’ they should be addressed.Panel discussions will include The Changing Geopolitical Context: Reassessing Priorities and Approaches - In conversation with Kevin Rudd and Fernando Henrique Cardoso What are the implications of the United States substantially retreating from its global leadership role? How are new patterns and habits of digital connectivity changing relations between governments and their populations? Can countries count on technological advances to deliver new routes to economic growth and social inclusion? Is it more important to build national, regional or sectoral successes than to expect answers at the level of global governance?Click here for full list of speakers >Click here for full conference agenda > Editor's notes Journalists are asked to email pressoffice@chathamhouse.org if they wish to apply for press accreditation. This conference will be livestreamed on the Chatham House website.The conference is sponsored by Chevron, AIG, BP, Bloomberg and Diageo and has the support of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office.The recommended hashtag for this event will be #LondonConference Contacts Press Office +44 (0)20 7957 5739 Email Full Article
for Progress in tackling illegal logging slows as new trends offset effective reforms By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 13:32:40 +0000 15 July 2015 20150715IllegalLogging.jpg Photo: iStock Lire en français >阅读中国 >Efforts to address illegal logging and reduce the trade in illegal timber have borne fruit and prompted some positive reforms in producer countries, a new report from Chatham House has found. However, changes in the sector mean overall trade in illegal timber has not fallen in the last decade. EU and US policies designed to reduce demand for illegal timber have helped cut illegal imports to those markets. These reforms and the EU’s partnership agreements with producer countries have prompted improvements in forest governance and a fall in large-scale illegal timber production.But growth of demand in emerging markets means that the progressive policies of so-called ‘sensitive markets’ are now less influential. China is now the world’s largest importer and consumer of wood-based products, as well as a key processing hub. India, South Korea, and Vietnam are also growing markets. The increasing role of small-scale producers, whose activities often fall outside legal frameworks, and a rapid increase in illegal forest conversion, also present new challenges. Alison Hoare: 'The EU and US have spearheaded some progressive and effective reforms. However, the changing scale and nature of the problem demands more coordinated international action. To stop further deforestation and associated carbon emissions, and to help achieve global objectives for sustainable development, the EU and US need to maintain their leadership while other countries - especially China, Japan, India and South Korea - need to step up their efforts to tackle illegal logging.'The Chatham House report, which is based on the studies of 19 countries, which include key producers, consumers, or processors of timber, and is an update of a 2010 study found: Timber productionMore than 80 million m3 of timber was illegally produced in 2013 in the nine producer countries assessed, accounting for about one-third of their combined total production.An estimated 60% of this illegal timber is destined for these countries’ domestic markets.Small-scale producers are increasingly important – for example, in Cameroon, the DRC and Ghana, they account for an estimated 50, 90 and 70% respectively of annual timber production. The majority of this is illegal.For the nine producer countries, the area of forest under voluntary legality verification or sustainability certification schemes increased by nearly 80% between 2000 and 2013. Imports of illegal wood-based products In most of the consumer and producer countries assessed, the volume of illegal imports of wood-based products fell during the period 2000–13. The exceptions were China, and India and Vietnam where the volume of illegal imports more than doubled. As a proportion of the whole, illegal imports declined for nearly all countries. However, at the global level, the proportion of illegal timber imports remained steady at 10% - a result of the growth of the Chinese market. The EU and US The volumes of illegal imports into the UK, France and the Netherlands nearly halved over the period 2000-13, from just under 4 million m3 to 2 million m3. The volume of illegal imports into the US increased between 2000 and 2006, from around 5 to 9 million m3, and then declined to just under 6 million m3 in 2013. In 2013, more than 60% of illegal imports of wood-based products to the UK and US came from China.ChinaThe volume of illegal imports into China doubled between 2000 and 2013 from 17 to 33 million m3; but as a proportion of the whole illegal imports fell, from 26 to 17%. The volume of exports of wood-based products (legal and illegal) from the nine producer countries to China nearly tripled, from 12 million m3 in 2000 to 34 million m3 in 2013.The Chatham House report makes the following recommendations:The EU and US need to maintain and reinforce current efforts Other countries need to take stronger action – China in particular, but also India, Japan and South KoreaStrong international cooperation is needed to maintain & reinforce current efforts – the G20 could provide a forum to galvanise international actionProducer countries need to focus on strengthening efforts to tackle corruption, improving legality within the small-scale sector, and reforming land-use governance Alison Hoare: 'Developing countries are losing significant amounts of potential revenue from illegal logging, which is also causing the loss and degradation of forests, depleting livelihoods, and contributing to social conflict and corruption. Tackling illegal logging and strengthening forest governance are essential for achieving critical climate and development goals. Having seen the progress that can be made, it’s imperative that governments agree to work together to rise to new challenges and promote a more sustainable forest sector for the benefit of all.' Read the report >> Editor's notes For more information or to arrange interviews please contact: Alison Hoare, report author, Chatham House, +44 (0) 2073143651Amy Barry, Di:ga Communications, +44 (0) 7980 664397The report and associated infographics will be available to download from the project website and the Chatham House website from 15 July 2015. These findings are part of Chatham House’s Indicators of Illegal Logging and Related Trade project, which looks at consumer, producer and processing countries. Follow us on Twitter: @CH_logging External expert spokespeople available for comment: Téodyl Nkuintchua, Programmes Coordinator, Centre pour l’Environnement et le Développement, Cameroon, (+237) 674 37 96 43, Skype: teodyl Rod Taylor, Director, Forests, WWF International via Huma Khan, +1 202-203-8432 Approved quote: 'The report shows the progress made in keeping illegally-sourced wood out of Western markets, but also highlights the urgent need to focus more on emerging countries and informal markets. It also highlights the global problem of illegal forest clearing, and the need for new policy measures to help sound forest stewardship compete with the conversion of forests to other land-uses.' Ben Cashore, Professor of Environmental Governance and Political Science, Yale University, +1 203 432-3009 Mauricio Volvodic, Executive Director, Imaflora, Brazil, +55 19 3429 0810, +55 19 98157 2129 Chris Davies MP, Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Forestry and Conservative MP for Brecon and Radnorshire, via Simon Francis, 020 7061 6252 Approved quote: 'While it is encouraging that illegal timber imports to the UK have halved, it is vital that we remove the market for illegally logged timber in the UK altogether. One way is to ensure we have a sustainable forestry and wood processing sector that can supply more of our timber needs. Government can aid this by enabling the sector to plant more trees now and in the future.' Full Article
for Global health system needs reform to help deliver SDGs, says new report By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 14:31:11 +0000 24 September 2015 20150922RethinkingGlobalHealthArchitecture.jpg A Pakistani health worker gives polio vaccines to children in the suburbs of Lahore, Pakistan, February 2015. Photo: Associated Press. The global health system has contributed significantly to improved health and life expectancy in recent decades. However, the existing architecture needs to be reformed in order to address future challenges and meet the health targets in the Sustainable Development Goals. Rethinking the Global Health System, a new Chatham House report, analyses how fit for purpose the current system is and identifies priority areas for reform. The Ebola crisis has shown that weak systems make individual countries more vulnerable and that strong, resilient and equitable systems at country level are needed to protect global health security. There is a pressing need for enhanced global disease surveillance and detection capacity, as well as improved international coordination in responding to emerging health threats.In addition, addressing determinants of health outside the health sector requires cross-sectoral collaboration and linkages to other policy domains. Historically, the focus has rested on directly reducing illness and death, but the need to address other influences on health outcomes – safe drinking water, proper sewage treatment, good education – is now well recognized.The report says that stronger leadership in global health is therefore required and the report lends support to calls for the creation of a new organization that would bring together United Nations agencies with health-related mandates – UN-HEALTH. Just as UNAIDS created a more coherent response for HIV, a UN-HEALTH organization could achieve a similar but more wide-reaching effect by bringing together and streamlining all UN agencies working on global health issues.Professor David Harper, who led the Chatham House project that resulted in the report, said: 'This report is intended to make a substantial contribution to the international debate on what the world will require of the health architecture of the future. It offers some options for political leaders to consider, but it is just a starting point. More work is urgently needed to develop the ideas introduced in this project and to help generate the high-level political traction that is so vital in any change process.' Editor's notes Read the report Rethinking the Global Health System from the Centre on Global Health Security at Chatham House. For all enquiries, including requests to speak with the authors of this paper, please contact the press office. Contacts Press Office +44 (0)20 7957 5739 Email Full Article
for Radical new business model for pharmaceutical industry needed to avert antibiotic resistance crisis By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:19:24 +0000 7 October 2015 20151009Antibiotics.jpg High-level complex of physiologically active antibiotic substance extracted from blastema at the Arctic Innovation Center (AIC) of Ammosov, North-Eastern Federal University (NEFU) in Yakutsk. Photo: Yuri Smityuk/ITAR-TASS Photo/Corbis. Revenues for pharmaceutical companies need to be 'delinked' from sales of antibiotics to avoid their over-use and avert a public health crisis, says a new report from the think-tank Chatham House.Over-use of antibiotics is contributing to the growing resistance of potentially deadly bacteria to existing drugs, threatening a public health crisis in the near future. The report notes that, by 2050, failing to tackle antibiotic resistance could result in 10 million premature deaths per year. Novel antibiotics to combat resistant pathogens are thus desperately needed, but market incentives are exacerbating the problem. Towards a New Global Business Model for Antibiotics: Delinking Revenues from Sales states that, 'The current business model requires high levels of antibiotic use in order to recover the costs of R&D. But mitigating the spread of resistance demands just the opposite: restrictions on the use of antibiotics.' To tackle this catch-22 problem, the Centre on Global Health Security at Chatham House recommends the establishment of a global body to implement a radical new business model for the industry, which would encourage investment and promote global access to - and conservation of - antibiotics. The current business model has several perverse effects. As R&D is an inherently risky and costly endeavour, the industry is chronically under-investing in new treatments. Today, few large pharmaceutical companies retain active antibacterial drug discovery programmes. Re-stoking the industry's interest in antibiotics would be one of the primary roles of the new body. Secondly, the need to recover sunk cost under the current business model encourages both high prices and over-marketing of successful drugs, making potentially life-saving treatments unaffordable to many in developing countries, while simultaneously encouraging over-use in developed markets and increasing resistance. The new global body would address these challenges by ‘delinking’ pharmaceutical revenues from sales of antibiotics. It would do this by directly financing the research and development of new drugs, which it would then acquire at a price based on production costs rather than the recovery of R&D expenses. Acquisition could take the form of procurement contracts with companies, the purchase of full IP rights or other licensing mechanisms. This would enable it to promote global access to antibiotics while simultaneously restricting over-use. Conservation would be promoted through education, regulation and good clinical practice, with the report recommending that 'proven conservation methods such as antibiotic stewardship programmes… be incentivized and implemented immediately.'Priorities for R&D financing would be based on a comprehensive assessment of threats arising from resistance. Antibiotics would qualify for the highest level of financial incentives if they combat resistant pathogens posing a serious threat to human health. Finance for the new body would come from individual nation states, with the report noting that this could 'begin with a core group of countries with significant research activity and large antibiotic markets, (though) it is envisaged that all high income countries should make an appropriate financial contribution.' It is not yet clear exactly how much funding would be necessary to combat resistance, but with inaction expected to cost $100 trillion in cumulative economic damage, the report argues that 'an additional global investment of up to $3.5 billion a year (about 10 per cent of the current value of global sales of antibiotics) would be a bargain.' Editor's notes Towards a New Global Business Model for Antibiotics: Delinking Revenues from Sales, is a Chatham House report edited by Charles Clift, Unni Gopinathan, Chantal Morel, Kevin Outterson, John-Arne Røttingen and Anthony So.The report is embargoed until 00.01 GMT Friday 9 October.For more information, or to request an interview with the editors, contact the press office. Contacts Press Office +44 (0)20 7957 5739 Email Full Article
for By enabling formal trade, Nigeria can unleash its vast potential By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 16:18:19 +0000 3 December 2015 20151207Nigeriabooming.jpg Nigeria’s booming informal trade is costly for society, business and government, yet a critical opportunity exists to formalize such trade and drive more sustainable and less volatile growth, argues a new report from Chatham House.According to one estimate, informal activity accounts for up to 64 per cent of Nigeria’s GDP. Nigeria's Booming Borders: The Drivers and Consequences of Unrecorded Trade finds that this is a result of obstacles that impede trading through formal channels. These drivers include bureaucratic burdens and other factors, such as:The need for Nigerian businesses to produce at least nine documents in order to send an export shipment and at least 13 in order to bring in an import consignment.Rigid and dysfunctional foreign-exchange regulations that push most smaller traders into the incompletely regulated parallel exchange market.Corruption and unofficial ‘taxation’, especially on major border highways, which delegitimize formal channels and encourage the use of smuggling routes.As a result, the state loses direct tax revenues that would be generated by formal cross-border trade. This is not just siphoned into the informal economy; some is lost entirely. For example, many shippers opt to dock in neighbouring countries rather than deal with the expense and difficulty of using Nigeria’s ports.Informal trade also undermines the social contract between the private sector and government. The state lacks tax revenues to pay its officials, improve infrastructure or implement reforms, while traders feel the government provides no services in return for any taxes they might pay.‘Every day tens of thousands of unofficial payments are made, none destined for the government. Policy-makers need to create an environment that encourages trade to flow through formal channels and capture lost revenue’, says co-author Leena Koni Hoffmann.‘Formalization would assist Nigeria to pursue more high-quality, high-tech economic activity at a time when rising labour costs in Asia are creating scope for Nigerian manufacturers to compete’, she adds.The report makes a number of recommendations for how Nigeria could encourage more formal trade, including:Strengthening the resources and capacity of the Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment to coordinate action across key government ministries, departments and agencies, as well as public and private stakeholders.Prioritizing engagement in the development of Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) trade policies and fully implementing the ECOWAS Protocol on Free Movement of Persons to reduce harassment at borders.Allowing banks to operate simple services for small and medium-sized businesses to make trade payments directly from Nigerian naira to CFA francs and vice versa.Improving basic facilities that support traders, including improving the efficiency of border posts, installing truck parks and all-weather surfacing on market access roads, and introducing online booking for trucks to enter ports.Separating responsibilities for assessing duty and tariff liabilities from revenue collection in order to reduce opportunities for corruption, an approach already tested with success by the Lagos State Internal Revenue Service.Increasing funding and technical support for the National Bureau of Statistics, which has a significant role to play in measuring and capturing more of Nigeria’s external trade.Interviews conducted for the report reveal that business people would welcome the opportunity to pay taxes, but only if they received assurance that these payments would represent a contract with government guaranteeing that conditions for business would be improved.‘As Africa’s largest economy, formalizing external trade would allow Nigeria to fulfil its potential as the trading engine of the West and Central African economy and shape the business landscape across the region,’ says co-author Paul Melly. Editor's notes Read Nigeria's Booming Borders: the Drivers and Consequences of Unrecorded Trade (embargoed until 17:00 GMT on Monday 7 December).To request an interview with the authors, contact the press office.Nigeria’s recorded external trade for 2014 was $135.8 billion.Estimate of informal activity as a percentage of GDP from Jonathan Emenike Ogbuabor and Victor A. Malaolu, ‘Size and Causes of the Informal Sector of the Nigerian Economy: Evidence from Error Correction Mimic Model’, Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2013. Contacts Press Office +44 (0)20 7957 5739 Email Full Article
for Stavros Niarchos Foundation makes £3m grant for expansion at Chatham House By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:54:27 +0000 18 December 2015 The Royal Institute of International Affairs is pleased to announce a Cornerstone Contribution of £3m by the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) towards the Chatham House Second Century Initiative to support the expansion and renovation of the institute’s ground floor. 20141208CHfront.jpg Following the institute’s purchase of the ground floor of the adjoining building (Ames House) in 2013, this generous grant from SNF will enable Chatham House to occupy this space and undertake a significant renovation project to create the ‘Stavros Niarchos Foundation Floor’ at Chatham House.This will help the institute meet the growing demand for its research and analysis and take full advantage of its location in central London, given the city’s exceptional international connectivity and status as a global hub.The SNF Floor will contain state-of-the-art meeting facilities for the institute’s research staff and fellows of the Queen Elizabeth II Academy for Leadership in International Affairs, and will significantly enhance the institute’s convening and communication capacities. To this end, the renovated space will include a ‘simulation room’, the Asfari Centre and a media room, as well as new breakout and meeting areas. The SNF Floor will be directly accessible from the ground floor of 10 St James’s Square, the institute’s main building.The SNF grant is an important step forward for the institute’s Second Century Initiative which aims to ensure the institute’s long-term financial independence. The initiative has three principal targets:● to endow a number of Research Fellowships and interdisciplinary Research Centres;● to secure endowments to support the Queen Elizabeth II Academy for Leadership in International Affairs in order to nurture independent thinking on international policy among a new generation from around the world; and● to secure the necessary physical space and infrastructure here in London to meet the growing demand for and scope of the institute’s work.Dr Robin Niblett, director of Chatham House said: ‘We are enormously grateful to the Stavros Niarchos Foundation for this transformational grant which will significantly enhance Chatham House’s capacity to serve as a trusted and creative space for addressing the most important challenges in international affairs.’Andreas Dracopoulos, co-president of SNF’s board of directors, said: ‘We are delighted to support the growth of Chatham House, one of Europe’s leading independent, non partisan policy institutes, at a time when the risks to global prosperity and stability are expanding. Chatham House’s reputation for providing world-leading analysis needs to remain as strong as ever and I am confident that this grant will help the institute take its research and convening activities in new interactive and interdisciplinary directions.’ Editor's notes Chatham House launched its Second Century Initiative in November 2014 as part of its preparations for its centenary in 2020. The Initiative aims to help secure the institute’s financial base and independence by strengthening its capacity to innovate in an increasingly competitive field of thought leadership and policy ideas. Renovation work on the ground floor of Ames House is expected to begin in the spring of 2016.The Stavros Niarchos Foundation is one of the world’s leading international philanthropic organizations, making grants in the areas of arts and culture, education, health, medicine and sports, and social welfare. The Foundation funds organizations and projects that exhibit strong leadership and sound management and are expected to achieve a broad, lasting and positive impact for society at large. The Foundation also seeks actively to support projects that facilitate the formation of public-private partnerships as an effective means for serving public welfare. Full Article
for Oxford University Press to publish International Affairs By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:55:35 +0000 11 March 2016 Chatham House has signed an agreement with Oxford University Press (OUP) to publish International Affairs from 2017. International Affairs, the institute’s peer-reviewed journal, has published high-quality, policy relevant articles for over 90 years and its global readership includes many of the world’s pre-eminent academic thinkers, policy-makers and practitioners. From January, when its current contract to publish with Wiley-Blackwell ends, OUP will assume responsibility to publish, distribute and market the journal to new and existing readers and audiences.Vanessa Lacey, senior publisher for Oxford Journals, commented on the acquisition: 'We are thrilled to have been chosen by Chatham House to publish their prestigious journal International Affairs from 2017. International Affairs is a critically important, ‘must read’ journal of relevance to international relations academics and policy-makers alike. We look forward to partnering with Chatham House and International Affairs’ exceptional editorial team to reinforce its position as a global leader in its field.'Robin Niblett, director of Chatham House, said: 'Chatham House is delighted to have teamed up with OUP, the world’s leading university press, to publish International Affairs. In terms of shared values, reputation and vision, OUP is an ideal partner for International Affairs and Chatham House. This is an exciting opportunity to develop further the journal’s digital outreach and its engagement with new audiences around the world.'Andrew Dorman, commissioning editor of International Affairs also commented: 'The IA team is really pleased to be working in partnership with OUP to produce the journal. We share a common vision to publish cutting edge articles from across the discipline, which influence both the academic and practitioner communities in all parts of the world.'OUP adds International Affairs, the foremost UK international relations journal and one of the top ten internationally, to a growing portfolio of respected international relations-related journals. Full Article
for The refugee crisis: A European call for action By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 10:02:48 +0000 18 March 2016 Open Letter by the conveners of the Vision Europe Summit regarding the refugee crisis in Europe and the necessity to act now. European leaders need to implement common European solutions to the refugee crisis. Only joint solutions can credibly and effectively reduce the growing human suffering and social and political turmoil.The refugee crisis poses a serious challenge, both to the welfare of refugees and to European societies. In 2015, more than 1.5 million migrants crossed into the European Union. From Italy to Poland, and from Greece to Germany, countries face immense challenges in responding to requests for humanitarian aid, asylum, and integration. The associated integration challenges in housing, language, work and welfare are already formidable. Failing to manage them properly poses serious threats to social cohesion and political stability.European countries have had sufficient time to analyse and assess the long-standing challenges which created the current crisis. Now it is time to act – not individually and at the expense of others, but jointly and in a spirit of European solidarity. This is why Vision Europe – a partnership between seven leading think tanks and foundations in Europe – will in 2016 focus its efforts on providing practical solutions to the current refugee crisis, and its root causes. We, the seven signatories, writing in an individual capacity, see an urgent need for a common European approach, to compliment local and national efforts.At present, there is no consensus among member states on how to respond to the crisis, neither on the objectives to be achieved or the methods to be used. But disagreements on substance must be overcome now. Building on current discussions, we propose a comprehensive agenda at the EU level, with five major dimensions.First, it is important to control the EU’s external borders so that only refugees fleeing war and persecution, who have a legitimate right to seek asylum, can enter and potentially remain in the EU. The porous nature of the EU’s external borders has meant an unacceptable loss of control in the eyes of many EU citizens and has raised false hopes for irregular migrants trying to enter the Union. The control of the borders of the Schengen Area should be a collective effort of the EU and all Member States, coordinated by European Institutions with professional staff and with financial support provided to Member States at the EU’s periphery. Regaining control of the EU’s external borders is essential to preserve open internal borders.Second, beyond implementing the already agreed upon relocation of 160,000 refugees from Greece and Italy, the EU should develop a system which distributes a much larger number of refugees across the Union, directly from the hotspots in the EU and the neighbouring counties such as Turkey, Jordan or Lebanon. Member States not willing to host refugees themselves could choose to make a primarily financial contribution to the system. A Migration Solidarity Fund should be created to manage this compensatory system. Turkey’s efforts to reduce the crossings in the Aegean Sea should be matched by a willingness among EU Member States to take in refugees in an orderly manner. The Conclusions from the European Council seem to move in the right direction in this regard.The third measure should be to improve, standardize and speed up the processes to determine asylum applications. The sooner refugees know whether they can stay, the more energy can be invested in their integration into host countries’ societies and in family reunions. The sooner a decision is taken, the fairer and more feasible it is to send back those whose requests are refused in full respect of international law and human rights. And EU members cannot afford to have vastly different standards in granting asylum status. Under international law, there can be no limit set on the number of those eligible to request asylum.As a fourth measure, we recommend expanding efforts at the EU level to improve the living conditions of refugees staying in countries close to their countries of origin. Many refugees want to return to their homes as soon as the situation becomes safe again. They should not be driven to start the hazardous journey to the European Union only because of unbearable conditions in the countries where they are currently sheltering.Last but not least, the EU and its Member States should work vigorously towards ending the violent conflicts that are the principal causes of the crisis. Europe must invest heavily in the Syria peace process, in particular. The EU must also raise the ambition and resources of its Neighbourhood Policy, with a focus on helping to stabilise the region and on improving the living conditions and economic opportunities in the Southern neighbourhood.But action is also required at the national level, especially in the EU countries where significant numbers of refugees have received or are expected to receive asylum. The distribution of refugees across municipalities and regions should be fair and should come with adequate support and resources from the national level, emphasising education and language training. The recognition of professional competences and support to enter the labour market should be available at a very early stage. Within our societies, we need a dialogue between refugees and the host society. It should be made clear that respect for human rights, democratic values and cultural norms is indispensable for a prolonged stay in the respective European host country.Coming from seven European countries, with different national policies and approaches to the refugee crisis, the foundations and think tanks of Vision Europe are working together to advance new ideas, to frame an informed debate and to emphasize the benefits of common European solutions to Europe-wide problems. Europe is strong enough to manage the migration challenges, but only if political leaders act now, act responsibly and use the resources at their disposal, including support for civil society working in this area. We must not leave the public space to populists and nationalists offering false promises. Only a European solution will be workable and sustainable. Aart de GeusChairman and Chief Executive Officer, Bertelsmann Stiftung, GermanyArtur Santos SilvaPresident, Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, PortugalGuntram WolffDirector, Bruegel, BelgiumMikko KosonenPresident, Finnish Innovation Fund Sitra, FinlandPiero GastaldoSecretary General, Compagnia di San Paolo, ItalyRobin NiblettDirector, Chatham House, United KingdomYves BertonciniDirector, Jacques Delors Institute, FranceEmbed this image <img src="https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/images/2016-03-18-VisionEurope.jpg" alt="" title="" /> Full Article
for TTIP will create new risks for the West whether it succeeds or fails By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:23:12 +0000 14 July 2016 A new paper by Chatham House argues that failure of the negotiations could signal the demise of the Western-led international order, particularly now the UK has decided to leave the EU, while success would also bring risks from the response to TTIP by economic and geopolitical rivals. 2016-07-14-ttip.jpg The container ship Osaka Express, operated by Hapag-Lloyd AG, leaves the container terminal at the port in Southampton, UK, on 2 October 2015. Photo: Getty Images. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) currently being negotiated between the European Union (EU) and the United States has been sold by politicians on both sides as a strategic opportunity to shape globalization to the benefit of both parties. But a new research paper from Chatham House finds that the risks of such an ambitious project are significant – whether or not the current deadlock in negotiations can be overcome – and the UK vote for Brexit increases those risks.The primary strategic benefit of TTIP would be to enable the United States and the EU to set the ‘rules of the road’ for international trade in the 21st century. TTIP’s backers hope that if the EU and the United States can agree on a new set of standards, the power of their combined markets will lead other countries to adopt the same rules. According to Realizing TTIP’s Strategic Potential one of the risks of agreeing such far-reaching rules is that they set the bar too high for other countries to accept. By imposing restrictive rules unilaterally on, for example, state-owned enterprises, TTIP could provoke retaliation and encourage other countries to establish alternative rules.TTIP also has the potential to attract other countries to align themselves economically and politically with the EU and the United States due to their ‘soft-power’. But this benefit will only materialise if strategically important countries, such as Turkey, are able to join. The research finds that the demands placed on Turkey may be too high for this to be a realistic prospect in the near future. Ukraine is another strategic country that could be targeted for expansion of TTIP, but extending membership to Ukraine would be regarded by Russia as a 'serious escalation' by the West in their confrontation.The paper argues there would be benefits to the UK, the EU and the United States if the UK were to join TTIP after the UK leaves the EU. For the UK it could provide the only real prospect of being able to influence international standards and a relatively quick means to conclude a comprehensive trade deal with the United States. For the EU and the United States, it would ensure the scale and attractiveness of TTIP is not reduced by the loss of one of the major European economies. It would also provide an immediate opportunity to establish TTIP as a plurilateral deal that is open to new members. The process would be made easier if the UK were to maintain an active role in the development of the EU position on TTIP, while the UK is still a member of the EU. This would mean that the UK would be in a position to accept the terms required to join TTIP relatively quickly upon exiting the EU. There will inevitably be sensitivities in the UK, other EU member states and the EU institutions about this, but it is in the strategic interests of all parties.The most immediate risk for TTIP, however, is of failure. Despite 14 rounds of negotiations so far there is still disagreement over what should be included in the scope of the negotiations, including issues such as financial services regulation, which the United States is determined to exclude, and how to handle politically sensitive questions such as investor-state dispute settlement, which has become a hot-button issue in the EU. Even if an agreement is reached it must then be ratified by a sceptical US Congress, where there are challenges on both sides of the aisle, and by EU institutions and member states. The hostility to TTIP in many parts of Europe, especially in Germany, is not encouraging.If the negotiations break down, or a deal is reached that falls short of the ambition set for it, this would send a damaging signal to the rest of the world about the ability of the EU and the United States to work together. It could also hasten the demise of their influence. For the EU, the stakes are greater now that the UK has decided to leave the EU.The paper notes that the EU-US trade relationship is still the largest bilateral relationship in the world 'for now', but that in most sectors the lead over China is decreasing. If they miss this opportunity, the United States and the EU may not get another chance to set the standards that will govern the global trading order in the 21st century.Report author, Gregor Irwin, said:'TTIP negotiations are hanging in the balance. If they succeed TTIP has the potential to shape the next generation of trade rules and ensure a transatlantic vision for the international trading system prevails. 'For now, both sides are facing off against each other in the negotiations and failing to focus enough on the strategic risks and opportunities from TTIP. If the full strategic potential from TTIP is to be realized they must pay more attention to how other countries are likely to respond.'The UK’s decision to leave to leave the EU should sharpen the incentives that both sides have to conclude a deal. It is in everyone’s interest to ensure that the UK is able to join TTIP once the UK leaves the EU.'Further opening up TTIP to include Turkey could create an alternative anchor for its economic and political relationship with the EU, short of EU membership. It could transform Turkey’s relationship with the EU, just as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has transformed Mexico’s relationship with the US.' Editor's notes Read Realizing TTIP’s Strategic Potential here.This research paper is authored by Gregor Irwin, Chief Economist of the strategic advisory firm Global Counsel and former Chief Economist of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.Gregor Irwin is available for interview. For interview requests please contact the press office. Full Article
for Chatham House is pleased to announce Koc Holding’s support for the Turkey Project By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:35:10 +0000 22 February 2017 Chatham House is delighted to announce Koc Holding’s support for the Turkey Project, based in the Europe Programme. The project aims to analyze and highlight important issues emanating from Turkey’s geostrategic position and bring a Turkish perspective to important regional developments. Areas of research include Turkey’s evolving relationship with Europe and its contribution to the new ‘silk road’ known as the Belt and Road initiative, aimed at strengthening trade and infrastructure links between Asia and Europe.Mr Ali Y Koc, vice chairman of Koc Holding, has also joined the Chatham House Panel of Senior Advisers, to which he will bring his experience and perspectives on Turkey and on wider global political, economic and social issues.Koc Holding is the leading business group in Turkey with extensive activities in the manufacturing, energy, defence and finance sectors. Mr Ali Y Koc is a board member and executive committee member of Koc Holding and chairman of the 1907 Fenerbahce Association and the National Competitiveness Research Association. He is a board member of the Foreign Economic Relations Board (DEIK), Endeavor Turkey and vice president of the Turkish Industrialists' and Business Association (TUSIAD). He is also a member of the Bank of America Global Advisory Council.Robin Niblett, director of Chatham House, said: 'We are grateful to Mr Ali Y Koc and Koc Holding for supporting this initiative, which builds on our established track record of work on Turkey. Turkey plays an increasingly important strategic role, and through this project, Chatham House will be able to expand its analysis and activities in this area. I am also delighted that Chatham House will benefit from the input and expertise of Mr Koc as a member of the institute’s Panel of Senior Advisers.'Mr Ali Y Koc said: 'Koc Holding is pleased to establish a long-term partnership with Chatham House and support a distinctive research project on Turkey at a world-leading think-tank. We look forward to sharing our insights on Turkey and other significant issues in international affairs among such a distinguished globally-renowned group of individuals in foreign policy, business and civil society on the Panel of Senior Advisers.' Full Article
for Moving Energy Initiative Starts Clean Energy Projects for Refugees By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 12:25:21 +0000 26 June 2017 The Moving Energy Initiative starts four new clean energy projects for refugees. Combo_large_LCP (2).jpg Refugees in Burkina Faso, Kenya and Jordan will benefit from greater access to affordable, clean energy for domestic use and to power ‘microbusinesses’, following a grant scheme from the Moving Energy Initiative which launches today.The Moving Energy Initiative is supporting projects ranging from a solar-powered ICT hub in Kenya’s Kakuma camp and vegetable growing zones watered by solar-powered pumps in Burkina Faso’s Goudoubo camp, to reliable energy generation for north Jordan’s Al Mafraq hospital where Syrian refuges and local residents access health care.Embed this image <img src="https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/images/Combo_large_LCP.jpg" alt="" title="" />In total, four projects will be implemented over the next 12 months, with all involving training for refugees and local staff to use and maintain the clean energy technologies. They aim to deliver tangible reductions in CO2 emissions whilst increasing access to vital services, saving costs and providing livelihood opportunities for local communities and refugees. The projects are also expected to fuel entrepreneurship, opening up the potential for setting up businesses, small shops and restaurants which can expand beyond this initial grant. Project partners were chosen through an open and competitive process kicked off in February 2017 in Burkina Faso, Kenya and Jordan. Bidders were asked to demonstrate their ability to provide solutions that reduce fossil fuel consumption and increase access to energy in camps. The successful projects were chosen on the basis of the applicants’ ability to innovate in a humanitarian setting, as well as their track record and their approach to sustainability.Find out more about why these projects are needed and the impact they aim to have by watching the video: Check out the Moving Energy Initiative website for more information.Keep updated on the progress of these projects as they develop by following us on Twitter @CH_EERD. Related contentMoving Energy Initiative: Sustainable Energy for Refugees and Displaced PeopleThe Moving Energy Initiative Expert WorkshopToolkits for the Moving Energy Initiative Full Article
for Queen Elizabeth II Academy for Leadership Announces 2018/19 Fellows By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:16:49 +0000 1 October 2018 The Queen Elizabeth II Academy for Leadership in International Affairs, based at Chatham House, is delighted to announce the arrival of its new cohort of Academy fellows. 2018-10-01-CH.jpg The Academy was launched by Her Majesty the Queen in November 2014 to offer potential and established leaders from around the world the opportunity to spend ten months as Academy fellows and develop the tools needed to address the major policy challenges and critical issues facing the world today.Academy fellows are drawn from government and the broader policy community, the private sector, media and civil society. During their time at the Academy, fellows deepen their understanding of critical issues, learn new skills, develop their networks and propose new ideas and solutions to complex policy challenges and opportunities.Dr Leslie Vinjamuri, Dean, QEII Academy for Leadership in International Affairs says:'Chatham House recognizes the need for inspirational and effective leadership in today’s complex and rapidly changing global environment. We remain absolutely committed to the mission of developing leadership skills and feel privileged to welcome the 2018-19 Academy Fellows. The Queen Elizabeth II Academy is uniquely well-positioned, drawing on the historical depth of expertise at Chatham House, our international and national networks, and the dynamism of London to develop skills, knowledge, and global insights that benefit emerging and accomplished leaders across diverse sectors in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia and the Americas.'Academy Fellows 2018/19Rustam AnshbaRustam’s research will explore the prospects for transforming the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict. He will be hosted by the Russia and Eurasia Programme. His fellowship is supported by the Robert Bosch Stiftung.Rita DayoubRita will analyse attacks against healthcare systems during conflicts in Syria and South Sudan. She will be hosted by the Centre on Global Health Security. Her fellowship is supported by the Asfari Foundation.Isabel DunstanIsabel’s research will focus on digital literacy among women as a means to counter radicalization and intolerance in Indonesia. She will be hosted by the Asia-Pacific Programme. Her fellowship is supported by Mr Richard Hayden.Sophia IgnatidouSophia will examine the political and security implications of Artificial Intelligence. She will be hosted by the International Security Department. Her fellowship is supported by the Stavros Niarchos Foundation.Anna KorbutAnna’s research will examine the current media landscape in Ukraine and its transformative potential. She will be hosted by the Russia and Eurasia Programme. Her fellowship is supported by the Robert Bosch Stiftung.Damir KurtagicDamir will research the challenges and possibilities of private sector engagement in Sub-Saharan Africa. He will be hosted by the Africa Programme. His fellowship is supported by the Robert Bosch Stiftung.Zaki MehchyZaki will research the role and dynamics of non-state actors in Syria and their relationship with state institutions. He will be hosted by the Middle East and North Africa Programme. His fellowship is supported by the Asfari Foundation.Anne NyambaneAnne will examine the synergies and trade-offs involved in the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). She will be hosted by the Energy, Environment and Resources Department. Her fellowship is supported by the Mo Ibrahim Foundation.MasterclassThe Academy is also pleased to welcome three Masterclass participants from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Full Article
for Chatham House appoints Tim Benton as Research Director for Energy, Environment and Resources By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Thu, 30 May 2019 08:44:55 +0000 30 May 2019 Chatham House is pleased to announce that Professor Tim Benton has been appointed as research director of the Energy, Environment and Resources Department. BentonTim3.jpg He brings substantial expertise on food systems and environmental change to the role and will focus on establishing new initiatives at the intersection of research and policymaking.Tim was appointed as a distinguished visiting fellow of Chatham House in the Energy, Environment and Resources Department in 2016. He has since contributed to the institute in a number of ways, not least through leading the GCRF-AFRICAP project which aims to enhance policy making in Sub-Saharan Africa, through building climate-smart food systems.Tim’s research focuses on food security and building food systems that are resilient and sustainable, working within the broader areas of ecology, natural resources and climate change impacts. He has published over 150 academic papers, most tackling the core themes of agriculture’s environmental impact and more generally how systems respond to environmental change. He is a lead author of the upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report on climate change and land. He is also coordinating lead author on international risks for the UK’s Climate Change Risk Assessment, which draws on his broader interests in sustainable finance, trade and energy. He has advised other governments as well as global companies on related issues.Tim joins Chatham House in his new capacity from the University of Leeds where he is dean of strategic research initiatives. Prior to this, from 2011 to 2016, Tim was the champion of the UK’s Global Food Security programme, a large multi-agency partnership of the UK’s public bodies involved in addressing challenges around food. He has also been research dean in the Faculty of Biological Sciences, and head of department, at Leeds.Dr Robin Niblett, director of Chatham House, said: 'Tim’s wealth of experience will be especially valuable as we build up our interdisciplinary Chatham House research theme of promoting sustainable growth. We look forward to welcoming Tim to his new role in early July.'Tim Benton said: 'I am honoured to be joining Chatham House as Research Director for Energy, Environment and Resources. Chatham House has a global reputation in these areas, on which we can build. Informed analysis, combined with effective action to transition towards sustainable economies, is needed now, more than ever.'About the Energy, Environment and Resources DepartmentThe Energy, Environment and Resources department at Chatham House seeks to advance the international debate on energy, environment and development policy and to influence and enable decision-makers – governments, NGOs and business – to take well-informed decisions that contribute to achieving sustainable development. Independent of any actor or ideology, we do this by carrying out innovative research on major policy challenges, bringing together diverse perspectives and constituencies and injecting new ideas into the international arena.Tim Benton takes over the role from Rob Bailey who has joined Marsh & McLennan Insights as Director, Climate Resilience. Full Article
for Sir David Attenborough and the BBC Studios Natural History Unit awarded Chatham House Prize 2019 for ocean advocacy By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:13:54 +0000 19 November 2019 The 2019 Chatham House Prize is awarded to Sir David Attenborough and Julian Hector, head of BBC Studios Natural History Unit, for the galvanizing impact of the Blue Planet II series on tackling ocean plastic pollution. 2019-06-06-DavidAttenboroughB.jpg The Chatham House Prize is awarded to the person, persons or organization who is deemed to have made the most significant contribution to the improvement of international relations in the previous year. The presentation ceremony and panel discussion with the winners will be livestreamed on Wednesday.The Blue Planet II series highlighted the damage caused by discarded plastics to the world’s oceans and marine wildlife. It is estimated that there are more than 150 million tonnes of plastic in the world’s oceans; resulting in the deaths of 1 million birds and 100,000 sea mammals each year. Dr Robin Niblett, director of Chatham House said: ‘Plastic pollution is one of the gravest challenges facing the world’s oceans, and undoubtedly an international issue. Sir David and the BBC Studios Natural History Unit played an instrumental role in helping to put this issue at the forefront of the public agenda. Blue Planet II spurred a passionate global response and generated clear behavioural and policy change.’This year the G20 agreed on an international framework to address marine plastic litter, acknowledging the increasing urgency of the issue and the need for an international solution. This follows action from the UK government, including a plan to ban common plastic items and investment in global research.See full award citationRead more about Chatham House's research work in this areaOther nomineesDr Niblett thanked Chatham House members for voting and acknowledged the outstanding achievements of the 2019 nominees:Abiy Ahmed, prime minister of Ethiopia, nominated for his efforts to transform civic leadership and promote plural politics, free speech and peace in Ethiopia Katrín Jakobsdóttir, prime minister of Iceland, nominated for her commitment to gender equality and women’s financial inclusion in Iceland EventThe Prize was presented to Sir David and Julian Hector by Her Majesty The Queen at Chatham House on Wednesday 20 November.Watch video from the eventFor more information please contactChatham House Press Officepressoffice@chathamhouse.org+44 (0)207 957 5739BBC Studios Natural History Unit Communications ManagerLynn.li@bbc.co.uk+44 (0) 7513 137893About the Chatham House PrizeThe Chatham House Prize is voted for by Chatham House members, following nominations from the institute’s staff. The award is presented on behalf of the institute's patron, Her Majesty the Queen, representing the non-partisan and authoritative character of the Prize.The Chatham House Prize was launched in 2005. Previous recipients of the Prize include the Committee to Protect Journalists, Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos, president of Ghana John Kufuor, Médecins Sans Frontières and Melinda Gates, co-founder of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.Chatham House is a world-leading policy institute based in London. Our mission is to help governments and societies build a sustainably secure, prosperous and just world. We engage governments, the private sector, civil society and our members in open debate and private discussions about the most significant developments in international affairs. Our research and policy ideas involve rigorous analysis of critical global, regional and country-specific challenges and opportunities.About BBC Studios Natural History Unit BBC Studios Natural History Unit produces the world’s most iconic natural history programmes, such as Blue Planet II and Planet Earth II, which have been watched by more than a billion people globally. Ranging from technically challenging live shows and super-landmarks to long-running series and children’s content, The Natural History Unit programmes include Dynasties, Blue Planet Live, Springwatch, Animal Babies: First Year On Earth, Andy’s Dinosaur Adventures as well as the currently on air Seven Worlds, One Planet presented by Sir David Attenborough and third-party commissions for Discovery, Apple, Quibi, National Geographic and BBC America. The Natural History Unit is part of BBC Studios, a subsidiary of the BBC, which develops, produces and distributes bold, British content, making over 2,500 hours of content each year, operating in 22 markets globally and generating revenue of around £1.4bn. In the year to March 2019, it returned £243m to the BBC Group, complementing the BBC’s licence fee and enhancing programmes for UK audiences. Related pages Managing Natural Resources Energy, Environment and Resources Programme Full Article
for The Transatlantic Business Response to Foreign Policy Challenges By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 15:00:02 +0000 Invitation Only Research Event 12 June 2014 - 8:00am to 9:15am Chatham House, London Meeting Notepdf | 97.01 KB Event participants Myron Brilliant, Executive Vice President and Head of International Affairs, US Chamber of CommerceChair: James Nixey, Head, Russia and Eurasia Programme, Chatham House The speaker will outline a number of foreign policy challenges facing transatlantic business, such as China’s increasing economic power, turmoil in the Middle East, and Russia’s recent actions in eastern Europe. He will examine how these issues can provide obstacles to cooperation and development, and restrict access to markets, and how they can be addressed. The event is part of our series on US and European Perspectives on Common Economic Challenges. Conducted with the support of Bank of America Merrill Lynch, this series examines some of the principal global challenges that we face today and the potentially differing perspectives from the US and across Europe. Attendance at this event is by invitation only. Department/project US and the Americas Programme, US Geoeconomic Trends and Challenges Rory Kinane +44 (0) 20 7314 3650 Email Full Article
for NATO: Charting the Way Forward By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 09:00:01 +0000 Research Event 25 July 2014 - 5:00pm to 6:00pm Chatham House, London Event participants Xenia Wickett, Project Director, US; Acting Dean, Academy for Leadership in International Affairs, Chatham HousePeter Jones, Director for Defence and International Security, Foreign & Commonwealth OfficeDr Jamie Shea, Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges, NATOChair: Steven Erlanger, London Bureau Chief, New York Times This event will launch the US Project’s latest research paper on the way ahead for NATO and, in particular, examine what can be achieved at the NATO summit in September. The paper crystallizes the principal findings of a series of workshops and makes recommendations on the next steps for NATO. This event will bring together senior representatives from NATO and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office to discuss the paper, respond to its key conclusions, and share their own thoughts on the future of NATO.This event will be followed by a drinks reception until 19:00.About the project2014 is a pivotal year for NATO. Prompted by defence austerity, Russian activities in Ukraine, and the conclusion of NATO’s major operations in Afghanistan, allies are raising important questions about NATO’s future in the run-up to the summit in September. As part of the project, NATO: Charting the Way Forward, Chatham House has held a series of expert roundtables to discuss these challenges and NATO’s role for the coming decades. Bringing together senior officials from both the public and private sectors, as well as from the academic and think-tank communities, these workshops have explored different aspects of NATO’s purpose, priorities and capabilities. This project is supported by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, the NATO Public Diplomacy Division, and the Canadian Department of National Defence. Department/project US and the Americas Programme, NATO: Charting the Way Forward Richard Gowing Programme Administrator +44 (0)20 7389 3270 Email Full Article
for NATO: Charting the Way Forward By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 10:38:44 +0000 21 July 2014 For more than 60 years the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has played a critical role in enabling transatlantic security and leading crisis management operations. However, given the current climate of austerity, the imminent end of the Afghanistan operation and recent events in Ukraine, crucial questions are being raised regarding the Alliance’s future priorities. Summary Download PDF Xenia Wickett Former Head, US and the Americas Programme; Former Dean, The Queen Elizabeth II Academy for Leadership in International Affairs @xeniawickett LinkedIn Kathleen McInnis Former Chatham House Expert 20140718NATOW.jpg DOD photo by US Air Force Master Sgt Jerry Morrison / Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain. Over the course of this year, Chatham House convened a series of expert roundtables to answer some of these questions. This report draws on the findings of those meetings and makes recommendations for NATO’s next steps in the lead-up to its 2014 Summit in Wales.The paper suggests six principal actions for NATO:Find ways to caucus smaller groups within NATO rather than requiring all 28 members to make all decisions. NATO’s 28 member states all have their own interests and appetites for risk and bring diverse capabilities to the table. Yet rather than being a source of weakness, these differences of opinion can become a strength if properly managed. Enhance interoperability. With operations in Afghanistan winding down, and in light of declining defence spending, NATO militaries must find new ways to improve their ability to work with one another on the ground, at sea and in the air. Improve planning and positioning of forces together. For meaningful joint defence planning, and to share the burden of resources and responsibilities, NATO needs to facilitate collaborative discussions on challenges and capabilities. Develop better acquisition systems. In the context of declining defence spending, bridging the gap between strategy and resources will require NATO members to streamline acquisition systems, make tough choices about national defence industries, and become more collaborative on procurement. Rebuild public understanding and support for NATO. Public support is vital if member-state politicians are to make hard internal decisions on resources and to demonstrate the will and resilience required for effective deterrence and reassurance. Build on NATO’s partnerships and differentiate them better. With defence budgets tightening, NATO needs to recognize and take advantage of the fact that many non-NATO states and other institutions have similar interests to those of members. Department/project US and the Americas Programme, NATO: Charting the Way Forward Full Article
for Building Global Partnerships for Stronger Local Economies By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:45:01 +0000 Members Event 11 February 2015 - 6:00pm to 7:00pm Chatham House, London Transcriptpdf | 110.44 KB Transcript Q&Apdf | 173.45 KB Event participants Scott Walker, Governor, Wisconsin, United StatesChair: Justin Webb, Presenter, Today Programme, BBC Radio 4 Drawing on his experience as governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker will outline the importance of forging strong global partnerships to fuel business growth and build prosperous local economies. Governor Walker will consider how mutually beneficial partnerships can be developed within the global community and the impact of these on local communities.LIVE STREAM: This event will be live streamed. The live stream will be made available at 18:00 GMT on Wednesday 11 February.ASK A QUESTION: Send questions for the speaker by email to questions@chathamhouse.org or using #CHEvents on Twitter. A selection will be put to him during the event. Event attributes Livestream Members Events Team Email Full Article
for The Future of US Global Leadership: Implications for Europe, Canada and Transatlantic Cooperation By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Thu, 05 May 2016 09:13:42 +0000 10 May 2016 As the United States’ international engagement changes, Canada and Europe should increase coordination with it to prevent power vacuums from emerging. Download PDF Xenia Wickett Former Head, US and the Americas Programme; Former Dean, The Queen Elizabeth II Academy for Leadership in International Affairs @xeniawickett LinkedIn Rory Kinane Former Manager, US and the Americas Programme 2016-05-06-future-us-global-leadership.jpg Marine One, carrying US President Barack Obama, departs the White House on 26 August 2014, Washington DC. Photo: Getty Images. SummaryThe United States’ transatlantic allies need to appreciate how its global leadership is changing and what this means for their interests, and respond accordingly. Notions of US decline have been overstated, but the country is not going to play the same international role in the future that it has previously.As the United States’ international engagement changes, Canada and Europe should increase coordination with it to prevent power vacuums from emerging. The transatlantic allies should work together to build greater links at all stages of the policy process, from perceptions of threat, prioritization, analysis, threat definition and policy formation to implementation and action. As the United States’ capabilities adapt to its changed circumstances and role, so too must those of its allies. This adjustment must go far beyond military aspects to enhancing diplomatic, energy, economic, intelligence and other resources.In addition to the challenges around differing interests, priorities and capabilities inherent in any alliance, Europe appears to have lost its confidence. In part this is due to its growing disengagement and introspection. But Europe retains huge potential for influence if it uses its resources effectively. There is much that European states can do, individually and together, to take more control over advancing their strategic interests. Equally, by working together they can do much to nudge the United States in helpful directions to support the mutual interests of all parties.The conversation on reforming global institutions such as the IMF must move beyond the need for change per se towards articulating the actual shape of such changes. Europe and Canada will likely need to push the United States into accepting reform of these institutions to better reflect today’s reality and tomorrow’s challenges. Global institutions need more diversified leaderships if they are to ensure their long-term legitimacy and influence. This will be difficult to push through politically in the United States, but by working with new regional and global powers to propose reforms, Europe and Canada can help find an acceptable solution.The use of ad hoc coalitions does not necessarily damage the efficacy of broader consensus institutions such as NATO. In fact, flexible coalitions may often be desirable when solutions to new challenges need to be developed and agreed quickly.Canada and Europe should consider partnering with other actors besides the United States where necessary. This may be expedient for meeting individual objectives, and would have the secondary benefit of demonstrating to emerging powers that the West does not exclude cooperation with others out of an arbitrary loyalty to the United States.Europe needs to appreciate the potentially dire consequences of failing to adapt to changing US leadership and an increasingly complex world. There is a real chance that the European project could unravel in the next few years due to external and internal pressures. While many European policy-makers display an understanding of these challenges in private, in public there is little appetite for taking the decisions necessary to bring long-term stability to the continent. Department/project US and the Americas Programme Full Article
for Allies Beware: Americans Support a More Limited Role for the US By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Wed, 11 May 2016 12:45:03 +0000 12 May 2016 Bruce Stokes Associate Fellow, US and the Americas Programme (based in the US) @bruceestokes Xenia Wickett Former Head, US and the Americas Programme; Former Dean, The Queen Elizabeth II Academy for Leadership in International Affairs @xeniawickett LinkedIn While not as isolationist or unilateralist as some campaign rhetoric might suggest, new polling shows the American public broadly supports less engagement with the rest of the world. 2016-05-11-US-Philippines.jpg US military personnel take part in joint military exercises with the Philippines, Australia and Japan in Crow Valley on 14 April 2016. Photo by Getty Images. While the American election cycle could be perceived as an occasionally amusing distraction, the rise of new factions and sentiments among the electorate will have an impact not just in America’s domestic politics but also with respect to its role in the world. Recent polling by the Pew Research Center shows clearly the desire among many Americans for a different international engagement for the US, one that could have significant implications for America’s allies.PollingTo date, the campaign rhetoric of both the Republican and Democratic contenders for the White House has raised questions about America’s continuing global commitment.But what does the public think? The Pew Research Center has recently released its periodic survey of how Americans view America’s place in the world. The results suggest that stereotypes of Americans’ isolationism or protectionism do not capture the nuance in public sentiment. Wariness of international engagement coexists with assertiveness on some issues and a belief that the US is a force for good in the world. And these views often divide along partisan lines and between generations.A majority of Americans (57%) think the U.S. should deal with its own problems and let other countries deal with theirs as best they can, a sentiment that has increased from 46% in 2010. Moreover, roughly two-thirds say ‘we should not think so much in international terms but concentrate more on our own national problems’. In part this may be the case because a plurality of Americans thinks the United States does too much (41% too much, 27% too little) in helping solve world problems.The fact that six-in-ten Americans believe that problems in the world would be even worse without US involvement will not reassure many non-Americans who care deeply about how and where the US is engaged, not just that it is.American isolationism is a partisan affair. Republicans (62%) are far more likely than Democrats (47%) to voice the view that the US should deal with its own problems. Notably, about two-thirds of registered Republicans or Republican-leaning independents who favour Donald Trump (68%) express such isolationist sentiments, as do more than half of the Democratic backers of Sen. Bernie Sanders (54%). At the same time, over half of registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who favour Hillary Clinton (52%) believe the US should help other countries deal with their problems.The US has often been seen by its allies as acting in a unilateralist fashion, but the polling is more nuanced than this. About half (51%) believe that the US should take into account the views of its major allies when deciding its foreign policies. However, of more concern for America’s allies (and potentially adversaries), roughly four-in-ten (42%) believe Washington should go it alone in international matters.Despite Trump’s criticisms, 53% of the American public holds a positive view of NATO and 77% voice the view that US membership in the security alliance has been a good thing for the United States.In addition to some wariness with regards to engaging internationally in security arenas, Americans are also generally wary of global economic engagement – protectionist sentiment is rising. Only 44% believe such US involvement is a good thing; more (49%) say such engagement is bad, lowering wages and costing jobs. These views also differ along partisan lines with more on the right than left thinking US involvement in the world economy has been a bad thing. Trump supporters are even more against economic globalization.Rising scepticismThe results do not show an unambiguous move towards more American isolationism or unilateralism. But the trends broadly show that the American public is moving towards, as President Obama put it in 2012, a focus on ‘nation building at home’. It should come as no surprise – President Obama has presided over a period in which the US has increasingly limited its extraterritorial ambitions to those that more directly affect its vital national interests. It is therefore worth noting that this more limited engagement is one that is, broadly, supported by the public on both sides of the aisle.There are, as have been noted, partisan differences. But the next president will govern over all Americans not just those from their own party. They will have to function in the context of an American public, the majority of whom wants the US to deal with its own problems, letting other countries manage as best they can. While who becomes president clearly matters – they have the capacity to lead their populations in certain directions - the rising scepticism among many Americans for investing in the globalized world will resonate regardless of who takes office.The implications for America’s allies are significant. For those issues that are not directly of concern to the United States, longstanding partners are going to have to find ways to manage on their own or with less American support. And even on those issues that are of direct national interest, they might find the US less sensitive to their interests and concerns. This could hold true not just in the realm of security but on economic issues also – if America becomes more protectionist, others will surely follow. Many of America’s allies have perceived the United States to be an unreliable ally in recent years. Asian partners, such as Japan and South Korea, have started to take more responsibility for their own security and are working to build additional partnerships with neighbours. European allies have been, at times, disappointed by what they perceive to be a less engaged America, such as in Libya and Syria. If the next president follows the public majority, these allies will need to get used to this new role for the United States.This article has been published jointly with Real Clear World.To comment on this article, please contact Chatham House Feedback Full Article
for For a US Trade Deal, UK Should Secure Its Spot in TTIP After Brexit By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 13:39:08 +0000 25 August 2016 Marianne Schneider-Petsinger Senior Research Fellow, US and the Americas Programme @mpetsinger Having Britain as an additional party to a US−EU free-trade agreement would benefit all sides. 2016-08-25-UnionNY.jpg A Union flag hangs in the window of a British grocery store in New York City. Photo by Getty Images. Even though President Barack Obama cautioned that the UK would be at the ‘back of the queue’ for a trade agreement with the US if the country chose to leave the EU, in the post-Brexit world a deal might be struck more swiftly. Various ideas for bringing the UK and US into a formal trade arrangement have been floated – ranging from a bilateral UK-US trade deal, or the UK joining NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement between the US, Canada and Mexico), to the UK becoming a part of the TPP (the Trans-Pacific Partnership that the US is pursuing with 11 other countries along the Pacific Rim). However, one option stands out: opening the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which the US and EU are currently negotiating, to the UK after Brexit.Good reasons for Britain in TTIPFirst, from the perspective of the UK, signing up to TTIP would mean a more comprehensive deal with the US than a bilateral UK−US trade agreement. For instance, Britain is very keen to include financial services regulation in any trade agreement with America, but given Washington’s reluctance, this ambition might only be achievable if other countries like France and Germany throw their financial weight into the negotiations.Second, continuing involvement in the TTIP negotiations allows London to begin securing its trade position with the US now. Though its influence in the EU may weaken as it heads for the exit, Britain could make the best use of influencing the EU position on TTIP while it is still a member. It could then accept the terms of TTIP and accede as a third party relatively quickly after exiting the EU. Official negotiations on a UK−US-only deal would have to wait until the UK has left the EU, as trade talks fall under the exclusive competence of the EU.Third, for the US and EU, having the UK as a party to TTIP would ensure the scale of the deal is not reduced, and thereby maintain the strategic appeal and ability to set global standards. At the moment, the UK is the EU’s second-largest economy, accounting for approximately 18 per cent of GDP. With Britain in TTIP, the sheer size of the transatlantic market space will have more pull for other countries to adopt the common transatlantic rules in order to gain market access.Fourth, the UK joining TTIP as a third party would establish the agreement as an ‘open platform’ that is available for other countries to join. Michael Froman, the United States trade representative, has characterized TTIP as being such an open agreement. EU representatives have been more ambivalent, though this is starting to change in the wake of Brexit. David O’Sullivan, the current EU ambassador to the US, recently said that as ‘we’ve always seen TTIP as a potential open platform, [the] UK could still benefit [from it] even not as a member of the European Union’. While now might not be the right time to expand the TTIP bloc beyond its original participants given that negotiations are already complex and drawn out, it would be beneficial for the negotiating partners to send a strong message that countries that are willing and able to commit to the high TTIP standards will be welcomed later on.Obstacles to Britain in TTIPBut before the UK could be added to TTIP after Brexit, major hurdles will have to be jumped and crucial questions answered. The first obstacle is actually getting a TTIP deal, which will require significant efforts by political leaders and negotiators on both sides of the Atlantic.Second, selling the ‘UK in TTIP option’ to Brexiteers will not be an easy task. After all, Leave campaigners argued that the US−EU deal might undermine the NHS and was thus presented as one of the reasons to cut loose from Brussels. As the major rationale behind TTIP is regulatory harmonization, if the UK were to sign up to TTIP it would still have to apply many EU rules. This, however, would go counter to the arguments for leaving the EU in the first place.Third, it will be a challenging job for the UK to untangle its trade relationship with the EU while at the same time negotiating TTIP together with the EU. It would be easiest if the UK decided to remain a member of the EU customs union. Britain would then be required to impose the EU’s external tariffs on countries like the US. This would fit seamlessly with the ‘UK in TTIP’ option. But as the UK will most likely pull out of the customs union, it will be more complicated than that.Finally, the timing of Brexit and the TTIP negotiations could cause complications. In the unlikely event that a US-EU free trade deal is concluded and ratified while the UK is still a member of the EU, the agreement (or the parts of it that fall under national competence) would most likely continue to apply to Britain after Brexit without the need for accession. If the TTIP negotiations continue beyond Brexit, then the UK would move from negotiating as part of the EU bloc to becoming a third party. This raises the issue of whether the UK and EU continue to negotiate as one bloc vis-à-vis the US.Special economic relationshipStill, the depth of the economic ties between the US and UK means that the TTIP option is likely to be welcomed favourably by both countries. The US is the most important single export market for the UK, with goods and services worth £45 billion shipped in 2015. Last year, the US ranked third (after Germany and China) as a source for UK imports. With nearly $1 trillion invested in each other’s economies, the US and the UK are also each other’s largest investors. Given this special economic relationship, Britain is unlikely to be at the ‘back of the queue’ in any event. But the TTIP option is the best path to preserving and strengthening the relationship post-Brexit while also realizing the wider strategic benefits of a transatlantic trade agreement.A version of this article appeared on Real Clear World.To comment on this article, please contact Chatham House Feedback Full Article
for A Transatlantic Strategy for 2020: The Political Dimension By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 12:04:00 +0000 Invitation Only Research Event 2 May 2017 - 12:00pm to 1:15pm Chatham House, London Event participants Dr Robin Niblett CMG, Director, Chatham HouseChair: Xenia Wickett, Head, US and the Americas Programme and Dean, Queen Elizabeth II Academy for Leadership in International Affairs, Chatham House The transatlantic partnership has provided the backbone to the liberal international order ever since the end of the Second World War. The tumultuous political events of 2016 denote a brutal rupture from the dominant global position of the transatlantic partnership and threaten to undermine the partnership itself. Only by understanding that the current problems facing the transatlantic relationship have deep structural roots will it be possible to find ways to prevent further erosion, sustain the benefits of the existing partnership and build opportunities for transatlantic cooperation in the future. Ahead of the publication of his new paper, Robin Niblett, will join us to share his thoughts on the challenges, opportunities and potential strategies towards securing the future of the transatlantic relationship. Attendance at this event is by invitation only. Event attributes Chatham House Rule Department/project US and the Americas Programme Courtney Rice Senior Programme Manager, US and the Americas Programme (0)20 7389 3298 Email Full Article
for Why We Need a Transatlantic Charter for Data Security and Mobility By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 09:59:17 +0000 28 June 2017 Dr Christopher Smart @csmart Former Associate Fellow, US and the Americas Programme Setting common guidelines for data flows is crucial both to protect the goods and services that already depend on big data and to support the next generation of productivity gains and business opportunities. 2017-06-23-TsystemsData.jpg Data centre for T-Systems, a subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom. Photo by: Thomas Trutschel/Photothek/Getty Images While trade and tax remain at the heart of the difficult economic conversations between Europe and the US, a new issue has emerged as a potential source of even greater friction: data.Growth in the traditional global trade in goods and services has levelled off, but cross-border data flows continue to expand rapidly and the challenges of developing policies that protect privacy, security and innovation are already tremendous. For example, data analytics are driving dramatic productivity gains in industry, particularly for large and complex installations whose safety and efficiency will increasingly depend on flows of those data across jurisdictions. Meanwhile, ‘fintech’ (financial technology) start-ups and large banks alike are testing new modes of accumulating, analysing and deploying customer data to provide less expensive services and manage the risk profile of their businesses.The rules that govern the collection, transmission and storage of data are perhaps one of the more surprising controversies in the transatlantic relationship. Similar liberal democracies with similar geostrategic interests might be expected to approach the handling of personal, corporate and government data in more or less the same way. And yet the US and its key European partners have struck different balances in the trade-offs between national security and citizens’ rights, between freedom of expression and personal privacy, and between free enterprise and market regulation.While the US debate on the use of data has often been framed around the trade-off between national security and personal privacy, Europeans often face an even more complex set of concerns that include worries that their digital and technology firms lag behind dominant US competitors. The political and regulatory uncertainty helps neither side, and leaves transatlantic companies struggling to comply with uncertain and conflicting rules in different jurisdictions.This makes more determined efforts by US and European policymakers to agree basic principles that will guide the usage and protection of personal and commercial data all the more important. While common regulations or even greater alignment among regulators seem out of reach, a ‘Transatlantic Charter for Data Security and Mobility’ would provide a set of principles for more specific rules amid political landscapes and technological developments that are evolving rapidly. It could also provide the basis for firms, whether in manufacturing or financial services or health care, to draft their own voluntary standards on how they protect data even as they develop new algorithms that improve productivity, safety and customer satisfaction.Embarrassing leaks, careful denials and endless lawsuits will continue to shape the awkward efforts of policymakers to find common ground around issues like cyberespionage, defence of common networks and the sharing of personal data with law enforcement. Cyberattacks with the aim of disrupting government operations or influencing election campaigns will add still further pressures. These will all serve as a noisy backdrop to a related but separate debate over how commercial firms should exploit the opportunities of global networks and ‘big data’ analytics while protecting national interests and privacy.Yet, setting common guidelines for commercial data transmission and storage remains crucial both to protect the goods and services that already depend on sophisticated data-gathering and analysis, and to support the next generation of productivity gains and business opportunities.Global firms yearn for clarity and predictability as they organize themselves to make the most of the data revolution. Neither is likely to become a reality soon. The EU’s new General Data Protection Regulation will take effect in 2018, but its implementation will inevitably be coloured by the fact that American firms currently dominate the information technology business. Last year’s ‘Privacy Shield’ agreement between the US and the EU renews the permission for firms with transatlantic business interests to transfer data, subject to compliance with basic standards of protection, but the agreement remains vulnerable to European court challenges. Britain’s decision to leave the EU adds a further complication, as it establishes its own set of data protection rules that may not easily align with either European or US requirements. Meanwhile, the World Trade Organization continues to debate new rules for digital trade, even as markets like China, Russia and Brazil make up their own.If this ‘Transatlantic Charter for Data Security and Mobility’ were adopted bilaterally, say as part of the annual reviews of the US–EU Privacy Shield agreement, it could form the basis for broader cooperation on these issues, helping to drive progress in the G7 and G20 and ultimately perhaps in trade agreements under the WTO. It would hardly secure complete alignment on these questions, but it could help establish the framework for a debate that all too often lurches to extremes and risks damaging a fundamental alliance for global stability – along with a fundamental driver of 21st-century economic progress.To comment on this article, please contact Chatham House Feedback Full Article
for Screening Room: For Sama By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 16:40:01 +0000 Members Event Screening Room 1 October 2019 - 6:00pm to 8:15pm Chatham House | 10 St James's Square | London | SW1Y 4LE Event participants Dr Hamza Al Kateab, Director, AlQudes Hospital, Aleppo (2012-16); Operation Manager, HuozhiRita Dayoub, Academy Associate, Centre on Global Health Security, Chatham House; Founder, Health Workers at the Frontline InitiativeDr Husam Taha El-mugamar, Vice President, Sudan Doctors’ Union UKChair: Elham Saudi, Director, Lawyers for Justice in Libya For Sama tells the story of a young woman living in Aleppo during a five year period of armed conflict. From 2011 to 2016, Waad al-Kateab documents her personal experience of the war in Syria as she joins the uprising against the Assad regime, falls in love and gives birth to her daughter while living in AlQudes Hospital, run by her husband Hamza and under attack by Syrian and Russian forces.The screening will be followed by a panel discussion exploring the impact of attacks on healthcare institutions in conflict zones. To what extent are attacks on healthcare services used in contemporary warfare? How do these attacks affect health workers in regions facing armed conflict or political unrest? And what is the role of the international community in ensuring the protection of healthcare delivery in conflict zones?Running time: 95 minsThis event is open to Chatham House Members only. Not a member? Find out more.For further information on the different types of Chatham House events, visit Our Events Explained. Members Events Team Email Full Article
for The NHS Is Not for Sale – But a US–UK Trade Deal Could Still Have an Impact By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 15:53:59 +0000 29 November 2019 Dr Charles Clift Senior Consulting Fellow, Global Health Programme @CliftWorks Charles Clift examines what recently leaked documents mean – and do not mean – for healthcare in transatlantic trade negotiations. 2019-11-29-NHS.jpg Kings College Hospital in London. Photo: Getty Images. The leaked record of the five meetings of the UK–US Trade & Investment Working Group held in 2017–18 has led to a controversy in the UK election campaign around the claim that ‘the NHS is up for sale’.But a careful reading of the leaked documents reveals how remarkably little concerns the NHS – in five meetings over 16 months, the NHS is mentioned just four times. The patent regime and how it affects medicines is discussed in more depth but largely in terms of the participants trying to understand each other’s systems and perspectives. For the most part, the discussions were overwhelmingly about everything else a trade deal would cover other than healthcare – matters such as subsidies, rules of origin and customs facilitation.But this does not mean there will be no impact on Britain’s health service. There are three main concerns about the possible implications of a US–UK trade deal after Brexit – a negotiation that will of course only take place if the UK remains outside the EU customs union and single market and also does not reach a trade agreement with the EU that proves incompatible with US negotiating objectives.One concern is that the US aim of securing ‘full market access for US products’, expressed in the US negotiating objectives, will affect the ability of NICE (The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) to prevent the NHS from procuring products that are deemed too expensive in relation to their benefits. It could also affect the ability of the NHS to negotiate with companies to secure price reductions as, for instance, happened recently with Orkambi, a cystic fibrosis drug.A peculiarity of the main US government healthcare programme (Medicare) is that it has historically not negotiated drug prices, although there are several bills now before Congress aiming to change that. US refusal to negotiate or control prices is one reason that US drug prices are the highest in the world. A second concern is that the US objective of securing ‘intellectual property rights that reflect a standard of protection similar to that found in US law’ will result in longer patent terms and other forms of exclusivity that will increase the prices the NHS will have to pay for drugs.However, it is not immediately apparent that UK standards are significantly different from those in the US – the institutional arrangements differ but the levels of protection offered are broadly comparable. Recent publicity about a potential extra NHS medicine bill of £27 billion resulting from a trade deal is based on the NHS having to pay US prices on all drugs – which seems an unlikely outcome unless the UK contingent are extraordinarily bad negotiators.Nevertheless, in an analysis section (marked for internal distribution only), the UK lead negotiator noted: ‘The impact of some patent issues raised on NHS access to generic drugs (i.e. cheaper drugs) will be a key consideration going forward.’A third concern is that the US objective of providing ‘fair and open conditions for services trade’ and other US negotiating objectives will oblige the UK to open up the NHS to American healthcare companies.This is where it gets complicated. At one point in a discussion on state-owned enterprises (SOEs) the US asked if the UK had concerns about their ‘health insurance system’ (presumably a reference to the NHS). The UK response was that it ‘wouldn’t want to discuss particular health care entities at this time, you’ll be aware of certain statements saying we need to protect our needs; this would be something to discuss further down the line…’On this exchange the UK lead negotiator commented: ‘We do not currently believe the US has a major offensive interest in this space – not through the SOE chapter at least. Our response dealt with this for now, but we will need to be able to go into more detail about the functioning of the NHS and our views on whether or not it is engaged in commercial activities…’On the face of it, these documents provide no basis for saying the NHS would be for sale – whatever that means exactly. The talks were simply an exploratory investigation between officials on both sides in advance of possible negotiations.But it is a fact that US positions in free trade agreements are heavily influenced by corporate interests. Their participation in framing agreements is institutionalized in the US system and the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries in the US spend, by a large margin, more on lobbying the government than any other sector does. Moreover, President Donald Trump has long complained about ‘the global freeloading that forces American consumers to subsidize lower prices in foreign countries through higher prices in our country’.It is when (and if) the actual negotiations on a trade deal get under way that the real test will come as the political profile and temperature is raised on both sides of the Atlantic. Full Article
for Making the Business Case for Nutrition Workshop By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 12:15:01 +0000 Invitation Only Research Event 28 January 2020 - 9:30am to 5:00pm Chatham House | 10 St James's Square | London | SW1Y 4LE A ground-breaking research project from Chatham House, supported by The Power of Nutrition, is exploring the business case for tackling undernutrition, micronutrient deficiencies and overnutrition. Companies across all sectors hold huge, transformative power to save countless lives and transform their own financial prospects. To act, they need more compelling evidence of the potential for targeted investments and strategies to promote better nutrition and create healthier, more productive workforces and consumers.At this workshop, Chatham House will engage business decision-makers in a scenario exercise that explores different nutrition futures and their commercial prospects in each before examining what different strategies business can pursue to maximize future profitability through investments in nutrition.Attendance at this event is by invitation only. Department/project Energy, Environment and Resources Programme Full Article
for South Africa Can Easily Afford National Health Insurance By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 06:07:40 +0000 9 December 2019 Robert Yates Director, Global Health Programme; Executive Director, Centre for Universal Health @yates_rob Countries with much lower per capita GDP have successfully implemented universal healthcare. 2019-12-06-NMCH.jpg Builders work on an outside yard at the Nelson Mandela Children's Hospital in Johannesburg in 2016. Photo: Getty Images. At the United Nations general assembly in September, all countries, including South Africa, reaffirmed their commitment to achieving universal health coverage by 2030. This is achieved when everybody accesses the health services they need without suffering financial hardship.As governments outlined their universal health coverage plans, it was noticeable that some had made much faster progress than others, with some middle-income countries outperforming wealthier nations. For example, whereas Thailand, Ecuador and Georgia (with national incomes similar to South Africa) are covering their entire populations, in the United States, 30 million people still lack health insurance and expensive health bills are the biggest cause of personal bankruptcy.The key factor in financing universal health coverage is, therefore, not so much the level of financing but rather how the health sector is financed. You cannot cover everyone through private financing (including insurance) because the poor will be left behind. Instead, the state must step in to force wealthy and healthy members of society to subsidise services for the sick and the poor.Switching to a predominantly publicly financed health system is, therefore, a prerequisite for achieving universal health coverage.The National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill, recently presented to parliament, is President Cyril Ramaphosa’s strategy to make this essential transition. In essence, it proposes creating a health-financing system in which people pay contributions (mostly through taxes) according to their ability to pay and then receive health services according to their health needs.Surprisingly, these reforms have been dubbed 'controversial' by some commentators in the South African media, even though this is the standard route to universal health coverage as exhibited by countries across Europe, Asia, Australasia, Canada and much of Latin America.In criticising the NHI other stakeholders (often with a vested interest in preserving the status quo) have said that the government’s universal health coverage strategy is unaffordable because it will require higher levels of public financing for health.Evidence from across the world shows that this is patently false. South Africa already spends more than 8% of its national income on its health sector, which is very high for its income level. Turkey, for example (a good health performer and slightly richer than South Africa), spends 4.3% of its GDP and Thailand (a global universal health coverage leader) spends only 3.7%. Thailand shows what can be accomplished, because it launched its celebrated universal health coverage reforms in 2002 when its GDP per capita was only $1 900 — less than a third of South Africa’s today.In fact, Thailand’s prime minister famously ignored advice from the World Bank that it could not afford publicly financed, universal health coverage in the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis when it extended universal, tax-financed healthcare to the entire population. When these reforms proved a great success, a subsequent president of the World Bank, Dr Jim Kim, congratulated the Thai government for ignoring its previous advice.Similarly the United Kingdom, Japan and Norway all launched successful universal health coverage reforms at times of great economic difficulty at the end of World War II. These should be salutary lessons for those saying that South Africa can’t afford the NHI. If anything, because universal health reforms generate economic growth (with returns 10 times the public investment), now is exactly the time to launch the NHI.So there is enough overall funding in the South African health sector to take a giant step towards universal health coverage. The problem is that the current system is grossly inefficient and inequitable because more than half of these funds are spent through private insurance schemes that cover only 16% of the population — and often don’t cover even this population effectively.Were the bulk of these resources to be channelled through an efficient public financing system, evidence from around the world shows that the health sector would achieve better health outcomes, at lower cost. Health and income inequalities would fall, too.It’s true that in the long term, the government will have to increase public financing through reducing unfair subsidies to private health insurance and increasing taxes. But what the defenders of the current system don’t acknowledge is that, at the same time, private voluntary financing will fall, rapidly. Most families will no longer feel the need to purchase expensive private insurance when they benefit from the public system. It’s this fact that is generating so much opposition to the NHI from the private insurance lobby.This is the situation with the National Health Service in the UK and health systems across Europe, where only a small minority choose to purchase additional private insurance. Among major economies, only the United States continues to exhibit high levels of private, voluntary financing.As a consequence, it now spends an eye-watering 18% of its GDP on health and has some of the worst health indicators in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, including rising levels of maternal mortality. If South Africa doesn’t socialise health financing this is where its health system will end up — a long way from universal health coverage.What countries celebrating their universal health coverage successes at the UN have shown is that it is cheaper to publicly finance health than leave it to the free market. This is because governments are more efficient and fairer purchasers of health services than individuals and employers. As Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former director general of the World Health Organization, said in New York: 'If there is one lesson the world has learnt, it is that you can only reach UHC [universal health coverage] through public financing.'This is a step South Africa must take — it can’t afford not to.This article was originally published by the Mail & Guardian. Full Article
for Biosecurity: Preparing for the Aftermath of Global Health Crises By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 14:16:59 +0000 9 January 2020 Professor David R Harper CBE Senior Consulting Fellow, Global Health Programme @DavidRossHarper Benjamin Wakefield Research Associate, Global Health Programme @BCWakefield LinkedIn The Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is a reminder that the security of samples taken during global health emergencies is a vital part of safeguarding biosecurity. 2020-01-09-DRC.jpg A nurse prepares a vaccine against Ebola in Goma in August 2019. Photo: Getty Images. The world’s second-largest Ebola outbreak is ongoing in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and experts from around the world have been parachuted in to support the country’s operation to stamp out the outbreak. The signs are encouraging, but we need to remain cautious.In such emergencies, little thought is usually given to what happens to the body-fluid samples taken during the course of the outbreak after the crisis is over. What gets left behind has considerable implications for global biosecurity.Having unsecured samples poses the obvious risk of accidental exposures to people who might come into contact with them, but what of the risk of malicious use? Bioterrorists would have ready access to materials that have the characteristics essential to their purpose: the potential to cause disease that is transmissible from person to person, the capacity to result in high fatality rates and, importantly, the ability to cause panic and social disruption at the very mention of them.Comparisons can be drawn with the significant international impact of the anthrax attacks in the US in 2001. Not only was there a direct effect in the US with five deaths and a further 17 people infected, but there was a paralysis of public health systems in other countries involved in the testing of countless samples from the so-called ‘white-powder incidents’ that followed.Many laboratory tests were done purely on a precautionary basis to eliminate any possibility of a risk, no matter how remote. However, the UK was also hit when a hoaxer sent envelopes of white powder labelled as anthrax to 15 MPs.The threat of the pathogen alone resulted in widespread fear, the deployment of officers trained in response to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents and the evacuation of a hospital emergency department.We learned from the 2014–16 West Africa Ebola outbreaks that during the emergency, the future biosecurity implications of the many thousands of samples taken from people were given very little consideration. It is impossible to be sure where they all are and whether they have been secured.It is widely recognized that the systems needed at the time for tracking and monitoring resources, including those necessary for samples, were weak or absent, and this has to be addressed urgently along with other capacity-building initiatives.In Sierra Leone, for example, the remaining biosecurity risk is only being addressed after the fact. To help achieve this, the government of Canada is in the process of providing a secure biobank in the Sierra Leonean capital of Freetown. The aim is to provide the proper means of storage for these hazardous samples and to allow them to remain in-country, with Sierra Leonean ownership.However, it is already more three years since the emergency was declared over by the then director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO), Margaret Chan, and the biobank and its associated laboratory are yet to be fully operational.There are many understandable reasons for this delay, including the critical issue of how best to ensure the sustainability of any new facility. But what is clear is that these solutions take time to implement and must be planned for in advance.The difficulties of responding to an outbreak in a conflict zone have been well documented, and the frequent violence in DRC has undoubtedly caused delays in controlling the outbreak. According to figures from WHO, during 2019 approximately 390 attacks on health facilities in DRC killed 11 and injured 83 healthcare workers and patients.Not only does the conflict inhibit the response, but it could also increase the risk posed by unsecured samples. There are two main potential concerns.First is the risk of accidental release during an attack on a health facility, under which circumstances sample containers may be compromised or destroyed. Second is that the samples may be stolen for malicious use or to sell them to a third-party for malicious use. It is very important in all outbreaks to ensure the necessary measures are in place to secure samples; in conflict-affected areas, this is particularly challenging.The sooner the samples in the DRC are secured, the sooner this risk to global biosecurity is reduced. And preparations for the next emergency must be made without further delay.The following steps need to be taken:Affected countries must ‘own’ the problem, with clear national government commitment to take the required actions.Funding partners must coordinate their actions and work closely with the countries to find the best solutions.If samples are to be kept in-country, secure biobanks must be established to contain them.Sustainable infrastructure must be built for samples to be kept secure into the future.An international agreement should be reached on the best approach to take to prepare for the aftermath of global health emergencies. Full Article
for Why an Inclusive Circular Economy is Needed to Prepare for Future Global Crises By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 13:23:01 +0000 15 April 2020 Patrick Schröder Senior Research Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme @patricks_CH Google Scholar The risks associated with existing production and consumption systems have been harshly exposed amid the current global health crisis but an inclusive circular economy could ensure both short-term and long-term resilience for future challenges. 2020-04-15-Waste-Collection-Peru.jpg Lima city employees picking up garbage during lockdown measures in Peru amid the COVID-19 crisis. Photo: Getty Images. The world is currently witnessing how vulnerable existing production and consumption systems are, with the current global health crisis harshly exposing the magnitude of the risks associated with the global economy in its current form, grounded, as it is, in a linear system that uses a ‘take–make–throw away’ approach.These ‘linear risks’ associated with the existing global supply chain system are extremely high for national economies overly dependent on natural resource extraction and exports of commodities like minerals and metals. Equally vulnerable are countries with large manufacturing sectors of ready-made garments and non-repairable consumer goods for western markets. Furthermore, workers and communities working in these sectors are vulnerable to these changes as a result of disruptive technologies and reduced demand.In a recently published Chatham House research paper, ‘Promoting a Just Transition to an Inclusive Circular Economy’, we highlight why a circular economy approach presents the world with a solution to old and new global risks – from marine plastic pollution to climate change and resource scarcity.Taking the long viewSo far, action to transition to a circular economy has been slow compared to the current crisis which has mobilized rapid global action. For proponents of transitioning to a circular economy, this requires taking the long view. The pandemic has shown us that global emergencies can fast-forward processes that otherwise might take years, even decades, to play out or reverse achievements which have taken years to accomplish.In this vein, there are three striking points of convergence between the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to transition to an inclusive circular economy.Firstly, the current crisis is a stark reminder that the circular economy is not only necessary to ensure long-term resource security but also short-term supplies of important materials. In many cities across the US, the UK and Europe, councils have suspended recycling to focus on essential waste collection services. The UK Recycling Association, for example, has warned about carboard shortages due to disrupted recycling operations with possible shortages for food and medicine packaging on the horizon.Similarly, in China, most recycling sites were shut during the country’s lockdown presenting implications for global recycling markets with additional concerns that there will be a fibre shortage across Europe and possibly around the world.Furthermore, worldwide COVID-19 lockdowns are resulting in a resurgence in the use of single-use packaging creating a new wave of plastic waste especially from food deliveries – already seen in China – with illegal waste fly-tipping dramatically increasing in the UK since the lockdown.In this vein, concerns over the current global health crisis is reversing previous positive trends where many cities had established recycling schemes and companies and consumers had switched to reusable alternatives.Secondly, the need to improve the working conditions of the people working in the informal circular economy, such as waste pickers and recyclers, is imperative. Many waste materials and recyclables that are being handled and collected may be contaminated as a result of being mixed with medical waste.Now, more than ever, key workers in waste management, collection and recycling require personal protective equipment and social protection to ensure their safety as well as the continuation of essential waste collection so as not to increase the potential for new risks associated with additional infectious diseases.In India, almost 450 million workers including construction workers, street vendors and landless agricultural labourers, work in the informal sector. In the current climate, the poorest who are unable to work pose a great risk to the Indian economy which could find itself having to shut down.Moreover, many informal workers live in make-shift settlements areas such as Asia’s largest slum, Dharavi in Mumbai, where health authorities are now facing serious challenges to contain the spread of the disease. Lack of access to handwashing and sanitation facilities, however, further increase these risks but circular, decentralized solutions could make important contributions to sustainable sanitation, health and improved community resilience.Thirdly, it is anticipated that in the long term several global supply chains will be radically changed as a result of transformed demand patterns and the increase in circular practices such as urban mining for the recovery and recycling of metals or the reuse and recycling of textile fibres and localized additive manufacturing (e.g. 3D printing).Many of these supply chains and trade flows have now been already severely disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, the global garment industry has been particularly hard-hit due to the closure of outlets amid falling demand for apparel.It is important to note, workers at the bottom of these garment supply chains are among the most vulnerable and most affected by the crisis as global fashion brands, for example, have been cancelling orders – in the order of $6 billion in the case of Bangladesh alone. Only after intense negotiations are some brands assuming financial responsibility in the form of compensation wage funds to help suppliers in Myanmar, Cambodia and Bangladesh to pay workers during the ongoing crisis.In addition, the current pandemic is damaging demand for raw materials thereby affecting mining countries. Demand for Africa’s commodities in China, for example, has declined significantly, with the impact on African economies expected to be serious, with 15 per cent of the world’s copper and 20 per cent of the world’s zinc mines currently going offline. A further threat is expected to come from falling commodity prices as a result of the curtailment of manufacturing activity in China particularly for crude oil, copper, iron ore and other industrial commodities which, in these cases, will have direct impacts on the Australian and Canadian mining sectors.This is all being compounded by an associated decline in consumer demand worldwide. For example, many South African mining companies – leading producers of metals and minerals – have started closing their mining operations following the government’s announcement of a lockdown in order to prevent the transmission of the virus among miners who often work in confined spaces and in close proximity with one another. As workers are laid off due to COVID-19, there are indications that the mining industry will see fast-tracking towards automated mining operations. All of these linear risks that have been exposed through the COVID-19 pandemic reinforce the need for a just transition to a circular economy. But while the reduction in the consumption of resources is necessary to achieve sustainability, the social impacts on low- and middle- income countries and their workers requires international support mechanisms.In addition, the current situation also highlights the need to find a new approach to globalized retail chains and a balance between local and global trade based on international cooperation across global value chains rather than implementation of trade protectionist measures.In this vein, all of the recovery plans from the global COVID-19 pandemic need to be aligned with the principles of an inclusive circular economy in order to ensure both short-term and long-term resilience and preparedness for future challenges and disruptions. Full Article
for Beyond Lockdown: Africa’s Options for Responding to COVID-19 By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:42:52 +0000 21 April 2020 Ben Shepherd Consulting Fellow, Africa Programme Nina van der Mark Research Analyst, Global Health Programme @vdm_nina LinkedIn The continent’s enormous diversity means that there will be no one African experience of COVID-19, nor a uniform governmental response. But there are some common challenges across the continent, and a chance to get the response right. 2020-04-22-Africa-COVID-Dakar Dakar after the Interior Ministry announced compulsory wearing of masks in public and private services, shops and transport, under penalty of sanctions. Photo by SEYLLOU/AFP via Getty Images. African policymakers face a dilemma when it comes to COVID-19. The first hope is to prevent the virus from gaining a foothold at all, and many African states have significant experience of managing infectious disease outbreaks. The establishment of the Africa Centre for Disease Control highlights the hugely increased focus on public health in recent years.But capacities to track, test and isolate vary wildly, notably between neighbours with porous and poorly controlled borders and, in most cases, sustained national-level disease control is difficult. Initial clusters of COVID-19 cases are already established in many places, but a lack of testing capacity makes it hard to know the full extent of transmission.It is not obvious what African states should do as a response. Lack of information about COVID-19 means the proportion of asymptomatic or mild cases is not known, still less the ways in which this is influenced by human geography and demographics.Africa is an overwhelmingly young continent with a median age under 20. But it also faces chronic malnutrition, which may weaken immune responses, and infectious diseases such as malaria, TB and HIV are widespread which could worsen the impact of COVID-19, particularly if treatment for these diseases is interrupted.Complex and unknownUltimately, how all these factors interact with COVID-19 is complex and remains largely unknown. Africa may escape with a relatively light toll. Or it could be hit harder than anywhere else.What is clear, however, is that cost of simply following the rest of the world into lockdown could be high. Africa is relatively rural but has higher populations living in informal settlements than anywhere in the world. Many live in cramped and overcrowded accommodation without clean water or reliable electricity, making handwashing a challenge and working from home impossible.And the benefits appear limited. The goal of lockdowns in most places is not to eliminate the virus but to accept the economic and social costs as a price worth paying in order to ‘flatten the curve’ of infection and protect healthcare systems from being overwhelmed. But this logic does not hold when many of Africa’s healthcare systems are barely coping with pre-coronavirus levels of disease.Africa suffers in comparison to much of the rest of the world in terms of access to quality and affordable healthcare, critical care beds and specialist personnel. For example, in 2017, Nigeria had just 120 ICU beds for a country of 200 million, equating to 0.07 per 100,000 inhabitants compared to 12.5 per 100,000 in Italy and 3.6 per 100,000 in China.The pandemic’s ruinous economic impacts could also be more acute for Africa than anywhere else. The continent is highly vulnerable to potential drops in output and relies heavily on demand from China and Europe. Many states are already facing sharply falling natural resource revenues, and investment, tourism and remittances will suffer - all on top of a high existing debt burden.Analysis by the World Bank shows that Africa will likely face its first recession in 25 years, with the continental economy contracting by up to 5.1% in 2020. Africa will have scant financial ammunition to use in the fight against COVID-19 with currencies weakening, food prices rising, local agri-food supply chains disrupted and food imports likely to decrease as well. A food security emergency appears a strong possibility.So, although several states have imposed national lockdowns and others closed major urban centres, lockdowns are difficult to manage and sustain, especially in places where the daily hustle of the informal sector or subsistence agriculture are the only means of survival and where the state has neither the trust of the population nor the capacity to replace lost earnings or meet basic needs.Of course, this is not simply a binary choice between lockdown or no lockdown - a range of intermediate options exist, such as some restriction on movement, curfews, shutting places of worship, banning only large gatherings, or closing pubs, schools and borders.A significant number of African states have so far taken this middle path. This will not prevent the virus from spreading nor, in all probability, be enough to ensure adequate healthcare for all Africans infected with COVID-19. But it may help slow the spread and buy invaluable time for African states and partners to prepare.How this time is used is therefore of paramount importance. Popular trust in the state is low in many African countries so strategies must empower communities, not alienate them. Africa’s experience of previous epidemics and long traditions of collective resilience and community-based crisis response - which persist in many places – are significant strengths.The right messages must be carried by the right messengers, and policies - including cash transfers and food distribution - implemented sensitively. If not, or if responses become militarized, public consent is unlikely to be sustained for long. Full Article
for Legal Provision for Crisis Preparedness: Foresight not Hindsight By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 17:03:31 +0000 21 April 2020 Dr Patricia Lewis Research Director, Conflict, Science & Transformation; Director, International Security Programme @PatriciaMary COVID-19 is proving to be a grave threat to humanity. But this is not a one-off, there will be future crises, and we can be better prepared to mitigate them. 2020-04-21-Nurse-COVID-Test Examining a patient while testing for COVID-19 at the Velocity Urgent Care in Woodbridge, Virginia. Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images. A controversial debate during COVID-19 is the state of readiness within governments and health systems for a pandemic, with lines of the debate drawn on the issues of testing provision, personal protective equipment (PPE), and the speed of decision-making.President Macron in a speech to the nation admitted French medical workers did not have enough PPE and that mistakes had been made: ‘Were we prepared for this crisis? We have to say that no, we weren’t, but we have to admit our errors … and we will learn from this’.In reality few governments were fully prepared. In years to come, all will ask: ‘how could we have been better prepared, what did we do wrong, and what can we learn?’. But after every crisis, governments ask these same questions.Most countries have put in place national risk assessments and established processes and systems to monitor and stress-test crisis-preparedness. So why have some countries been seemingly better prepared?Comparing different approachesSome have had more time and been able to watch the spread of the disease and learn from those countries that had it first. Others have taken their own routes, and there will be much to learn from comparing these different approaches in the longer run.Governments in Asia have been strongly influenced by the experience of the SARS epidemic in 2002-3 and - South Korea in particular - the MERS-CoV outbreak in 2015 which was the largest outside the Middle East. Several carried out preparatory work in terms of risk assessment, preparedness measures and resilience planning for a wide range of threats.Case Study of Preparedness: South KoreaBy 2007, South Korea had established the Division of Public Health Crisis Response in Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) and, in 2016, the KCDC Center for Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response had established a round-the-clock Emergency Operations Center with rapid response teams.KCDC is responsible for the distribution of antiviral stockpiles to 16 cities and provinces that are required by law to hold and manage antiviral stockpiles.And, at the international level, there are frameworks for preparedness for pandemics. The International Health Regulations (IHR) - adopted at the 2005 World Health Assembly and binding on member states - require countries to report certain disease outbreaks and public health events to the World Health Organization (WHO) and ‘prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risks, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade’.Under IHR, governments committed to a programme of building core capacities including coordination, surveillance, response and preparedness. The UN Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk highlights disaster preparedness for effective response as one of its main purposes and has already incorporated these measures into the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and other Agenda 2030 initiatives. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has said COVID-19 ‘poses a significant threat to the maintenance of international peace and security’ and that ‘a signal of unity and resolve from the Council would count for a lot at this anxious time’.Case Study of Preparedness: United StatesThe National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) established PERRC – the Preparedness for Emergency Response Research Centers - as a requirement of the 2006 Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, which required research to ‘improve federal, state, local, and tribal public health preparedness and response systems’.The 2006 Act has since been supplanted by the 2019 Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act. This created the post of Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) in the Department for Health and Human Services (HHS) and authorised the development and acquisitions of medical countermeasures and a quadrennial National Health Security Strategy.The 2019 Act also set in place a number of measures including the requirement for the US government to re-evaluate several important metrics of the Public Health Emergency Preparedness cooperative agreement and the Hospital Preparedness Program, and a requirement for a report on the states of preparedness and response in US healthcare facilities.This pandemic looks set to continue to be a grave threat to humanity. But there will also be future pandemics – whether another type of coronavirus or a new influenza virus – and our species will be threatened again, we just don’t know when.Other disasters too will befall us – we already see the impacts of climate change arriving on our doorsteps characterised by increased numbers and intensity of floods, hurricanes, fires, crop failure and other manifestations of a warming, increasingly turbulent atmosphere and we will continue to suffer major volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and tsunamis. All high impact, unknown probability events.Preparedness for an unknown future is expensive and requires a great deal of effort for events that may not happen within the preparers’ lifetimes. It is hard to imagine now, but people will forget this crisis, and revert to their imagined projections of the future where crises don’t occur, and progress follows progress. But history shows us otherwise.Preparations for future crises always fall prey to financial cuts and austerity measures in lean times unless there is a mechanism to prevent that. Cost-benefit analyses will understandably tend to prioritise the urgent over the long-term. So governments should put in place legislation – or strengthen existing legislation – now to ensure their countries are as prepared as possible for whatever crisis is coming.Such a legal requirement would require governments to report back to parliament every year on the state of their national preparations detailing such measures as:The exact levels of stocks of essential materials (including medical equipment)The ability of hospitals to cope with large influx of patientsHow many drills, exercises and simulations had been organised – and their findingsWhat was being done to implement lessons learned & improve preparednessIn addition, further actions should be taken:Parliamentary committees such as the UK Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy should scrutinise the government’s readiness for the potential threats outlined in the National Risk register for Civil Emergencies in-depth on an annual basis.Parliamentarians, including ministers, with responsibility for national security and resilience should participate in drills, table-top exercises and simulations to see for themselves the problems inherent with dealing with crises.All governments should have a minister (or equivalent) with the sole responsibility for national crisis preparedness and resilience. The Minister would be empowered to liaise internationally and coordinate local responses such as local resilience groups.There should be ring-fenced budget lines in annual budgets specifically for preparedness and resilience measures, annually reported on and assessed by parliaments as part of the due diligence process.And at the international level:The UN Security Council should establish a Crisis Preparedness Committee to bolster the ability of United Nations Member States to respond to international crisis such as pandemics, within their borders and across regions. The Committee would function in a similar fashion as the Counter Terrorism Committee that was established following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States.States should present reports on their level of preparedness to the UN Security Council. The Crisis Preparedness Committee could establish a group of experts who would conduct expert assessments of each member state’s risks and preparedness and facilitate technical assistance as required.Regional bodies such as the OSCE, ASEAN and ARF, the AU, the OAS, the PIF etc could also request national reports on crisis preparedness for discussion and cooperation at the regional level.COVID-19 has been referred to as the 9/11 of crisis preparedness and response. Just as that shocking terrorist attack shifted the world and created a series of measures to address terrorism, we now recognise our security frameworks need far more emphasis on being prepared and being resilient. Whatever has been done in the past, it is clear that was nowhere near enough and that has to change.Case Study of Preparedness: The UKThe National Risk Register was first published in 2008 as part of the undertakings laid out in the National Security Strategy (the UK also published the Biological Security Strategy in July 2018). Now entitled the National Risk Register for Civil Emergencies it has been updated regularly to analyse the risks of major emergencies that could affect the UK in the next five years and provide resilience advice and guidance.The latest edition - produced in 2017 when the UK had a Minister for Government Resilience and Efficiency - placed the risk of a pandemic influenza in the ‘highly likely and most severe’ category. It stood out from all the other identified risks, whereas an emerging disease (such as COVID-19) was identified as ‘highly likely but with moderate impact’.However, much preparatory work for an influenza pandemic is the same as for COVID-19, particularly in prepositioning large stocks of PPE, readiness within large hospitals, and the creation of new hospitals and facilities.One key issue is that the 2017 NHS Operating Framework for Managing the Response to Pandemic Influenza was dependent on pre-positioned ’just in case’ stockpiles of PPE. But as it became clear the PPE stocks were not adequate for the pandemic, it was reported that recommendations about the stockpile by NERVTAG (the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group which advises the government on the threat posed by new and emerging respiratory viruses) had been subjected to an ‘economic assessment’ and decisions reversed on, for example, eye protection.The UK chief medical officer Dame Sally Davies, when speaking at the World Health Organization about Operation Cygnus – a 2016 three-day exercise on a flu pandemic in the UK – reportedly said the UK was not ready for a severe flu attack and ‘a lot of things need improving’.Aware of the significance of the situation, the UK Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy launched an inquiry in 2019 on ‘Biosecurity and human health: preparing for emerging infectious diseases and bioweapons’ which intended to coordinate a cross-government approach to biosecurity threats. But the inquiry had to postpone its oral hearings scheduled for late October 2019 and, because of the general election in December 2019, the committee was obliged to close the inquiry. Full Article
for Webinar: Coronavirus Crisis – Implications for an Evolving Cybersecurity Landscape By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:25:01 +0000 Corporate Members Event Webinar 7 May 2020 - 1:00pm to 2:00pm Event participants Neil Walsh, Chief, Cybercrime and Anti-Money Laundering Department, UN Office of Drugs and CrimeLisa Quest, Head, Public Sector, UK & Ireland, Oliver WymanChair: Joyce Hakmeh, Senior Research Fellow, International Security Programme; Co-Editor, Journal of Cyber Policy, Chatham HouseFurther speakers to be announced. The COVID-19 pandemic is having a profound impact on the cybersecurity landscape - both amplifying already-existing cyber threats and creating new vulnerabilities for state and non-state actors. The crisis has highlighted the importance of protecting key national and international infrastructures, with the World Health Organization, US Department of Health and Human Services and hospitals across Europe suffering cyber-attacks, undermining their ability to tackle the coronavirus outbreak. Changing patterns of work resulting from widespread lockdowns are also creating new vulnerabilities for organizations with many employees now working from home and using personal devices to work remotely.In light of these developments, the panellists will discuss the evolving cyber threats resulting from the pandemic. How are they impacting ongoing conversations around cybersecurity? How can governments, private sector and civil society organizations work together to effectively mitigate and respond to them? And what could the implications of such cooperation be beyond the crisis? This event is part of a fortnightly series of 'Business in Focus' webinars reflecting on the impact of COVID-19 on areas of particular professional interest for our corporate members and giving circles.Not a corporate member? Find out more. Full Article
for Coronavirus Vaccine: Available For All, or When it's Your Turn? By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: Mon, 04 May 2020 15:39:19 +0000 4 May 2020 Professor David Salisbury CB Associate Fellow, Global Health Programme LinkedIn Despite high-level commitments and pledges to cooperate to ensure equitable global access to a coronavirus vaccine, prospects for fair distribution are uncertain. 2020-05-04-Vaccine-COVID-Brazil Researcher in Brazil working on virus replication in order to develop a vaccine against the coronavirus. Photo by DOUGLAS MAGNO/AFP via Getty Images. When the H1N1 influenza pandemic struck in 2009, some industrialized countries were well prepared. Many countries’ preparedness plans had focused on preparing for an influenza pandemic and based on earlier alerts over the H5N1 ‘bird flu’ virus, countries had made advanced purchase or ‘sleeping’ contracts for vaccine supplies that could be activated as soon as a pandemic was declared. Countries without contracts scrambled to get supplies after those that already had contracts received their vaccine.Following the 2009 pandemic, the European Union (EU) developed plans for joint-purchase vaccine contracts that any member state could join, guaranteeing the same price per dose for everyone. In 2009, low-income countries were unable to get the vaccine until manufacturers agreed to let 10 per cent of their production go to the World Health Organization (WHO).The situation for COVID-19 could be even worse. No country had a sleeping contract in place for a COVID-19 vaccine since nobody had anticipated that the next pandemic would be a coronavirus, not an influenza virus. With around 80 candidate vaccines reported to be in development, choosing the right one will be like playing roulette.These candidates will be whittled down as some will fail at an early stage of development and others will not get to scale-up for manufacturing. All of the world’s major vaccine pharmaceutical companies have said that they will divert resources to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines and, as long as they choose the right candidate for production, they have the expertise and the capacity to produce in huge quantities.From roulette to a horse raceOur game now changes from roulette to a horse race, as the probability of winning is a matter of odds not a random chance. Countries are now able to try to make contracts alone or in purchasing consortia with other states, and with one of the major companies or with multiple companies. This would be like betting on one of the favourites.For example, it has been reported that Oxford University has made an agreement with pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca, with a possibility of 100 million doses being available by the end of 2020. If the vaccine works and those doses materialize, and are all available for the UK, then the UK population requirements will be met in full, and the challenge becomes vaccinating everyone as quickly as possible.Even if half of the doses were reserved for the UK, all those in high-risk or occupational groups could be vaccinated rapidly. However, as each major manufacturer accepts more contracts, the quantity that each country will get diminishes and the time to vaccinate the at-risk population gets longer.At this point, it is not known how manufacturers will respond to requests for vaccine and how they will apportion supplies between different markets. You could bet on an outsider. You study the field and select a biotech that has potential with a good production development programme and a tie-in with a smaller-scale production facility.If other countries do not try to get contracts, you will get your vaccine as fast as manufacturing can be scaled up; but because it is a small manufacturer, your supplies may take a long time. And outsiders do not often win races. You can of course, depending on your resources, cover several runners and try to make multiple contracts. However, you take on the risk that some will fail, and you may have compromised your eventual supply.On April 24, the WHO co-hosted a meeting with the president of France, the president of the European Commission and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It brought together heads of state and industry leaders who committed to ‘work towards equitable global access based on an unprecedented level of partnership’. They agreed ‘to create a strong unified voice, to build on past experience and to be accountable to the world, to communities and to one another’ for vaccines, testing materials and treatments.They did not, however, say how this will be achieved and the absence of the United States was notable. The EU and its partners are hosting an international pledging conference on May 4 that aims to raise €7.5 billion in initial funding to kick-start global cooperation on vaccines. Co-hosts will be France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Norway and Saudi Arabia and the priorities will be ‘Test, Treat and Prevent’, with the latter dedicated to vaccines.Despite these expressions of altruism, every government will face the tension between wanting to protect their own populations as quickly as possible and knowing that this will disadvantage poorer countries, where health services are even less able to cope. It will not be a vote winner to offer a share in available vaccine to less-privileged countries.The factories for the biggest vaccine manufacturers are in Europe, the US and India. Will European manufacturers be obliged by the EU to restrict sales first to European countries? Will the US invoke its Defense Production Act and block vaccine exports until there are stocks enough for every American? And will vaccine only be available in India for those who can afford it?The lessons on vaccine availability from the 2009 influenza pandemic are clear: vaccine was not shared on anything like an equitable basis. It remains to be seen if we will do any better in 2020. Full Article
for The transcriptional regulator MEIS2 sets up the ground state for palatal osteogenesis in mice [Gene Regulation] By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: 2020-04-17T00:06:05-07:00 Haploinsufficiency of Meis homeobox 2 (MEIS2), encoding a transcriptional regulator, is associated with human cleft palate, and Meis2 inactivation leads to abnormal palate development in mice, implicating MEIS2 functions in palate development. However, its functional mechanisms remain unknown. Here we observed widespread MEIS2 expression in the developing palate in mice. Wnt1Cre-mediated Meis2 inactivation in cranial neural crest cells led to a secondary palate cleft. Importantly, about half of the Wnt1Cre;Meis2f/f mice exhibited a submucous cleft, providing a model for studying palatal bone formation and patterning. Consistent with complete absence of palatal bones, the results from integrative analyses of MEIS2 by ChIP sequencing, RNA-Seq, and an assay for transposase-accessible chromatin sequencing identified key osteogenic genes regulated directly by MEIS2, indicating that it plays a fundamental role in palatal osteogenesis. De novo motif analysis uncovered that the MEIS2-bound regions are highly enriched in binding motifs for several key osteogenic transcription factors, particularly short stature homeobox 2 (SHOX2). Comparative ChIP sequencing analyses revealed genome-wide co-occupancy of MEIS2 and SHOX2 in addition to their colocalization in the developing palate and physical interaction, suggesting that SHOX2 and MEIS2 functionally interact. However, although SHOX2 was required for proper palatal bone formation and was a direct downstream target of MEIS2, Shox2 overexpression failed to rescue the palatal bone defects in a Meis2-mutant background. These results, together with the fact that Meis2 expression is associated with high osteogenic potential and required for chromatin accessibility of osteogenic genes, support a vital function of MEIS2 in setting up a ground state for palatal osteogenesis. Full Article
for Rigid continuation paths I. Quasilinear average complexity for solving polynomial systems By www.ams.org Published On :: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 10:59 EDT Pierre Lairez J. Amer. Math. Soc. 33 (2019), 487-526. Abstract, references and article information Full Article
for On the measure of maximal entropy for finite horizon Sinai Billiard maps By www.ams.org Published On :: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 10:59 EDT Viviane Baladi and Mark F. Demers J. Amer. Math. Soc. 33 (2020), 381-449. Abstract, references and article information Full Article
for A PP2A Phosphatase High Density Interaction Network Identifies a Novel Striatin-interacting Phosphatase and Kinase Complex Linked to the Cerebral Cavernous Malformation 3 (CCM3) Protein By feedproxy.google.com Published On :: 2009-01-01 Marilyn GoudreaultJan 1, 2009; 8:157-171Research Full Article