Smoking in China

It is interesting to hear that 18 months after China ratified the WHO’s framework convention on tobacco control, China has now finally announced it is going to do something to meet its commitments. This is not just a ’smoke-free Beijing’ slogan which in effect means nothing; it is potentially a new law that can be relatively easily enforced. The government can stop companies from advertising and it can stop advertisers from accepting advertising; by enforcing the law from both directions it might actually be enforced -at least in the big cities. It will be interesting to see what happens in the countryside and what what strategy the tobacco companies come up with (maybe just focusing on promoting the brand of the company rather than its products, like Western tobacco companies; or maybe resorting to more underhand tactics and increasing promotion online, ‘on-the street’ or through other less regulated channels).
It is about time that China accepted that the profits the government makes from tobacco (taxes as well as from the State Owned Enterprises in the industry) and the number of people employed in the industry (including many poor urban residents selling cigarettes in tiny shops or from make-shift stands on the sidewalk) is not a reason to continue to support an industry which such devastating impacts on people’s lives, their productivity and their household economy (it is no wonder that most NGOs prefer to support women more than men when so many men spend their pocket money on cigarettes when women spend pocket money on food, education or clothes for the family).

I wonder, though, how the tobacco lobby in China (and though Western companies are a part of this lobby, evidently the major players are all Chinese) let this happen? China is a huge market for the tobacco industry and one of the few countries where (I believe) the number of smokers is growing. I also wonder how high up this decision goes and whether the decision was purely an economical one (i.e. taxes received =lower than cost to health system for dealing with impacts) or also motivated by other reasons.

Smoking itself is one of those industries CSR people love to talk about with the question: Can tobacco companies be responsible? In one way, the answer is no, since the companies’ product kills people that consume the product, and those who do not and particularly harms the vulnerable in a household (i.e. the women and children who suffer from second-hand smoke but do not smoke). In another way, the answer is yes, since the companies’ product is not illegal, employs millions of poor people (especially farmers and those involved in distribution) and contributes high taxes to the governments that need money for health sectors. Does anyone know of any Chinese Tobacco companies that have ever said anything about CSR (not just charity)?

Not Zimbabwe again

A topic I have not touched for a year or more; orginally writing about how the West should be ashamed for not doing something about a country that is constantly getting worse. Well, finally, as the problem has got worse, some other African countries have been forced to do something. Not because they really want to help of course, but because the problem is so bad that at least a third of Zimbabweans have fled their own country, many to South Africa. The migration is having such an impact on South Africa it has been forced to at least acknowledge the problem and started to apply some pressure.

The pressure makes no difference; Western countries ignore the problem; Zimbabwe gets worse. Inflation at 3,000% was bad, now it is above 15,000%. Prices triple every month. Salaries double every 3 months... an imbalance that means poverty is just getting worse and worse -a vicious cycle has taken hold leading to worse health problems and worse educational facilities. How can this cycle be broken? Even if Mugabe falls, even if the transition to a stable leadership could be relatively smooth (which would be a first through out the World), how long will it take to recover? to rebuild, to retraing, to re-attract talent...

But first we need to convince our governments to do something. To get rid of Mugabe and his cronies and try to help Zimbabwe find itself a decent leadership. Then we can think of trying to help. The future is not good. If anything it is, unfortunately, a case of how bad can a dictator mess up a country, before it actually self-implodes? It seems, regrettably, like we might be finding out in the next year. At least something might change soon -but only because the situation is so bad. And what do we do about it?

Women

If the World was equal women would, on average, be in half of all positions. In reality most, globally, dominate the 'working in the field' and 'looking after the home/family' positions and are under represented in many others. The devil's advocate (or the economist) could argue that the division of labour means people do the job they are best at. True women are probably best at bringing up kids; but maybe they are also the best at running countries, institutions and businesses too?

After listening to a special podcast from one of my favourite websites, I had a new epiphany. Previous I was all for women's rights, and women being at least equal to men. I had also read some of the (slightly scary) articles about Women soon not needing Men (biologically) -well, whatever. I had, also, realised that when Women are allowed to do things, they often do them better than Men -maybe because they need to prove themselves (having not been allowed to to it before) or maybe they just work harder than Men. I am well aware that Men and Women are better at different things.

Being involved in the Development World I am well aware of the crucial role that women play in rural communities (particularly). They care for the elderly, care for the young, look after the land if the men work elsewhere (migration) for cash, look after the home and more. They are the life of a community. They are very busy, but very competent. But they are 'stuck' in this role, without being able to use their wonderful abilities to achieve more. They are also discriminated against (physically and mentally) at home and in communities, often lack any voice individually or collectively in communities (as Men are seen as more important, culturally, especially in China) etc. So, the idea of empowering women came about a while ago. We are a year into our own Rural Women Empowerment Program -and it is such a simple concept but so exciting.

Allow me to elaborate. You have these women, who are normally quite busy, but sometimes have some free time; they are mostly uneducated but have huge responsibilities (including managing household finances as well as everything else previously mentioned). They rarely read (some cannot read). So you give them something to read, something relevant about childcare, farming, finances, womens health etc. Then you get them to get together with some other women to discuss what they are reading, share ideas and work on common challenges. Then they have a greater collective voice in the community, are more effective at their 'work' saving them time etc etc. Many of them can then work together to start micro-businesses (needlework, selling food, for example) from micro-finance. The result: just from giving them something useful to read and facilitating/encouraging the formation of collective groups is incredible.

Micro-finance is now becoming well-known, and is making a greater impact across the world. over 90% of all micro-finance clients are... Women. They are ones who have the time and ability to implement small business ideas; they just need the seed capital and training to do it. And it is making a difference, a huge difference. Our Micro-finance program has lent to over 5,000 people and not had a single payment default on interest of 10+% (which is low for micro-finance, due to local situations).

Anyway, back to the epiphany (of sorts) was that for the jobs that Women are most under-represented in; i.e. politics, Women might actually be the best ones at those jobs: better at understanding different people's opinions, better at negotiating, better at 'reading people', more inclined to help people and be less ruthless and so on. Apparently there is a UN Security Council resolution about Women being involved in more political processes, though i wonder how this is enforced...

So we shouldn't be helping women get certain jobs because they have equal right to them, we should be helping them get them because they can do them better and though that might mean Men like me lose out, it means Women can help make this World a better place cause all the Men can't manage to do it! hmmm

Participation

Levels of Participation is what possibly used to be 1 aspect separating businesses from NGOs from governments -but the recent trend has been for everyone to take-up participation in different ways which is now another example of the blurring of the line between the 3.

Governments all try different models of participation as democracies or even as autocracies too various degrees; with citizens able to vote on certain people or decisions as well as have access to information and the ability to input into ideas, processes etc through consultations.

NGOs have long had to use participation to find volunteers and raise funds and utilise some sort of research to start an idea and then to affect real change engage people in their activities as much as possible.

Businesses used to only use participation for market research and employee unions, but now involve employees much more, customers and their ideas much more and stakeholder engagement is the buzz word around to identify new opportunities and understand potential risks.

Though all kinds of participation are different within sectors and within organisations there still is a trend for all 3 sectors to increase their participation: for government it is a way to increase their legitimacy (which is getting lower), for businesses it is a way to increase trust and hopefully increase profits and for NGOs it helps increase their impact.

Participation for me is a great thing as it helps create mutual accountability between groups, increases communication, gains greater agreement, inspires confidence and generates ideas amongst other things. Of course there are limits to how much participation is useful -however I believe these limits should be decided by the 'participants' rather than those deciding. If it requires too much time for too little benefit, let the 'participants' say! If 'participants' are not qualified for certain discussions, let them realise so!

Power to the people, greater participation and greater involvement can unite this world slowly and surely to achieving better things for more people in better ways. After all, who will complain if an idea they contribute to fails? Though they might not take responsibility, they will still be happy about the process of decision making -and this is the key point for participation. The process is more important than the result and if 'successful' will often achieve better results in the wider sense.

Decline in leadership- what next?

When your leadership role decines, and this seems inevitable, what do you do? Try to postpone the inevitable; try to prevent it through eliminating the competition; accept the decline and manage it to your own benefit or are there other options?

Some could argue the USA faces this option in the next 20-30 years. As sure as people cannot live forever, empires cannot live forever and the USA will need to sacrifice its individual dominance of the World at some point -maybe to China, maybe to China and India combined, or maybe it will just have to share its dominance with either of those (or Europe etc)?

Previous empires have tended to implode through over-stretching or because the competition beat them (often in a group) or because someone else just developed to be better.

Let me introduce: The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle. Now this seems to imply that the USA will not give up its leadership position.

Fair enough -let PNAC research this (and who knows how much support it actually has from the 'powers that be'. But what would be better for the USA is to also have another think-tank entitled: Project for the Non-American Century which could explore what the future might look like under a different country (or group of countries)'s leadership. It could explore what the US could do to ensure it still benefits from this decline, how to deal with the psychological implications, how to prevent a nuclear attack on the (overtaking) competition and so on.

Even more interesting it could explore peaceful means of how the US could retain its leadership role in a way that is good for itself and others; in partnership with others. Unfortunately political international partnerships (e.g UN) rarely work due to the inherent fundamental need to preserve one's self-interest over all else... simple game theory does not adequately explain irrationality based on human kind's selfishness; or if it does (I am not an expert) then why has no one put forward suggestions to make partnerships like the UN Security Council or WTO work better?

The Leadership of the US needs to be responsible to itself and to others by creating several scenarios of the future and explore each one in detail. Instead of just presuming there is only 1 possible scenario (continued dominance) and exploring how to best ensure that scenario happens. As we are slowly, slowly realising we are an interconnected species on a small planet (witness climate change) and we have to put the 'whole' ahead of ourselves. Other species seem to be able to do this. Are human beings up to the task?

I would hate to see yet another cold war of some king... one that might end up warming up just a little too much..

bbc

I'm a big supporter of the role of 'the market' to allocate resources effectively and balance long-term with short-term consequences. It is not perfect by any means and despite the interesting use of the stock market to counter for long-term impacts (e.g. futures), the time lag between our reaction to certain problems and our decision to do something about it is still too great.

There is though, always other problems, such as out lack of ability of how to do something about a problem (once we eventually realise it is a problem).There are also some things where a 'market concept' has not developed -and maybe cannot develop. One example is politics; which should be the model 'market' but is often not; another is the Media. For several years I have held a great interest in the role of the media, its power, its use, its ownership, its impartiality and so on. What strikes me as interesting is to consider the 'marketisation' of the media, into monopoly ownership (is it a bad thing? if so, won't bad things naturally fail to be replaced with better things?), onto the internet (how many of us would love to spend all out time viewing all that media up there -too much!) and how it impacts it's content.

I think the UK is in an interesting situation regarding the media. There are some media providers who are purely commercial (though still regualted by the government and forced to show a certain number of 'educational shows', or to limit the amount of advertisements, for example) and then there is the BBC. The BBC is about broadcasting TV and radio (nationally and globally), funding and making content for itselves and others and providing the UK's most popular website (and a top site globally). Although it is sort of a non-profit entity, its existence is entirely dependent on the government to give it its 'license' -i.e. remit on what it can or cannot do. Thus the government controls the BBC -but the funding comes directly from the people (everyone must buy a TV license), though this is not a tax it is barely a 'user fee' since usage of the BBC is so loosely related to how much is paid (compared to a normal market commodity).

As much as the BBC loves to hate the government it has to rely on the individuals within the government who are willing to support something that might be bad for the government (its controllers). Indeed what makes the BBC so interesting is this weird balance of control and ownership.. because it impacts what the BBC is able to do, and crucially, what the content is.Thus the media is a unique issue to discuss in the context of responsible leadership.

Many argue (at a macro level) about the crucial role the media has to play in informing the public, in playing an active role in supporting democracy, freedoms (of speech etc). Others can argue (at a micro level) about whether the media should promote domestic talent (since it is paid for by domestic money) or whether it is stifling other competition. It makes the mind boggle to consider how complex a responsibility the BBC has -given its international role, its influence across so many types of media and its remarkably high level of trust that almost everyone holds in it (in a world where no-one trusts any thing nowadays!).

My take is that there is a responsibility to stimulate a healthy democracy and debate, there is a responsibility to inform people about issues that they need to be educated about (climate change, poverty or whatever), there is a need to provide fantastic documentaries even if so few people watch them, there is a need to provide a platfor for new talent and new ideas and there is also a need to show shows that people actually want (e.g.soap operas).

Getting the balance right is not easy; it seems the BBC is doing ok with this balance at the moment, and the government is doing a fair job of both controlling and not controlling the BBC in a way that is best for the 'public good' (who can decide what THAT is?). I hope that it continues in it unique and weird form to continue to be a fantastic organisation.

The UN

Well, if there is one Organisation that exists that requires (and should demonstrate) responsible leadership, this is it. Its ironic really that the organisation designed to prevent further conflict by encouraging debate has turned out to be so ineffective.

Or has it? In short the UN shows that democracy is a complex thing; how do you ask 200 or so nations to agree on anything (and how do you define 'agree', is it a majority?)? How do you ask people to work for an Organisation without showing bias or subjectivity, when every man or woman has their own history and perspectives? How do you make an Organisation representative if half its representative countries struggle to have more than a few Universities to educate its envoys? Should the UN have more or less power? Should it be directly elected? What bodies should do what, where should the UN intervene and on who's behalf? The list could go on and there are many questions that equally apply to the European Union/Commission (another blog...).

In the end the UN can only do what those who control it want it to do, or will let it do. It seems to me to be somewhere between a company which is not democratic and a government which 'is'. Yet the UN has few powers but a broad agenda, it has little direct impact but massive stature and it has 6 billion different points of views on what it should achieve, and how; yet 6 billions people refuse to let it do anything at all.

For the UN, which more than anything else exists in order to represent 'good', 'ethics', 'responsibility' or however else you want to call it, the ongoing debate about corruption within it is eve more destructive than the everlasting debate as to its role and functionality. For if the UN suffers from corruption and abuse, then there is no point having it at all. If there is no corruption, but the UN achieves something, then at least it achieves something. Nothing that is corrupt can be a positive force in the World.

I would hope that those within the UN should realise their responsibility to the World, that they directly have, more than any other human beings. I would hope they would be the kind of people who would think carefully about their actions, and uphold the highest standards (that they are so keen to promote). For a crisis like the one currently in the media to even have come so far is a disgrace. For the investigation to have to be called its a disgrace, and for it to be called over a decade after the allegations of corruption began is ridiculous. I am very sure that no-one or no Organisation can be perfect, but some things are so basic that most people or organisations can get them right. For the UN to be involved in sexual abuse amongst its peacekeepers puts a mockery on the Millennium Development Goals aiming at male-female equality!

I hope that this issue can encourage debate on how best people can serve such an organisation (or 'the greater good') -how can people be objective and not abuse friendships? how can they be less selfish? how can ethics be installed in a workforce covering the globe, yet still remain locally relevant and culturally sensitive? how can an organisation hope to have a bigger impact without spending so much time and effort on internal management ensuring compliance?

Should Kofi Annan stay or go? No-one is perfect and most seem to believe in him as the right leader (or did until theis new evidence arose) for the UN. However if he, and his organisation, loose the respect and status that they currently have; a new leader must be required. For without the respect people have for an organisation designed to improve the World, the UN has nothing.

Africa...

SDN: promoting real sustainable development, "Let Africa fight its own devils".

Another hot topic, certainly, and one that focuses on how the rich can most help the poor. Leaders of the rich world have a responsibility to help others (it is in their best interest, as world leaders are finally realising, in regards to terrorism or immigration etc). How they do this, is in great dispute!

Most solutions focus on aid (in-kind or monetary) and technical support. Ironically a lot of this focuses on removing current processes that were put in place by rich countries to start with (such as trade barriers, debt and so on) -which shows how short-sighted the leaders who implemented them were.

I wanted to comment on this particular article, since one of the big changes in recent times has been that Aid agencies should work together towards common goals (!) and with the host country government (if possible); the aim is that the poor tell the rich what they need, and how that should be used. That sounds like a good idea. In the past, aid organisations presumed they knew best, and provided conditions on the support they gave (focused on reforms). This idea is now losing credibility; hoping that the poor will create the necessary reforms themselves (be them the same or different to what the rich have suggested/forced before).

This article argues along the free market lines, that actually what has most helped the poor in the past has been the free market, and supporting institutions. Should these exist, aid would not be needed (although it makes an exception for AIDS which is a 1-off 'first' in world history) to overcome poverty (over time), and any solutions would be long-term, natural and sustainable. Thus the rich should focus on providing the environment/framework/institions for countries to then develop themselves out of poverty. Certainly, they should remove the artificial restrictions they imposed (import tarrifs etc) before, but most importantly, they should aim to provide advice and change the institutions that are ineffective in much of Africa.

What should responsible leaders do when they want to do something, but no-one quite knows what the best way is to do it? Working in partnership with those they want to help is the obvious way to devise the solutions, however this has never happened before. The rich have never dealt with the poor -they just deal with those who supposedly 'represent' the poor. Now as NGOs grow more powerful (and presuming they can better represent the poor and be accountable to them), this could change -but the change is too slow.

The second thing is they should start with changing themselves. Set examples. As with the Tsunami, compete with each other as to who can hope the most, quickest! For so long, the rich have realised the impact of debt interest payments are having and the impact of trade restrictions...and what has happened? and what more is likely to happen? The answer is little (something will happen, but not enough for sure!), because we have to balance our own self-interests with our desire to help others. IF both these changes adversely affected the rich, so that they become worse off; then this would help no-one. the trick is that someone explains and creates a precise strategy for how to make these changes without long-term adverse changes.

That is the trick, but the crucial aspect, is that it requires some responsible leadership. It requires someone to start taking action, to do what they say, to acknowledge the consequences of their actions; to make decisions, to bravely set an example. Everyone talks about requiring more action; which is great, in theory. And example: The rich are discussing the World trade issue (Doha round in the WTO); great. They are even engaging different stakeholders in this, and even talking to the poor. But, it is not enough. Why only meet every 6 months? Why does the 'round' take years and not months?

Granted, the changes required are big, and need to be carefully managed. But if there was the will, then there would be a way. And right now, it is clear that the will does not exist, for a multitude of reasons, not to be discussed here. Responsible leadership requires determination, effort and a long-term vision. Not a short-term, selfish perspective.

Was war 'legal'?

A lot of my posts will be about articles in the news, about leaders and their decisions and actions. And why not kick this off with one of the most controversial topics around: Iraq.

Back before the war started the UK parliament voted on whether to go to war (although this was not a decision that would bind the government). Although it was close, the decision was to go to war; primarily on the argument that Iraq had, or would soon have, weapons of mass destruction (WMD), that would threaten the UK or others. Separate to the debate about the existence of the WMD, another key consideration was that, even if it was true, would this be a just reason to launch a pre-emptive attack? The Attorney-General, advised that as Iraq had been in breach of International Law (UN resolutions), then it was legal (this would also ensure that the combatants could not be tried for illegal actions, amongst other things).

It now appears that the advise that the Attorney-General gave is in dispute. How crucial the advise is is debatable, but it was certainly of great importance. His role, as 1 person - as the legal expert, and his actions, had significant consequences. Was his input truthful? Was he swayed by others (media, government pressure, even his own personal feelings)?

The debate has arisen over whether what he said (and he said different things in private as he did in the publicly released statements) was "a summary of his advice", "his opinion", "his view" or "a definitive statement". This matters a lot it seems (less so now than before the war presumably!). For me, it is a matter of the independence of the judiciary from the executive. It is a matter of taking responsibility for one's actions (and their consequences). It is a matter of being ethical and open. It represents a great example of where responsible leadership is required. It was not for this leader to make a decision; although his information would influence the decision made. It was for him to provide what was asked of him and what was expected of him. Did he do that?

Responsible Leaders need to demonstrate a firm belief and commitment in their own actions, and when decisions are made, or information released (especially in an official capacity) be sure that they are aware of the consequences, be sure they make the right decisions and stand by them. Most of all leaders need to be clear themselves of their actions, and effectively communicate this to others. Clarity is crucial.

What we will find out once/if any further information is released (declassified) may be interesting. But, it is clear, that for such a debate to have arisen, means that the Attorney-General has not demonstrated responsible leadership. Nobody is perfect, but everybody should aim to be.