Bandung and a changing world order

For proof that the world is a much-changed place, look no further than last week’s impressive Asia-Africa conference in Bandung, Indonesia, marking the 60^th anniversary of the original Cold War era summit in the same city led by Indonesia’s then leader-Sukarno.The talk in Bandung six decades ago among representatives from twenty-nine Asian and African governments of Asian and African nations was of the role of the “Third World” in the Cold War, economic development, and decolonisation.The meeting’s final resolution laid the foundation for the nonaligned movement during the Cold War. The heady talk among leaders was on the potential for collaboration among Asian and African nations and their determination to reduce their reliance on Europe and North America.Fast forward to Bandung last week and replace references to the “Third World” with the more modern “emerging nations” and it’s clear that Asia and Africa have changed dramatically since 1955.The two regions – as well as Latin America – are simultaneously driving the transformation of the global landscape and thriving because of it.The mood may be morose in Washington and EU capitals – but Asia, Africa and Latin America are on a roll. Trade is booming – including between the three regions, investments are pouring in and an emerging middle class is changing social, political and economic lifestyles.Interestingly – and worth reflecting on – is the fact that much of the transformation is the result of China’s rise and its gradual but sustained emergence as an important regional and global actor.The West, especially the United States, is finding it difficult to adjust and accommodate the deep-seated paradigm shift in power taking place around it. That’s not difficult to understand given that the US as the current dominant global power has the most to lose from the shift of power to the East.But Europe also needs to come to terms with a changed world. Here in Brussels as the European Union prepares to hammer out a new European Security Strategy to replace the one written 12 years ago it needs to pay special attention to the myriad ways in which the world is becoming different, almost daily. And it needs to forge a new outlook on China and Asia.The world viewed from Europe is indeed violent, messy and dangerous. The EU faces a host of domestic problems – Greece, unemployment, and of course the deteriorating refugee crisis. Europe is surrounded as some say by a “ring of fire”: in the east by Russia and in the south, by a turbulent Arab world.But the EU should be wary of projecting its own morosity on other regions – and indeed of basing its assumptions of Asia’s future on Europe’s tragic, war-racked past.While Europe and its neighbours are in turmoil, the rest of the world is doing better than expected – and certainly better than 60 years ago.The economies of most of the African and Asian countries gathered in Bandung are booming. Steps are being taken to combat poverty, there were successful elections in Afghanistan and Indonesia – and changes are underway in Myanmar and Vietnam next year.Emerging countries are setting their own agenda, defining their interests, building partnerships and rallying together to forge a joint vision for the future.This time the talk is also of breaking the chains of colonialism – but of a different kind; today’s African and Asian governments want an end to the economic domination of the West and of Western insitutions.As the Bandung meeting pointed out last week, the focus is on establishing a new global order that is open to emerging economic powers and leaves the "obsolete ideas" of Bretton Woods institutions in the past.President Xi Jinping of China told the conference that “a new type of international relations” was needed to encourage cooperation between Asian and African nations.Indonesian President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, the conference host, said those who still insisted that global economic problems could only be solved through the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and Asian Development Bank were clinging to a long-gone past.“There needs to be change,” he said. "It's imperative that we build a new international economic order that is open to new emerging economic powers.”In 1955, the 29 countries which met in Bandung accounted for less than a quarter of global economic output at that time; today they contribute to more than half of the world economy.Many of those countries, such as China, India and Indonesia, are now themselves at top tables like the Group of 20 and wield significant economic power.Indonesia’s Jokowi said the group was meeting again in a changed world but still needed to stand together against the domination of an unspecified “certain group of countries” to avoid unfairness and global imbalances.The creation of the China-backed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is one way in which emerging nations are challenging the Western-dominated economic stage. While the US has decided to stay out of the AIIB, many European countries have offered to be founding members of the new bank.Asia’s future will depend to a large extent on the economic future of China. And on relations between China and Japan.Tensions between Asia’s two biggest economies have flared in recent years due to feuds over wartime history as well as territorial rows and regional rivalry.Memories of Japan’s past military aggression run deep in China, and Beijing has repeatedly urged Japan to face up to history.In an encouraging move, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and President Xi did meet in Bandung, prompting hopes of a cautious rapprochement between the two economic giants.Peace and prosperity in Asia hinge on cordial relations, even partnerships between the region’s leading powers. And who knows if China and Japan can sidestep their historical enmities, perhaps India and Pakistan could – one day – do the same?

View from Abroad: New development paradigm (Originally published 08/03/2015 at dawn.com)

It used to be so simple: the world was divided into rich and poor countries. The rich provided aid and trade concessions to the poor ones. It was called Official Development Assistance (ODA) and often seen as a panacea for all problems facing “third world” countries. Rich nations promised to spend 0.7 per cent of their GDP as ODA. Developing nations were grateful for the help. It was neat and tidy. Orderly even.Only of course it wasn’t. It was messy, patronising and based on the notion of charity. Nothing wrong with charity — only that it begins at home. And as the going got tougher at home, growth rates dipped and jobs became scarcer, richer countries were less and less anxious to help the poorer ones.And then the world turned on its head as poor countries — or at least some of them — stopped being really poor. China, India, South Africa, Brazil began to rise, becoming more self confident and assertive by the day. They asked for stronger representation in international financial institutions, set up their own bank, started investing in and assisting their less well-off friends.In 2000 amid all the change and shift in power from North to South, the talk turned to achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and eradicating poverty. However, it was still about the rich helping the poor, putting conditions on their aid, making sure that there was no wastage, no human rights abuses.Fast forward to 2015 and the world is a dramatically different place. The talk is of a post-2015 agenda which is about sustainable development in both the North and the South. There is a focus on governance, gender balance, and moving “beyond ODA”.There is agreement that the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will not be met by ODA alone. Their achievement will require the mobilisation of the private sector, a better use of remittances and philanthropy and more creative thinking about “blending” private and public funds.And above all there will be a focus on the mobilisation of additional resources by developing countries through domestic resource mobilisation, including through more thorough and efficient national tax collection.Yes, finally after years of beating around the bush, global attention is turning to tackling tax evasion, by companies and individuals. The question will be high up on the agenda of the third International Conference on Financing for Development which will be held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from July 13 to 16, 2015.The reason for the focus on domestic revenue mobilisation in developing countries is clearly linked to the fact that ODA is on its way down and traditional donors are getting tougher.There is good talk about the potential benefits of taxation for state-building and the long-term independence from foreign assistance. It is also of course a question of governance.Revenue from taxation and customs provides governments with the funds needed to invest in development, relieve poverty and deliver public services directed towards the physical and social infrastructure required to enhance long-term growth.Strengthening domestic resource mobilisation is not just a question of raising revenues: it is also about designing a revenue system that promotes inclusiveness, encourages good governance, improves accountability of governments to their citizens, and cultivates social justice.Non-governmental agencies such as Christian Aid have estimated that developing countries, including lower- and middle-income countries, could be losing out on as much as $160bn a year in potential tax revenue because companies are dodging taxes. This was one and a half times the combined overseas aid budget of the whole rich world at the time, and there’s no reason to think the problem has got smaller since then.In 2011, the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa established a high-level panel to write a report on illicit financial flows (IFFs) in Africa and to come up with ways to combat them.The panel, presided by the former South African head of state Thabo Mbeki, warned that the cost of IFFs to the continent was around $50 billion each year.The report states: “Some have estimated that Africa’s capital stock would have expanded by more than 60 per cent if funds leaving Africa illicitly had remained on the continent, while GDP per capita would be up to 15 per cent more.”Worse still, this sum is even greater than the total official development assistance received by African countries, which was $46.1 billion in 2012.At a recent conference in Brussels, participants underlined that there was no dearth of money in the world and that in fact Africa was a rich continent. The money was just not in Africa, but hidden and hoarded in tax havens, most of them in rich countries.

View from abroad : Working on a new brand Rwanda (Originally published 20th September at dawn.com)

Most countries ban the entry of drugs and alcohol on to their territory. As we prepare for landing in Kigali, the captain issues an unusual warning: Rwanda does not allow plastic bags. As I turn in bewilderment and some amusement to my Ugandan neighbour, he grins at my reaction. Jumping up to get rid of the duty-free plastic bag in his hand baggage, he explains that Kigali is arguably Africa’s cleanest city. And the government wants to keep it that way.The message is repeated at the very grand World Export Development Forum (WEDF) that I am attending in Kigali. As I moderate a panel on “Tourism and Development”, Abdou Jobe, Gambia’s Minister for Tourism, tells the audience, he is very impressed by the clean streets of Kigali. “A model for all of us,” he says with a smile as the hall bursts into applause.Cleanliness and environmental protection are only one small part of Rwanda’s new post-genocide narrative. As the country rebuilds after the horrors of the 1994 genocide, the government — and the people — are in a hurry, sharing a common desire to move forward as quickly as possible.The past is not forgotten — Rwanda commemorated 20 years of the genocide this year — but it is a spur to the future. My tourist guide takes me to the genocide memorial. But he is equally keen to show me the shiny shopping malls, banks and new high-rises coming up in central Kigali.It’s difficult not to be impressed. Having visited the country and neighbouring Burundi before the genocide, I remember Kigali as a sleepy town, overrun by aid workers. The “land of the thousand hills”, with its coffee and tea plantations, was strikingly beautiful but also very poor. Landlocked Rwanda needed roads, bridges and airports. But development was slow and plodding. And then there was the genocide. On April 6, 1994, a plane carrying Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana was shot down over the airport at Kigali, triggering massive civil unrest between the majority Hutu and minority Tutsi people. It is usually estimated that more than 800,000 Rwandans, mostly Tutsis, were murdered in the following three months.I remember the feeling of despair as reports came in of the killing and maiming, of neighbours turning against each other, of some priests joining in the mass murders — and of the international community’s failure to stop the devastation. The United Nations has now apologised for its failure to act.The mea culpa is welcome, a Rwandan colleague tells me. But what the country needs now is to expand its trading potential, export more, attract investments, welcome more tourists, embrace information technology, improve connectivity.The list is long and ambitious. At the WEDF conference, President Paul Kagame insists that Rwandans are not going to give up until they have it all. It’s about hard work, ambition, jobs and growth, he says. Africa’s story — and the Rwandan story — is about high growth rates, providing jobs for the continent’s huge population of young people, making use of the talent and skills of women. The quicker the world realises the truth about the opportunities offered by a rising Africa, the better.Certainly, the Chinese, Indians and the Turks are listening. Negative perceptions of Africa as a continent mired in poverty and disease may still be difficult to shed in the West, but the WEDF conference is buzzing with Indian business leaders and Chinese entrepreneurs eager to invest in what many in Kigali insist is “the continent of the future”.There are other things that strike me. Rwanda, a former Belgian colony, used to be a French-speaking country but has switched with enthusiasm to English. Rwanda is the only country in the world with more women than men in parliament, a statistic that has attracted a good deal of international attention. The country boasts that 97 per cent of its children attend primary school — the highest rate in Africa. And Rwanda has another asset in the 1,000-strong population of mountain gorillas, some of the last surviving on the planet, which live in its rainforests and attract thousands of avid tourists.Much of the transformation has been engineered by Kagame, a Tutsi who grew up as a refugee in neighbouring Uganda, and led the Rwandan Patriotic Front in its resistance against the Hutu militias rampaging through the country. After the genocide ended in July 1994, he became vice-president. He became president in 2000 after his predecessor resigned and then won elections in 2003 and 2010.There is no doubting Kagame’s domestic popularity and reputation as an economic reformer. But critics complain of the president’s authoritarian style of government, allegedly patchy human rights record, and media controls. There are accusations that the Rwandan army is involved in and responsible for prolonging the conflict across the border in Congo. Recent hints that he may run for a third term as president in 2017 — a move which would require changing the constitution which allow for only two seven-year terms — have raised concerns.But Kagame is having none of it. “I think at some point we need to leave countries and people to decide their own affairs,” he told students and faculty staff after a recent speech in the US. At the WEDF, I hear that Kagame engages in the same “tough love” approach towards his people as Lee Kuan Yew, the hard-driving former prime minister of Singapore.Certainly, modern Rwanda is not yet Singapore but it is a far cry from the sleepy nation I remember from over twenty years ago. The genocide-devastated country is now one of Africa’s most determined and hard-working nations. As I leave the country, the man at the immigration desk asks me to come back soon. “And the next time, don’t just attend a conference, travel around and see this country,” he urges. I tell him that I intend to.

Europe should focus on “Opportunity Africa” (Originally published 27/03/2014)

European and African leaders meeting in Brussels on April 2-3 must seal a new alliance for Africa’s socio-economic transformation. Africa and Europe are still important partners, with a relationship that has withstood the test of time. It’s time for a major rethink, however. “Opportunity Africa” must replace Europe’s still-jaundiced view of Africa as a problem.As the theme of the Africa-Europe summit underlines, Africa and Europe have to start Investing in People, Prosperity and Peace. Doing so requires a shift in mindsets away from government-focused policies to people-centred actions and from aid to trade, investments and business. It has long been said: the donor/recipient relationship needs to be replaced by an equal partnership. Rapidly-changing domestic, regional and global developments make such a relationship reboot even more imperative.To stay relevant in an era of volatile geo-politics, Africa-Europe relations will have to become more strategic, political and geared to tackling 21st Century challenges, including climate change, human trafficking and pandemics. For Europeans, it means jettisoning old stereotypes and fully embracing a new “Africa rising” narrative which reflects the continent’s changing realities. Access to Africa’s expanding markets and African raw materials will remain essential for European economic growth. But peace and stability in Africa are equally important for Europe’s prosperity.Africa too needs to revisit its views of Europe. Courted by an array of affluent and dynamic new aid partners, including China, Brazil and Turkey, Africa is no longer as reliant on European development assistance as in the past. It’s now European markets, know-how and technology as well as Europe’s experience in regional integration and preventive diplomacy which can help. Europe’s policies to tackle regional inequalities, build capacity and regulatory frameworks can also benefit African governments.Ascending AfricaAscending Africa is not merely a slogan. Across the continent, poverty levels are falling, incomes are rising and there have been improvements in education and health. African economies have flourished over the past decade, turning the region into a magnet for foreign investors. Regional growth is expected to rise to 6% this year from 5% in 2013, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the African Development Bank (AfDB), making Africa second only to developing Asia in pace of expansion. Inflation remains under control, having stabilised last year at 5.5%, compared with 47.4% 20 years ago.Despite short-term difficulties, internal dynamics which have boosted Africa's surge over the last decade are still in play, says AfDB President Donald Kaberuka. “The internal consumer power is still there, the booming urban populations are still there,” Kaberuka said recently, adding that information technology advances were still "leapfrogging" across the continent at a rapid pace, and more governments were managing their economies better.Celebrating Africa’s rise, however, does not mean ignoring its many challenges. Headline grabbing reports of high African growth rates, glittering cities and a thriving middle class tell only part of the story. To ensure a successful and sustained transformation of their economies, African countries must use the coming years to step up efforts to diversify their largely resource-based economies by investing in a modern and productive agriculture, building up a still-weak industrial base and encouraging entrepreneurship.Wanted: a transformational agendaWork on a new transformational agenda has started. “Agriculture should be an engine for industrialization on the continent,” African Union Commission Chairwoman Nkosazana Diamini-Zuma told a recent African Union summit in Addis Ababa. Better agriculture infrastructure and research to boost productivity and food security were important, she added. Progress on modernizing African farming is slow, however, with the ambitious Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) adopted by AU leaders in 2003 gaining only slow traction.There is a new focus on industrialization. Participation in Global Value Chains (GVCs), which allow developing countries to develop specific skills or products for participation in international production networks, is still low across the continent. As they develop new strategies to enable better access to global value chains, governments must also support private-sector development in manufacturing, encourage foreign investments and promote young entrepreneurs, especially by easing their access to finance and credit.Africa’s growing number of young people need jobs. With the population set to double from 1 billion to 2 billion over the next four decades, governments must ensure that the youth bulge – Africa has the youngest population in the world, with the number of Africans aged 15-24 set to double to 400 million by 2045 – is transformed into a true demographic dividend by providing employment and economic opportunities to young people. Failure to do so could lead to social unrest, political strife and a rise in extremism.Social inequalities remain a challenge. Tax Justice Network-Africa and Christian Aid warn that taxes in many African countries disadvantage the poor. Tax systems that could be used to redistribute wealth more fairly are being undermined by tax dodging and illicit finance flows facilitated by off-shore secrecy. Corruption has long been recognised as a major problem as has poor governance. Africa has a long way to go in building integrated regional markets and improving and building infrastructure, moves that will promote intra-African trade and investments.The establishment of the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) is an important step forward in the continent’s long uphill struggle to establish peace and stability. The EU’s African Peace Facility is providing APSA with much-needed support but as the recent explosion of violence in the Central African Republic illustrates, ending strife in Africa still too often requires determined military intervention by AU and foreign troops.Africa-Europe: more important than ever The Africa-Europe summit can and should be an important milestone in changing the dynamics of a long-standing relationship. Africa and the EU have inter-acted since 1963 through the Yaounde Convention, the four Lome Conventions and the Cotonou Agreement signed in 2000 between the EU and the African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group. The first EU-Africa summit in 2000 put a stronger focus on Africa as a partner for Europe.The EU-Africa Strategic Partnership established in 2007 in Lisbon was expected to move the relationship to a new level, with both sides agreeing to pursue common interests and strategic objectives which went beyond the focus of traditional development policy and to forge a partnership of equals. However, the track record of the Joint Africa-EU Strategy (JAES) which stands at the core of the partnership, is mixed, with neither side fully satisfied with the overall results. Europe’s negotiation of trade-focused Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with African states – a process that started over ten years ago – puts additional strain on relations.Africa-Europe ties are an important element in the growing network of alliances and coalitions which are emerging to tackle regional and global challenges. As they grapple with climate change, immigration, extremism and the task of ensuring equitable, sustained and inclusive growth, Africa and Europe have more to gain from their partnership than ever before. In a changing world, Africa-Europe ties are still relevant - but need careful nurturing.

Fashioning "Global Europe" for the 21st Century (Originally published 01/10/13)

It’s not enough to talk about the European Union's standing and influence in today’s rapidly changing world: the EU needs to thrash out a new foreign policy adapted and responsive to 21st century challenges.This is urgent.  True, EU leaders, foreign ministers and senior official often engage in bouts of hand-wringing over Europe’s “loss of influence” and declining presence on the global stage.  This is often followed by a resounding thumping of chests as everyone agrees that Europe is – after all – still an important and relevant international player.  It’s not that simple, however.Europe certainly has much to offer. The EU single market attracts goods, investments and people from across the globe.  European technology helps the world tackle climate change, urbanisation and other 21st-century challenges, European design excites fashionistas the world over and tourists flock to European cities to enjoy good food, wine and visit exquisite monuments.Europe’s ‘soft power’ resonates when it comes to peace-making and reconciliation, trade, aid and the promotion of democracy and the rule of law.  With Croatia now in and others lining up to join, the EU retains its zone of influence in the neighbourhood.  And as the Eurozone crisis gives way to recovery, however fragile, global concerns about Europe’s economic performance are easing.And yet.  There is no doubt that the EU’s star does not shine as brightly as it should in many skies.  EU-watchers who once – too optimistically – believed that the Lisbon Treaty and the creation of the European External Action Service would lead to a more forceful EU foreign policy are disappointed.Their disappointment is even stronger when it comes to European security and defence policy.  Many believe that because it has no army, navy or air force at its command, the EU will always be a second class international actor, handing out cheques but not pro-actively influencing global events and decisions.No appetite for military actionEurope’s partners know that while governments in France and Britain may still have an appetite for military interventions in response to international crisis, their citizens – and Europeans more generally – certainly don’t. Significantly, Germany, Europe’s most powerful economy and an industrial machine that’s the envy of the planet, has made clear that it is not overly interested in taking on global responsibilities of the military kind.Germany is viewed by many as a reluctant giant which, as one newspaper recently put it, seems content to lurk in the shadows. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is fond of saying that Europe must become more competitive as China and other powers rise. “The world doesn’t sleep,” she said recently. However, she hasn’t coupled that with any grand visions for a continental revival.Within Europe, the doomsayers — of which there are many — insist that the Eurozone crisis and the impact of economic stagnation on European societies have accelerated the loss of EU influence in the international arena.China, India, Russia, Brazil and others are often seen in the EU as fierce rivals who want a ‘full-scale reversal’ of their relationship with the West by demanding better representation in multilateral fora and a stronger voice in global governance. Others argue that Europe should be more assertive and more self-confident when dealing with the cheeky new kids on the bloc.It was partly to respond to such concerns that the EEAS was set up three years ago to act as an EU foreign ministry — and certainly the EU flag is now more often seen flying across the world. But in today’s competitive world of rising powers, new alliances and increased geo-strategic competition, the EEAS is still seen as under-performing.Much of the criticism is levelled at Catherine Ashton, the head of the EEAS and the EU’s de facto foreign minister. It has to be said, however, that Ashton’s role is a difficult one and constrained by the limited space she is allowed by some of the EU’s bigger member states, including Britain and France.Pressure for a more effective foreign policyThe good news is that some EU countries want to go further. The foreign ministers of Italy, Poland, Spain and Sweden argued recently that Europe needs a strategic framework to help it navigate a more complex world. The famous question posed by Henry Kissinger, the former US national security adviser and secretary of state, about the dialling code for Europe has, by now, by and large been answered, the ministers said.“The critical question is no longer how to reach us, but instead what Europe should say when the phone rings,” they complained, adding: “we now have the hardware of institutions in place, we need to focus on the software of policies that makes the entire thing operate in a clear and credible way.”

The ministers are right: Europe needs a new strategic framework to help it navigate a more complex world than the one that existed in 2003, when Javier Solana, the former EU “high representative” for foreign and security policy, drew up the first-ever EU strategy for living in a globalised world.

Such a new blueprint for “global Europe” need not be long and complicated.  It needs to start by recognising that the world has changed dramatically in the last decade - and include recommendations for a few pivotal changes in policies and attitudes.

While the 2003 document centred on traditional security threats, the focus should now shift to  non-traditional challenges – climate change, energy and food security, maritime piracy, cyber security - which must be tackled urgently.

The EU has strong expertise and experience in all these areas.  But concerted international action on these and other issues requires that countries and organisations build new networks and alliances.  It means working with like-minded nations but above all also cooperating with non-like minded countries.  It means talking with others, not haranguing or talking down to them.  And this means a change of EU diplomatic tone and style.

Respect for emerging powers

Global competition for influence has increased as China, Russia, India and Brazil become more assertive and more vocal on the global stage.  The EU may have “strategic partnerships” with these countries, but the agreements need to be reinforced and strengthened – and the EU has to learn to treat these nations with respect and use their insight to readjust its worldview.

Working only with the big guys of the emerging world is not enough.  The new world order is being fashioned not just by China and Brazil but also by countries like Indonesia and Mexico, Kenya, Australia and organisations such as ASEAN.  The EU  needs urgently to upgrade its ties with these nations and bring them on board as  partners.

The compelling need for better global governance in today's still-chaotic multipolar world demands such cooperation.

Relations with Turkey are an albatross around the EU's neck.  They need to be repaired urgently in order to allow for real consultation on regional and global flash-points.  Europe's relations with Turkey are under close scrutiny the world over, with people questioning just why the EU remains so reluctant to open its doors to such an important regional and international actor.  The answers are not edifying.

The EU's international and moral standing are conditional on its ability to build an inclusive society which celebrates diversity instead of fearing it.  Europe cannot condemn discrimination against minorities in Pakistan and Myanmar if its own track record in dealing with such issues is not above reproach.

Democracy and human rights

Europe's values - democracy, the rule of law, human rights (to name a few) - are important and should be promoted more actively across the globe.  But those doing the promotion should do so with sensitivity and humility.  The message is too important to be drowned out by arrogance.

While often irked by EU hectoring and lecturing on human rights, many countries are anxious to learn more from Europe about regional integration, reconciliation and reform.  Europe's "soft power" lies in its ability to teach an anxious world about conflict management and peace-building.

The point has been made most sharply by Asian leaders like former Indonesian foreign minister Hasan Wirajuda who have warned that the gains of the "Asian Century" are at risk because of unresolved historical conflicts and abiding mistrust in the region.

Ironicially while the new world order demands the establishment of networks and coalitions, the EU will become a more significant power if it builds on its uniqueness as a foreign policy actor.  As such, while the transatlantic relationship is vital and important, hanging on to US coat-tails, especially when it comes to Asia, is not a good option.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership certainly has its value in terms of jobs and growth on both sides of the Atlantic but it would be unfortunate if it is seen as the West "ganging up" against the rest.  For the moment, that is how China and other Asians see it.  The EU should act urgently to correct that impression - and invest more in the outcome of the Bali ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation in December.

Civil society actorsForeign policy today is not just the exclusive preserve of diplomats. Civil society actors, social media, sports personalities, artists, academics and think tanks are now an essential part of the game.  The EU's new global outreach must include such thought-leaders.  As the Arab Spring has shown, dealing only with governments is no longer an option.As Javier Solana, the EU’s former ‘high representative’ for foreign and security policy said recently, in today’s world of flux, the nature of power is changing. Power was once measured in the size of armies and population, not in terms of GDP per capita, reputation and whether you get to host the Olympic Games.  It is also about ideas, innovation, art and culture.It is worth remembering that while military force and interventions can provoke regime change, in the end, all parties — the victorious and the defeated — have to come to the negotiating table and find political solutions. And this is something the EU and Europeans are very good at.It is often argued that further EU integration will lead to a united, coherent, and effective European foreign policy. This is true of course.  But the integration process remains slow and painful.  The need for a smarter and more forceful EU foreign policy is urgent.

Promoting the private sector’s role in development (Originally published 04/11/11)

Official Development Assistance (ODA) from rich industrialised countries to poorer developing nations was once considered pivotal in achieving growth and development. Official north-south financial flows remain a vital factor in the combat against poverty. In the 21st Century, however, the global architecture of development cooperation is changing rapidly.The ranks of official donors now include newly industrialised countries like South Korea and emerging economies such as China, India and Brazil. Significantly also, development cooperation is no longer the exclusive preserve of governments. Private actors have emerged as key aid donors, with private aid – including aid provided by foundations, corporations, non-governmental organisations, and individuals – increasing rapidly over the past decade.In addition to bringing additional capital, these new actors are also injecting fresh know how and innovative ideas into development cooperation. Official and private aid can complement each other and it is increasingly important that official and private donors work together to promote development.The emergence of private actors as a leading source of development assistance is good news. With many Western governments implementing austerity measures, significant cutbacks expected in ODA – making it ever more difficult to meet the United Nations’ 0.7 percent of GDP as aid target - and public opinion in industrialised states grappling with “donor fatigue”, the mobilisation of private sector funds for fighting poverty is significant.The focus on non-state actors has coincided with the emergence of new global challenges such as combating climate change, averting global health pandemics and securing international peace.Taking on these and other tasks requires innovative responses and expertise which can be provided by the private sector. Recognising the added value of private donors, national governments and international development agencies (IDAs) have started to work closely with the private sector to mobilise investments for sectors such as healthcare, water and sanitation, agriculture, and financial services, including microcredit and micro-insurance.Private actors bring in a new dynamic, new money, new approaches and new solutions to key challenges facing developing nations. But private development assistance (PDA) is no panacea – and certainly no substitute for ODA. In fact, private assistance may - in some cases – even undermine the effectiveness and efficiency of the development landscape, thereby impacting negatively on the sustainable development of poor countries.The Development Aid Committee of the Organisation of Economic Cooperation for Development (DAC) is seeking to remedy this by ensuring that the private sector is involved in the debate on development effectiveness.Clearly, given the array of challenges facing donors and developing nations, it is essential that private and public actors in development cooperation work with each other to ensure that assistance is used most efficiently and effectively.Development cooperation actors need to undertake a thorough review of their experiences to date on public-private cooperation to chart a course for the future. They should take a closer look at the potential for synergies and conflicts of interest and evaluate past successes to understand just what works and what does not. This is essential if successful cooperation projects are to be up scaled and replicated.The focus should also be on more information and research, evaluation and transparency to ensure that PDA is subjected to the same rigorous conditions as ODA currently is. Private development assistance actors must find a way to make their efforts sustainable and must ensure the involvement of local actors in the planning and delivery of their assistance.

In keeping with the increased role of the private sector, the debate on aid effectiveness should be enlarged to include “development effectiveness”. Common principles also need to be agreed to promote greater cooperation between the public and private sectors, with the objective of increasing the understanding of the respective contributions towards common development objectives, building on existing initiatives.In partnering with governments and international agencies, private and public donors should agree on common development outcomes and engage with each other in transparent and inclusive dialogues on their priorities.The “revolution” that non-state actors have triggered in international development cooperation, through their individual actions and through coalitions and alliances with other private donors as well as with official aid agencies, is significant. The current aid revolution should therefore be welcomed – but also closely monitored.