Alex Singleton at the Globalisation Institute reports that all is not well, in at least some fair trade cooperatives
Sadly, for too many farmers in poor countries today, they are trapped in not terribly voluntary co-operatives. Out in rural Kenya last week, I found that there was some scepticism towards the traditional view the co-operatives are always forces for good. In fact, in Kenya, the coffee co-operatives have suffered from significant mismanagement, with individual farmers often exploited by the leaders of the co-operatives. In fairness, Kenya has been trying to help rebalance the situation, for example introducing six year term limits on co-operative leaders. I do worry that spokespeople for the Fairtrade movement suffer from a myopic romantic vision of the coffee farmer in a co-operative, which the truth such an existence is backbreaking and mired in exploitation.
It would be a cruel irony if the fairtrade movement itself became a new form of expoitation. The principle of fair trade – that people should be able to spend more buying products that they know to have been produced without exploitation – is a good one. But the recent articles in the FT and Alex's report from Kenya suggest that more needs to be done to ensure that the fair trade certificate means what it says.
See also today's FT leader.
Update: the Fair Trade Foundation replies here.
G and I saw Radiohead on Friday evening. The Greek Theater in Berkeley is a very intimate setting – the audience is close to the stage, and you can sit on concrete seats or on the grass. I felt a bit old as I tucked my earplugs into my bag (in case it was a little too intimate) but felt years younger when G also insisted on taking seat cushions to sit on. We were joined by Dave and Nathan.
It was a good set – lots of new material as well as old songs (including "Exit Music", "National Anthem" , "Whose Army" and "Idioteque" as a grand finale). I didn't hear anything from Pablo Honey – certainly not "Creep" but perhaps they don't play that any more. The new material – presumably destined for an album later this year – continues in the same vein as Amnesic – a kind of alternative Pink Floyd from the Syd Barrett years. There is nothing as simple (or as memorable) as a chorus in any of the new tracks; but lots of psychodelic build-up to a neruotic crescendo, which can be just as powerful.
Thom Yorke seems to get more whiny as he takes himself more (too?) seriously, but he writes good songs. Jonny Greenwood is better on the sound-board than his caricatured thrashing of lead guitar – he is obviously very talented, and seemed to be doing much of the mixing live. There was only a skeletal support crew for a band of this stature.
I was struck how little chemistry there was between the band members during the set – I would not be surprised if the rumours of a break up turn out to be true. Even the Greenwood brothers scarcely acknowledged each other on stage. I have not seen Radiohead live before, so perhaps they have always behaved like this.
I have got a blog post up at the Center for Global Development blog, Views from the Center, saying that we have got a long way to go.
Summary
A national identity register of unique personal identifiers could make a significant contribution to improving government services. We could introduce such a register without allowing the establishment of a surveillance state.
The following five conditions would help to protect our liberties:
- government data should be stored in decentralized databases, not in shared data warehouses;
- citizens should have access to all data held about them by government
- citizens should be able to see a log of all government access to their data
- an independent information security ombudsman should police the systems
- there should be no identity cards and no collection of biometric data
If all these protections were put in place, I would welcome a national identity register. If the Government will not implement any of them, I should like to know why not.
Here is me on my morning run in Boulder yesterday. This is at the top of Bear Peak, from which there are great views over the Rockies.
Unfortunately I lost Grethe’s phone somewhere down the trail coming down. But the views were definitely worth the cost of replacing it.
This should not need saying. Where did anyone get the idea that they have the right to "respect" for their religion?
The right to religious freedom is the right to have and express beliefs and to worship as believe your religion demands. But there is no right to be free from criticism or ridicule for what you believe. Nor is there any right to require others to share your superstitions, or behave as if they did.
If you want to believe that wine turns into blood, that it is wrong to turn on a light on Saturday, that it is immoral to draw pictures of prophets, that virgins give birth, or that Taurus should not marry Pisces, that is fine by me. Gather on hillsides waiting for the second coming, get together and sing songs, or throw salt over your shoulder if you want. Such are your rights.
But do not think that, just because you hold those beliefs dearly, that they are immune from criticism or ridicule. You do not have the right to expect others to respect your beliefs, even if you label them as your religion. You may be insulted by the knowledge that other people do not share your beliefs, or by their behaviour; but that is their right. You do not have the right not to be insulted.
I am offended when the Pope argues against using condoms in Africa, even though they would help to prevent the spread of AIDS. I am offended by the treatment of women by Christian and Islamic religious traditions. I am offended by the way that Judaism treats homosexuals. But just because I am offended by these things does not give me the right to prevent others from believing them, or to try to stop them from acting in accordance with their beliefs.
The limitation on free speech is that there is no right to incite violence against you. This limitation protects you if you have religious views, or if you have none. It follows from respect for you as a person, not respect for your beliefs.
So what was Jack Straw thinking of when he said this?
Let me say this about these cartoons. I make no comment about their
original publication, that is a matter for the Danish public,
parliament and Danish law. But there is freedom of speech, we all
respect that, but there is not an obligation to insult or to be
gratuitously inflammatory, and I believe that the re-publication of
these cartoons has been unnecessary, it has been insensitive, it has
been disrespectful and it has been wrong. And if I may say so, I place
on record my regard for the British media who have shown considerable
responsibility and sensitivity in this regard.What we also have to remember is that there are taboos in every
religion. It is not the case that there is open season in respect of
all aspects of Christian rights and rituals in the name of free speech,
nor is it the case that there is open season in respect of the rights
and rituals for the Jewish religion, the Hindu religion, the Sikh
religion, and it should not be the case in respect of the Islamic
religion either. So we have to be very careful about showing proper
respect in this situation.(my emphasis)
It would be ludicrous to say that there is an obligation to insult or be gratuitously inflammatory. But there is a right to insult or be gratuitously inflammatory.
Straw’s metaphor of "open season" is unfortunate. Open season is a hunting term denoting a time of year when it is lawful to hunt or trap. It is never right to harm people, whether religious or not. But as far as I am concerned, it is always "open season" if that means being able to criticize or ridicule rituals and superstitions, whether they are Christianity, witchcraft, Moonies, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, astrology, belief in Santa Claus, or faith in homeopathic medicines. I feel no tinge of regret about insulting people who hold these superstitions.
People who have been offended by the publication of cartoons have every right to boycott whatever products they like. They do not have the right to call for violence against those who have published them.
I think it is a pity that the British newspapers have not reproduced the cartoons. There is a charming myth that when the Nazi authorities instructed that Danish jews should wear a Star of David armband, the King of Denmmark appeared the next day wearing a Star of David himself, in solidarity. I hope that every newspaper that believes in free expression of ideas will publish the cartoons, and that we challenge those who are offended by that to boycott products from every one of those countries.
Update: The US State Department has joined the debate:
We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it
must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds
in this manner is not acceptable.
So much for our allies in the fight for freedom.
The US Consul in Jerusalem, Jacob Walles, speaking on BBC Radio 4 PM today:
…In terms of our own policy and our own law, Hamas is considered to be a terrorist organization and we do not engage with terrorist organisations, we don’t have meetings with them, so as long as that remains the case we are not going to be having contacts with them …
Now that Hamas is the elected Government, how can it be a "terrorist organisation"? How are we now definining "terrorist"?
Kristen, Amy, me and Gabor at the track this morning (photo taken by G).
We did 3 sets of 4x400m at 5km race pace, with a very short (40 second) recovery between efforts.
(Click the photo for more photos from this morning.)
According to Forbes.com Stanford is going to podcast lectures, speeches and debates
In an unprecedented move, Stanford University is collaborating with Apple Computer to allow public access a wide range of lectures, speeches, debates and other university content through iTunes. No need to pay the $31,200 tuition. No need to live on campus. No need even to be a student. The nearly 500 tracks that constitute “Stanford on iTunes” are available to anyone willing to spend the few minutes it takes to download them from the Internet.
There is plenty of scope for greater global knowledge-sharing here.
I thought Charles Kennedy’s statement yesterday was brave and dignified. I am not going to comment on that. Instead I want to reflect on the role of Daisy McAndrew in all this.
Mr Kennedy’s statement was triggered by the intelligence that ITV News chief political reporter, Daisy McAndrew, planned to report the story on the ITV evening news.
So who is Daisy McAndrew? In the 1990s, as Daisy Sampson, she was a freelance journalist, scraping a living by hanging around the House of Commons doing tedious profiles for the (unreadable) House Magazine.
Her big break came in November 1999, when she became Press Secretary to none other than Charles Kennedy. In a gushing piece of self-praise, her (self authored) profile on the BBC website says:
Kennedy was widely credited as having by far the best
campaign of the 2001 General Election – in no small part down to
Daisy’s handling of his press and image.
Since the 2001 Election, Ms McAndrew has risen fairly rapidly, though without distinction, first co-presenting The Daily Politics with Andrew Neil (is it possible that Mr Neil chooses his co-hosts on the basis of something other than the size of their intelligence?) and then presenting the LBC evening radio programme.
At ITN, Ms McAndrew’s reporting has been pedestrian at best, and she has not broken any major stories. Her editors must have been beginning to wonder why they had appointed her. Her ‘scoop’ yesterday, reporting the worst-kept secret in Westminster – may have lifted her reputation in the news industry.
I hope it does not. This is not journalism, it is betrayal of confidence of a former employer. In my view, there is little or no public interest in reporting the details of Mr Kennedy’s private medical condition. But even if there were, it was not the story that Ms McAndrew should have broken. Ms McAndrew owes a duty of confidentiality to Mr Kennedy, with whom she worked closely at a personal level. Her career in journalism was given a significant boost by her two years working as his Press Secretary – indeed, if it were not for him, she would probably still be labouring over profiles in the House Magazine. Now she has decided to give her career a further lift by spilling the beans on the man who gave her her first real break and whose trust she has now betrayed.
The US Senate is choking on the US-UK Extradition Treaty (full text pdf) because they are concerned that it might adversely affect civil liberties of people living in the United States. The irony is that the treaty protects those liberties much better than it protects the liberties of British citizens. But we have no Senate to protect us.
The proposed extradition treaty was signed on March 31, 2003 by US Attorney General, John Ashcroft, and the British Home Secretary David Blunkett. It was transmitted by the President to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in April 2004, and was considered by them on 15 November 2005. The Committee hearings were held in private and no transcript has been published, so we don’t know exactly what happened, but it appears that the Committee declined to vote on the treaty. This is a major problem for the passage of the treaty, as the the full Senate cannot consider the treaty until the Committee has approved it.
Opposition to the treaty in the US is based on fears that it removes the exception for political offences, allows for extradition even if no US law has been broken, removes any statute of limitations, applies retroactively, and allows the UK authorities to try a person for an offence other than that for which he or she was originally extradited. The failure of the Committee on Foreign Relations to vote on the treaty is the result of opposition from American Civil Liberties Union (which probably doesn’t matter the Republican-controlled Senate) and from the Ancient Order of Hibernians and other Irish-American organisations (which probably does matter).
If the treaty removes liberties from US citizens it do so even more from people under the jurisdiction of the UK. Under the existing 1972 treaty, the US has to produce evidence sufficient to make a case to answer under UK law, whilst the UK has to satisfy a “probable cause” test for extradition from the US. (These are broadly similar in effect: the requirement for prima facie evidence is probably a little more onerous than the requirement to show probable cause.) Under the new treaty American prosecutors no longer have to provide prima facie evidence in order to extradite a citizen from the United Kingdom. Article 8 of the treaty only requires the US to provide a statement of the facts of the offence only. By contrast, Article 8.3(c) of the treaty requires UK prosecutors to supply information in an extradition request providing a “reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offence for which extradition is requested”.
Interesting article in The Grauniad by Laura Barton who claims that 2005 has seen a decline in the monopoly control of the marketing departments of music companies:
This has been the year fans have increasingly taken music into their own hands, rejecting the over-processed diet served up by many major labels in favour of something a little more homemade. In the process they have notched up numerous high-profile successes, including Arctic Monkeys, Arcade Fire, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, Spinto Band and Nizlopi.
It does seem to me broadly right that it is in the interest of songwriters and performers that people should be able to share music, rather as many of us did with cassette tapes many years ago.
Today we remember the men and women who have served their country. I am not a pacifist and I am grateful for the courage and sacrifices that have been made on my behalf.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them.
On a personal note, I was named in part after Wilfred Owen, the First World War poet. He fought heroically in the Somme, and after medical treatment (the subject of Pat Barker’s book Regeneration) he returned voluntarily to the front. He was killed on 4th November 1918, just a week before the Armistice. He was a courageous patriot who understood at first hand the horror of war. In 1917 he wrote Dulce et Decorum Est, one of the most expressive condemnations of war ever written:
…
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.
Alex Singleton, now at the Globalization Institute has been a leading opponent of Fair Trade labelling. I argued some time ago that his negative view on Fair Trade was inconsistent with his belief in markets.
To his credit, Alex seems to be softening his position. He says
But I’ve increasingly found being a critic of Fairtrade somewhat uncomfortable. … Let’s face it, the Fairtrade scheme – despite its provocative name – is not the opposite of free trade. It can go hand in hand with free trade – after all, it’s about consumers being free to choose to be altruistic when buying coffee.
Quite so. It is a sign of his intelligence that Alex is willing to be convinced, and it reflects well up on him that he is open about changing his mind.
The Globalization Institute’s new position will be set out in a report next year, including suggestions for improving the scheme.
I know it is unfashionable, but I am much less convinced than the GI that their beloved microcredit schemes do any good. But that is a discussion for another day.
A group of K-Stars ran the Silicon Valley Half Marathon this morning. All enjoyed it, and Tomas (1:29:53) and Dave O’Connor (1:24:50) achieved personal records. Christine (1:40:20) won her age group. Grethe ran 1:38:07 and I ran 1:21:49. Andy (1:22:56), Dave and I scored for the team. We were not the fastest team but don’t know if we were in the top three. (Update: we were third team.)
Now for a large breakfast.
In the photo (clockwise): Tomas, Mike (1:55:54), Owen, Andy, John (1:27:43), Dave O’C, Dave P (1:30:02), Christine, Grethe. Missing from photo Heather (1:42:03 – second in age group). In the 5km (not in photo) were Janet and Malinda.
Full results here.
As a public service, I have transcribed verbatim the interview with Tony Blair on the Today Programme on 16 September. You can read the full text here.
The interview touches on the Government’s draft anti-terrorism legislation, the UN summit, development, Iraq, and Tony Blair’s legacy of reform of public services.
If I have time, I will post soon about the Government’s proposed anti-terrorism laws. In the meantime, I will let the Prime Minister’s words speak for themselves:
let’s be absolutely clear: there will be all sorts of people who say for all sorts of reasons: "look, I understand why the terrorists do it, and you know, you can sympathise with their motivation." Now I happen profoundly to disagree with that, but I am not suggesting that you make that a criminal offence. Er, what I am suggesting should be an offence is somebody who in effect by glorifying is inciting and is saying to people – particularly impressionable people – and we know, look, that this is a modern phenomenon that we have, this extremism based on a perversion of Islam – is in effect saying to impressionable young people: this is something you should do.
I remain unclear what statements the Government wishes to make illegal. Are there statements which are not incitement, which is already illegal, and which are not merely expressing sympathy with a terrorist’s motivation, which Mr Blair does not think should be illegal. Can anyone think of an example of such a statement?
I met a man from Mississippi the other day. We sat next to each other over dinner at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. When he heard my British accent, he thanked me for our support for the United States military in Iraq. He said that America had rescued freedom and democracy in Europe in two world wars, and was pleased that Britain was, in return, standing now with America.
It is quite a common perception in America that it stood up for democracy and freedom in Europe. Just this week, President George W. Bush compared the war in Iraq with the two World Wars
We defeated fascism; we defeated communism; and we will defeat the hateful ideology of the terrorists who attacked America. Each of these struggles for freedom required great sacrifice. From the beaches of Normandy to the snows of Korea, courageous Americans gave their lives so others could live in freedom.
I am not making a point about Republicans: a decade ago Bill Clinton said:
Our people fought two world wars so that freedom could triumph over tyranny.
I am an economist, not a historian, so doubtless somebody will put me right if I have got this wrong, but that isn't how I understand America's involvement in either of the World Wars. The way I heard it, America was a determined isolationist in the run up to both wars:
- Britain went to war on August 4th 1914 in response to an unprovoked invasion of Belgium. The US entered the war on April 6th 1917, nearly three years later, following aggression against American shipping by German submarines (and about two years after the sinking of the Lusitania on May 7th, 1915).
- Britain went to war again on September 3rd 1939 when Poland was invaded. Canada, Australia, New Zealand & South Africa all immediately joined Britain by declaring war on Hitler in 1939, and the United States did not. It wasn't until more than two years later, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 6th 1941, that the United States entered the war. Hitler declared war on the United States, not the other way round. Though some brave and principled Americans chose to join the Canadian armed forces to help fight the Nazis, the US Government remained officially neutral until it was attacked, and most Americans opposed joining the war until the attack on Pearl Harbor.
What's more, as the third volume of Robert Skidelsky's magisterial biography of J. M. Keynes describes, Britain paid a heavy price for US support. The United States demanded that in return for Lend Lease, which Britain desperately needed to sustain its war effort, Britain pledge itself to abandon any aspirations of post-war empire, dismantle the system of imperial preference and shrink the sterling area to prevent it from competing with the dollar. Skidelsky describes the way that Washington managed the flow of Lend-Lease supplies which had the effect, and perhaps the intention, of leaving Britain dependent on US help after the war on whatever terms America chose to impose. And the terms they imposed were not generous. Did you know that, even today, Britain is still re-paying America for its World War II debt? The British Treasury still has to write cheques to the US Treasury, year after year, to pay back the costs of fighting the Nazis. (Britain will make its final payment in December 2006.) Not exactly the behaviour of a close friend and ally, fighting shoulder to shoulder for democracy and freedom.
Of course, I realise that without the help of America, Britain would almost certainly not have won either war; and I pay tribute to the brave American men and women who fought in those wars. I certainly don't mean to belittle their sacrifice. (And we should also remember that without the superhuman efforts of the Russians, America might not have won the second world war either.)
The way I see it, Britain stood up for democracy and freedom, reflexively and immediately. The United States, by contrast, was dragged kicking and screaming out of isolationism. When the US join the second world war, several years later, it exploited the opportunity to pursue its global objectives, including making sure that Britain's economic and military power would be sharply reduced, to strengthen America's position as a global power.
Now I don't hold this against America, or Americans, today. All water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. I understand the reasons for America's isolationism then, and, as I say, I'm glad they joined the war on our side eventually. Better late than never and all that. I'd rather they hadn't screwed us on Lend Lease, but let's let bygones be bygones, eh? But if Americans are going to boast about their involvement as an example of America's commitment to liberty and democracy, then they must expect to be reminded of the inconvenient facts.
I didn't say anything to the man from Mississipi about any of this, as I didn't (and don't) want to be rude to my hosts here in America. I didn't want to have a fight with a big man at the bottom of the Grand Canyon.
Maybe I've got this all wrong – I'm an economist not a historian. In which case, please put me right.
Update: have a look at Neil Hall's interesting comment on this post which describes how the United States profited from the second world war.
When I was 11 at boarding school, one of the boys in my dormitory (a lad by the name of Adam Wolf) had a cassette of Beatles Love Songs, a compilation double album released by Capitol Records in 1977. We listened to those cassettes all day every day. Nothing reminds me more of my time in boarding school.
I bought the record myself when I was a bit older. But Beatles Love Songs was long out of print by the time CDs began to replace vinyl, and Capitol has never released the compilation on CD. I sold all my vinyl records (which I had not played for many years) when I left for the United States. This is one of the albums I most regret saying goodbye to.
Now that all my records are stored on my hard disk, however, I have been able to recreate the album simply by making a playlist of the tracks from the original albums. Though it was nearly thirty years ago, I actually remember the track order (though you can just make out the names of the tracks from the above picture of the cover). For the record, here are the songs, and the original albums you will find them on.
Side one: Yesterday (Help!), I’ll Follow the Sun (Beatles for Sale), I Need You (Help!), Girl (Rubber Soul) , In My Life (Rubber Soul), Words of Love (Beatles for Sale), Here, There, and Everywhere (Revolver)
Side two: Something (Abbey Road), And I Love Her (Hard Day’s Night), If I Fell (Hard Day’s Night), I’ll Be Back (Hard Day’s Night), Tell Me What You See (Help!), Yes It Is (Past Masters Vol 1).
Side three: Michelle (Rubber Soul), It’s Only Love (Help!), You’re Gonna Lose That Girl (Help!), Every Little Thing (Beatles for Sale), For No One (Revolver), She’s Leaving Home (Sgt Pepper),
Side four: Long And Winding Road (Let It Be), This Boy (Past Masters Vol 1), Norwegian Wood (Rubber Soul), You’ve Got To Hide Your Love Away (Help!), I Will (White Album), P.S. I Love You (Please Please Me)
I’m listening to the album I’ve created right now. It sure takes me back. This would have been possible, but time-consuming, in the days before digital music – I could have made a tape of the relevant tracks. Now it is a doddle.
Here’s an interesting email, from someone I know a little (he is a graduate student here at Berkeley) who has commented on my blog in the past with some fairly anodyne political views:
I am going on the academic job market this year and some people have told me that it is unwise to have your name on the web with political comments linked to it, right or left. I have changed my blog to just have my intials, [...], so I can keep writing, but I am wondering if you could do the same [on comments].
This gives rise to two thoughts in my mind.
First, I am not very comfortable about re-writing the past in this way. For a start it is futile, as search engines keep archives, and you can get back-copies of this website (going way back) at www.archive.org. But even (perhaps especially) if it were not pointless, it feels like trying to censor history.
Second, can it really be the case that employers are less likely to employ someone who has expressed balanced and reasonable political opinions? Frankly, I don’t think I’d want to work for an employer that was expecting someone who does not have opinions about the world we live in, and is not willing to express them.
Anyway, I changed his comments. But I don’t think it will do any good.
Please sign the One Campaign Declaration. The declaration is:
WE BELIEVE that in the best American tradition of helping others help themselves, now is the time to join with other countries in a historic pact for compassion and justice to help the poorest people of the world overcome AIDS and extreme poverty. WE RECOGNIZE that a pact including such measures as fair trade, debt relief, fighting corruption and directing an additional one percent of the U.S. budget toward meeting basic needs – education, health, clean water, food, and care for orphans – would transform the futures and hopes of an entire generation in the poorest countries. WE COMMIT ourselves – one person, one voice, one vote at a time – to make a better, safer world for all.
Some rights reserved