Best foreign affairs / politics movies

Stephen Walt of Harvard University has listed his favourite top ten movies on "foreign affairs / politics" in the latest issue of FOREIGN POLICY.

Here is my list of top five:

5. The Last Emperor
4. The Motorcycle Diaries
3. East / West
2. The Lives of Others
1. The Great Escape

And the honorable mention goes to: Team America (The Dear Leader carried this movie! Watch him singing "I am so ronry" and Hans Blix's "very very brief" meeting with the Dear Leader.

What's on your list? [Sung]

Difference between global governance and global government

CAG Director Ann Florini explains the difference between "global government" and "global governance," intergovernmental organizations such as the UN, and the role and achievements of civil society and transnational networks, particularly on environmental issues.

















[RELEVANT READING]

Ann's 15 April 2009 interview with The Straits Times "Asia is opening up, slowly".

"The seemingly opaque world of Asian governments is anything but that these days as several are trying to open up to scrutiny. Asia is a hotbed of experiments in this area."

Building knowledge on transparency innovations

Significant global trends are combining to make transparency and disclosure regulation one of the most important and exciting areas in which government and civil society can be working to transform and strengthen local governance structures.

Not only are advances in electronic and digital communications enabling people to access information that governments may not want publicized; ideas and norms have fundamentally shifted. It is increasingly expected across societies that “good” governments are transparent and open, and practitioners are also actively recognising that transparency can be a useful regulatory tool to improve performance across a range of governance sectors, from economic issues to environmental, health, and corruption concerns.

From March 4-6, 2009, The Asia Foundation and the Centre on Asia and Globalisation (CAG) of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in Singapore jointly hosted an International Workshop on Transparency and Access to Information. The event brought together academics, civil society members, and government officials from China, Vietnam, India, Korea, Mexico, Singapore, and the United States, to discuss ongoing innovations and challenges in the use of transparency regulation in strengthening local governance.

The workshop afforded opportunity for remarkably open discussion on the approaches and obstacles for transparency regulations that spanned the whole policy-making process. For example, at the policy drafting stage, the Vietnam National Assembly has agreed to include an Access to Information law into the 2009 legislative agenda and assigned the Ministry of Justice to head the drafting committee, with the expectation for the law to be promulgated in 2010. At the implementation stage, China’s Open Government Information (OGI) regulation came into force on May 1, 2008, and efforts are ongoing to implement the regulation at the local level. And on the enforcement and sustainability question, countries such as Korea and Mexico have had access to information laws in place for over a decade, placing them in a position of being able to share plentiful lessons in implementation and efforts at improvement over time.

The diversity of country experiences gathered in Singapore made for some intense discussion on the wide-ranging approaches to enacting transparency regulations. For example, India’s remarkable transparency law was the result of a sustained and extremely widespread campaign carried out by a vast network of civil society groups across the country. China’s OGI regulation, in contrast, evolved from a combination of sustained experiments by local governments, on the one hand, and central level legislative commitment on the other.

The workshop saw participants engaging in lively discussion on the various roles of government, civil society, and academia in advancing the use and understanding of transparency as a governance tool. Some emphasized that civil society demand for information is crucial to the successful practice and implementation of access to information laws and regulations, and underscored the need for civil society to be constantly vigilant and to act as a check against the government. Others placed greater store on the need to have stronger government leadership and political will to drive reform and overcome the myriad of vested interests within the system, to create an effective system of disclosure, and transform the mindsets of public officials. Still other participants commented that it would be important to debunk some of the common myths and misconceptions leading to fears about the potentially destabilizing effects of government openness. Academia plays an important role in this process, in building up research projects that rigorously investigate the relationship between transparency regulations, and governing performance.

Participants also tackled the relationship between transparency regulations and democracy. It was pointed out that in Mexico, a gradual and steady process of democratization led to transparency being viewed as an important component of the democratic system. Some argued that transparency can only flourish in a culture where the principle of transparency is tightly coupled with the democratic notion of access to information as an individual right.

On the other hand, it was also argued that transparency regulations can work across a wide range of political environments. For example, in Vietnam a surprisingly vibrant media and the growing importance of public opinion in the country’s political, economic, and social life are energizing the call for greater transparency and access to information. One presenter suggested a few broad guiding principles for the enactment of successful transparency laws: First, the laws should be compatible with the existing political environment; second, the law has to benefit public officials as well as the people, so that there are proper incentives for successful implementation; and third, implementation efforts should involve participation from civil society and the media.

The workshop saw substantive discussion on the challenges of implementation. It was noted that there are several challenges lying ahead for the implementation of the OGI regulation in China. Particular attention was given to the initial efforts being done by the Legislative Affairs Office of Hunan Province, with technical support from The Asia Foundation.

In general, participants noted a wide range of challenges on the implementation front. First, challenges can arise from a culture of secrecy within the government and bureaucracy, and a lack of political will and commitment. Second is the challenge of having adequate resources, building the proper systems and procedures for archiving, record-keeping and disclosure, and training for public servants. Third is to establish consistency between new disclosure regulations and existing laws, particularly secrecy laws. Fourth, it is critical to generate sufficient awareness within the government bureaucracy and publicly across business and society. Without outside pressure and demand for information, the government faces little incentive to implement disclosure systems properly.

Moving forward, workshop participants raised a wide-ranging set of research and programmatic agendas for potential future collaboration. There was an enthusiastic reception to the idea of forming global networks between academic institutions, civil society organizations, and governments to promote long-term sharing of knowledge and learning in transparency that can help create awareness and build norms across sectors.

Participants were also keenly interested in the development of indicators for assessing the performance of transparency initiatives. It is clear that the issue of transparency and governance is a topic of great relevance to Asia’s development. As countries from India to Vietnam to China continue to experiment with different approaches to transparency, it is likely that we will be witnessing significant innovations coming from the region. [Yeling]

Yeling Tan is The Asia Foundation’s Consultant in Singapore. She can be reached at ytan@asiafound.org.

Inadequacies of the status quo

Professor Tommy Koh is Ambassador-At-Large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore, Chairman of the Institute of Policy Studies at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and the National Heritage Board. Professor Koh shares his views on key trends in global governance, how should Asia and Southeast Asia be more engaged in global governance, what to expect from Obama Administration and finally the EU’s role in global governance.


Q. What are your assessments of the key trends shaping global governance?

The first key trend is the speed, breadth and depth of globalization. We have become inter-connected and, to varying degrees, inter dependent. What happens in one part of the world will have an impact on other parts of the world. The current global financial and economic crisis started in Wall Street and in the US, but, it spread very quickly, across the Atlantic, to Europe, and then to the rest of the world. So, because of globalization, an American crisis has become a global crisis.

The second key trend is that many of our global challenges cannot be solved by any single country, no matter how powerful, or by a group of like-minded countries. They can only be solved by all the countries of the world, working together. Take global warming and climate change as an example. It is a problem which cannot be solved by the US alone or by a group of like-minded States comprising the US, Europe and Japan. It can only be solved by a new international consensus, supported by all the countries of the world, including China and India.

The third key trend is the growing deficit between the world’s need for global governance and the inadequacies of the status quo. I am glad that the LKY School has launched the ST Lee Project to address this problem.


Q. How is global governance conceived in Southeast Asia and what role can this region play in global governance?

Southeast Asia is one of the most globalized regions of the world. It is a region which does not reject globalization but welcomes it. It seeks to harness the opportunities presented by the bright side of globalization and to cope with the challenges released by the dark side.

The region plays a positive and pro-active role in global governance through its regional organization, ASEAN, and through other regional organizations, such as, ASEAN Regional Forum, ASEAN+3, the East Asia Summit and through such inter-regional forums as APEC, the Asia-Europe Meeting, Forum of East Asia and Latin-America and the Asia-Middle East Dialogue.

ASEAN also plays an active role at the global level, at the UN, WTO, WHO, IMO, ICAO, UNEP, etc. ASEAN is aware of the deficit in global governance. It will work cooperatively with other regions of the world to reduce and, if possible, erase that deficit.


Q. What contributions can Asia make to global governance?

Asia is a major beneficiary of globalization. Asia is also a region of growing prosperity. Asia must, therefore, behave as a responsible stakeholder and not as a free rider. What does “responsibility” mean?

First, it means that Asia should be generous in sharing its wealth, knowledge, expertise and experience with other less developed regions of the world. Japan’s generous ODA is a laudable example. The current efforts by China and India to help Africa develop its infrastructure is another example.

Second, Asia should shoulder a larger burden in helping the world to maintain international peace and security, such as, in peace-keeping missions.

Third, Asia should contribute leadership and intellectual capital to global governance. It is not enough for Asia to contribute money, eg “cheque book diplomacy” or provide “arms and legs”, eg sending troops to UN peace-keeping missions. We must also provide the world with Asian leadership and Asian ideas.


Q. What role would you like the US to play in global governance in our multi-polar world?

I think the Obama Administration would probably agree that we no longer live in a unipolar world. The world has become increasingly multi-polar. It is, however, also true that not all the poles are equally powerful. The US is, in every respect, the most powerful country in the world. Whether you love or hate the US, you will probably agree that the US is the indispensable leader of the world. Few enterprises will succeed without the participation and support of the US.

My vision is for the US to return to its historic role of world leader. My hope is that the US will seek to translate its overwhelming power into moral leadership; that the US will lead but not dictate; that it will respect international law and international institutions; and that it will resort to the use of force only as the last resort. The US leads best when it leads by example.


Q. What is your view on Europe’s role in global governance?

Europe suffers from a bad press in Asia. There is inadequate appreciation in Asia of the miracle which the EU represents. One only has to compare Europe in the two halves of the 20th Century to understand my point.

The EU is an expanding oasis of peace and prosperity in Europe. Europe is not a fortress but is open to the world. When drafting the ASEAN Charter in 2007, my colleagues and I often looked to the EU for inspiration. Europe has an important leadership role in all aspects of global governance and not just in setting new norms. Let me give some examples of the kind of leadership which we would like to see more of. The former President of Finland, Maarti Ahtisaari, brought peace to Aceh. The EU and ASEAN provided observers to oversee the process of disarmament and reconciliation. Another European, Pascal Lamy, is head of the WTO and is driving the desperate quest for a successful conclusion to the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations. The EU took the initiative to propose the convening of the G20 Summit, in Washington, in September 2008, to address the global financial and economic crisis.

The EU also took the initiative to convince the UN Security Council to authorize the use of naval power to combat the Somali pirates preying on ships off the Gulf of Aden. I therefore believe that Europe has played and will continue to play a constructive leadership role in global governance.


This interview was first published in the February 2009 edition of Rapporteur - CAG Newsletter.

Creating Social Stock Exchange Asia

My phone beeps. I forgot to put my mobile phone on silent mode. I am thoroughly embarrassed because I am sitting in the first of hopefully many important meetings with the officials of the Monetary Authority of Singapore. We are discussing the merits of situating a Social Stock Exchange in Singapore. I cannot resist -- I glace down at my phone under the table and see that the text message is from the company registration board telling me that the registration of Social Stock Exchange Asia (SSXA) has been approved.

I am ecstatic. I have been on pins and needles because the registration took several weeks to process (as opposed to the 24 hours it usually takes to register a company in Singapore.) I had worried that this was because the only other exchange in the country is the Singapore Stock Exchange, partly owned by the government. Needless to say, even the mere registration of SSXA had the potential to raise a few eyebrows.

Raised eyebrows aside, the fact remains that on March 20, 2009, SSXA was created to provide a capital market for social good. This indeed is the start of a new era and an apt response to the financial greed that gripped most of the developed world for the past several decades. The best part is that SSXA has the potential to be the sensible Asian response to the Western mayhem and bring social consciousness to the forefront of global financial markets.

Creating a Social Stock Exchange is indeed a lofty goal; but I cannot aim at anything less lofty. Exactly ten years ago, I created my first social purpose company, oneNest. It was an idea that germinated from my time at Grameen Bank when I saw many micro-entrepreneurs struggling due to lack of market access for their products. These entrepreneurs needed more than access to credit, they needed help managing the supply chain. Grameen Bank ultimately recognized this and eventually responded by creating Grameen Check and Grameen Shamogri.

A few years later when the twists and turns of life gave me the opportunity to start a company, I reached back to my Grameen days and created a market place where I brought together, on the one hand, thousands of microcredit borrowers and cooperatives creating beautiful handmade personal and household products with, on the other hand, luxury catalog companies, boutiques and department stores in the Western market. I ran and grew oneNest and eventually sold it (granted I had very little control of the company by the end -- but that is another story). However, the thought always nagged me that I could not do enough for the disadvantaged millions of the world. I had to do more. Now is my second chance.

What will SSXA do? Simply put, it will increase access to capital for enterprises with a social mission. On a bigger scale, it will help social enterprises further develop the professionalism of their operations and create a whole ecosystem around it to support social enterprises – some of which is already in the works. SSXA will be Asia’s first social stock exchange, providing a trading platform and an efficient capital raising mechanism for Asian Social Enterprises (SEs), including both for-profit and not-for-profit entities with a social mission. SSXA will connect these SEs with impact investors seeking to achieve both a social return and an economic return on their investment while providing capital to fund innovative social businesses. This platform will also enable philanthropic donations.

Such an exchange will bring all the relevant players in the ecosystem together, speaking the same language and assisting one another in creating greater social good. It will encourage the governments, civil societies, academics, investment banks, research companies, auditing bodies and social enterprises to agree on a framework to measure social value, common terminology, transparency, and social and financial goals.

Social enterprises seeking to list shares or bonds on the exchange will go through proper social and financial auditing (third party validation) and report regularly to investors on both their social and financial results. Investors purchasing shares and bonds on the exchange will be attracted by the transparent disclosure of social returns and will evaluate companies based on both their social and financial returns. They will understand that a social enterprise may not maximize its earnings due to the cost associated with fulfilling its social mission. And they will be willing to accept a limited financial return in order to support this mission. Of course, given the current dismal state of the market for profit-maximizing businesses, any economic return topped with a social return may feel like a windfall to an investor.

Social investors are an emerging group of investors in the financial market. In Europe, and especially in the UK, they are a rapidly growing group which initially focused on Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) but now includes many investors focused on investing in social enterprises and social purpose businesses. These investors comprise of private investors, high net worth individuals, family offices, investment funds and charitable foundations with the common thread being that they seek double bottom line returns (ie, social and financial returns) from their investments. Given the current financial climate, more and more charities are also leaning towards ‘mission-related investment’ as well. In the UK alone, there are now over 25 billion pounds dedicated to socially responsible investment.

In Asia, the social investor pool is smaller, but growing. Bodies such as UNPRI (United Nations Principles for Responsible Investing) and ASRIA (Association for Socially Responsible Investing in Asia) are actively promoting the notion of socially responsible investing. A number of family offices and wealthy individuals in Asia are also focused on social investment. Much of the interest so far has been focused on microfinance institutions. In addition, Islamic banking has been very active in South East Asia in promoting their unique brand of responsible investing. SSXA will push the envelope on the existing socially responsible investing, bring forward social enterprises and social purposes companies (in addition to microfinance) in energy, water/sanitation, media, fair-trade, health, education, and cottage industry and bring to the attention of these investors a whole new set of enterprises which would not have been noticed otherwise.

Such a platform/exchange cannot be created overnight. It will take years before SSXA is a robust trading platform. However, with the proper assistance and support from other members of the social investing ecosystem, it can become the cornerstone of a potentially very large social enterprise economy. Given the current economic climate, I have to say, organizations and government bodies are ready to pause and listen. I thank them for that. As more players embrace the idea of SSXA, each will become a crucial part of a peaceful revolution in the making. [Dureen]


Dureen Shahnaz is Founder of Social Stock Exchange Asia and Head of Programme on Social Innovation and Change at the Lee Kuan Yew Schoool of Public Policy, National University of Singapore