SAVE THE HUMANS…The Planet Will Be Fine

We are in danger of destroying ourselves by our greed and stupidity. We cannot remain looking inwards at ourselves on a small and increasingly polluted and overcrowded planet.

~Stephen Hawking~

What’s the matter with the climate change debate? Why aren’t more people interested in “Saving the Planet”, or “going green”? Aren’t you aware that there’s no Planet B? I want to let you off the hook today. I want to put the blame squarely at the foot of the Environmentalists, Environmental Scientists and climate change advocates.  I recently discovered that it’s their fault that we don’t care….and here’s why…

It’s a Marketing Issue. 

This occurred to me during a consultancy project I was undertaking for an international NGO. I was advising on corporate strategies that can be adopted by the NGO in order to remain competitive and relevant. The International NGO had to get comfortable with business terms that it had, for a long time, found distasteful. Concepts like Competition, innovation, differentiating your product, value propositions and, inevitably, marketing.

The concept of marketing has been a big No-No in the social sector, but the sector is becoming so competitive that marketing cannot be ignored anymore. And so it is for the climate change debate. The challenge is that a significant portion of the society doesn’t seem to care much about it. A different marketing strategy can help with that.

“Save the planet, you say. It seems fine to me.”

That’s because the planet will be fine. It’s the Humans that need saving.

This should be the message coming from the environmentalists if they want us to pay close attention. The climate change debate has been poorly branded and marketed for the last few decades and that’s why more people aren’t paying enough attention. We need to look at the climate change debate from a different perspective.  With a tinge of corporate strategy included.

Environmental scientists are very good at doing science and other science related stuff. They are very good at communicating their findings to other scientist.  What they aren’t very good at is communicating their findings in a way that’s relevant for billions of people. This is why the predominant message is “Save the Planet”, “Conserve the Environment”, “Save the Polar”. These are all great, and true, messages but they need to be made more palatable to the billions of people who don’t have Master’s degrees and PhDs. But they do own fuel guzzling trucks that pollute.

Even more worrying is that when it does reach them, the message is always far removed for them. It’s always about a polar bear, an ice-berg, and O-zone layers. It’s not talking to them. So they don’t care. However, the latest advert for the newest model of truck is absolutely talking to them. That’s because the truck company has hired a marketing department and probably an Ad agency to tailor make an advertisement that will specifically target the viewer. The advertisement will capture their imagination and move them to action and that’s why it’s effective. It’s not the engineer who built the truck who crafts the advertisement. A totally different skill-set is needed for that.

In today’s world, people are bombarded with copious amounts of information, all competing for our attention. The climate change debate is just one of those bits of information and it needs to be much louder and much more effective.

And that’s where the environmentalists get it wrong. They are passionate about the environment, and they understand the science behind climate change….but they don’t have a marketing team to sell the idea. Their key message is disconnected from the listener. The message tells the listener to save the planet…don’t kill the host planet. In reality, the planet will be fine. It’s been here for Billions of years, albeit in different forms. It’s the Humans who will die off. They’ll be unable to sustain themselves in the Earth they are creating. They will die off, and the earth will continue to spin as if we were never here. Much like the dinosaurs, we’ll be relics. It’ll take a few millennia for the planet’s environment to auto-correct, but what are millennia in the face of Billions of years.

Environmentalists, please hire a marketing department and the odd Ad-agency to help package the message. Let’s change the slogans to “Save the Humans”, “Humanity’s Last Stand”, “The End of Human Civilization as we know it”. Admittedly, some of these are a bit dramatic but a bit of drama doesn’t hurt. Perhaps urgency calls for the dramatic.  In any case, your science driven communications, and peer reviewed journals have not been all that effective. Time for a different approach.

The planet will be fine. It is the Humans who won’t be.

Kenya's Democratic Monarchies

"The surface of American Society is covered with a layer of democratic paint, but from time to time, one can see the old aristocratic colours breaking through" ~ Alexis de Tocquevile

The Kethi Kilonzo issue has raised many questions among Kenyans. Is she eligible to run for the senate seat left vacant after her father's untimely demise? Is she a registered voter? How did she get a voter's registration slip that is claimed to have been stolen from the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC)? If she loses the ongoing petition at the High Court, will she still be allowed to continue in her legal practice? Was Kethi compelled by mysterious political forces to run for a position that she never wanted?

So many questions....and the Attache's desk would like to add one more to the fold. One more perspective that is always in the minds of Kenya but goes seemingly unaddressed. The question....why was it Kethi Kilonzo, the daughter of the Late senator, who was automatically nominated to succeed her father in the Senate. Why not someone else from the countless eligible politicians in Makueni County. Why a green-horn with little experience in politics? I put it to you that Kenya's form of democracy can be referred as a "Democratic Monarchy". The reason that it was Kethi Kilonzo, and no one else, is that Kethi Kilonzo is the Late Senator's daughter. 

A Democratic Monarchy may be described as a system of politics where the principles and processes of democracy are applied to enforce an underlying aristocratic system. This means that once an elective position is vacated by reason of death or any other reason, the person who takes over that position is likely to be a close relative of the previous holder. This is very much similar to a monarchy where the King or Queen is succeeded by the crown prince or princess or brother or sister or other close relative.Further, the electioneering process that follows, such as voting, is simply a confirmation of that the crown prince is now the new King. 

The Kethi Kilonzo case is not unique in the Kenyan experience. Strangely, or not, the two front runners in the 2013 presidential elections can be considered to be the crown princes of Kenya. Uhuru Kenayatta is the son of Kenya's first president, Mzee Jommo Kenyatta while the former Prime Minister is the son of the Late Jaramogi Oginga Odinga who was the first Vice president. The legendary political battles of their fathers was repeated again almost 50 years later.

We also have Musalia Mudavadi (former vice-president and presidential candidate), son to the late Moses Mudavadi. Eugene Wamalwa is another who succeeded his late brother Kijana Wamalwa. The Democratic Monarchy also extends to wives. The late Kijana Wamalwa's wife served as a diplomat for several years. After the death of Kipkalia Kones, his wife 'inherited' his position, of course after some elections were held. The Moi family also has Gideon and Jonathan Moi in elective positions. These are the sons of retired President Moi. The list is actually quite extensive,and is continuing into a new generation of politicians. For example, the son of former Minister Henry Kosgey is in an elective position. It is interesting to note that these types of aristocracies also exist world-wide. For example, the Kennedy and Bush families can be considered as American royalty.

This is not a critique of this system of democracy. It is simply and attempt to highlight its existence. This system of politics where elective positions are inherited within certain political dynaties may arise due to a number of reasons. Perhaps subsequent generations in political families have pre-existing advantages and political machineries at their disposal. It could be that the children want to emulate their fathers and go in the family business. This system could also be a remnant from the pre-colonial era of tribal chiefs. Perhaps we are fond of legacies because they remind us of the familiar. 

Whatever the cause, this is definitely a reality of Kenyan politics.Good or bad. It is not a far cry to imagine that President Uhuru Kenyatta's son may one day be the president himself. None of these elected leaders are forced on us. We love to lift them high. They are our Kings and Queens. Perhaps the days of the monarchies of the world are not gone. Perhaps aristocracies simply disguised themselves in a form that we are willing to accept. Perhaps they simply allowed us an opportunity to feel as though we were participating in choosing our governors through the ballot. 

The King is dead. Long live the King

The Arab Winter Addendum: This Is Not A Coup.

'What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet' ~ Juliet.
Romeo & Juliet, Shakespeare 

The Arab Winter came sooner than anticipated.The military in Egypt removed President Morsi via decree and placed him under house arrest....but this is NOT a coup....or is it?

The Morsi government, that was less than a year old, was accused of, among other issues, of the politicization of Islam through the Muslim brotherhood. However, it is important to understand that due to the suppression of political movements in the Mubarak era, religious movements were the only outlet available for societal organization. It was therefore inevitable that these religious movements were the most organized groups and were in a position to be politically dominant in a post-Mubarak era. Despite the opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood and its governance systems, they were indeed a democratically elected government and the removal of such a Government by a military decree is a cause for concern.

The issue of coup or no coup is on the lips of every political analyst out there. Some argue that the ouster of the Morsi government by the military was not coup because it was the result of popular protests. That the military was only acting to defend the democratic rights of the people and therefore this was not a power-grab. Others argue that a coup by any other name, is still a coup. This school of thought suggests that no matter the backdrop of  coup, the removal of an elected official remains a coup and therefore what is happening in Egypt is indeed a coup.

Coup or not, the actions of the military have offered an insight into the inner power structures of the Egyptian government. The core function of military around the world is to secure the nation from external threats. The military does not have a mandate to interfere in domestic politics in the name of securing the the democratic rights of the citizens. As was stated before in 'The Arab Winter', a dangerous precedent is being set in Egypt. This precedent is now extended further to the intervention of the military in domestic politics. It's also critical to remember that there were also pro-Morsi protesters in Egypt. It's interesting to ponder the criteria that the military used to choose one group's democratic rights over the other group. It's also interesting to note the amount of 'power' or 'sway' that the Egyptian military holds, even in the shadows. Enough to remove a president by decree.

Looking ahead, one cannot help but consider when the next protests in Tahrir square will arise. The ‘Revolution-Reloaded’ has yielded the fall of Morsi and the rise of military rule. Or should that be the return of military rule? Perhaps it never left. What kind of obstacles would the next round of protesters face? The ouster of Morsi’s civilian government has cost lives in their tens. How many lives does Egypt stand to lose in a would-be attempt to remove a military government? And when can the world expect an end to this cycle of governments and protesters?

The Arab Winter

'Winter is Coming' ~ Lord Eddard Stark - Game of Thrones

Spring is elation. The growth of new things. But spring ends...and the long winter is never too far away. And for Egypt, Winter is Coming. 

The Arab Spring brought hope for democracy in North-Africa and the Middle-East after a long period of autocratic rule. However, the initial joy of spring is giving way to the harsh realities of winter. In Egypt specifically, the people have returned to the square they made famous after the topple of Hossni Mubarak. This time, they want President Morsi out.

Of concern to this desk is the seeming erosion of one of democracy's guiding principles that dictate that governments should be legitimately replaced through the ballot. The view from the Attache's desk is disconcerting because a dangerous precedent is being set in Egypt. The pattern that is developing is that if the citizenry is dissatisfied with the policies of a government, the best solution is to go to the streets. What's worrying is that it actually seems to work. The question is where, if at, will this cycle of installation and removal of governments end?  

The concern is that just as there was a 'domino effect' in the Arab spring, where one governments fall was followed by another, we might see a similar domino effect in the Arab Winter. This is whereby, the people's of the Arab spring who are dissatisfied with the quality and pace of the outcomes of the revolution return to the streets and oust the governments that they put in place.

Democracy is a slow and arduous process that is often times punctuated with alternating seasons of calm and violence. America and France, which are considered as some of the foremost democracies in the world have also suffered periods of democratic winter. America suffered the civil war after gaining its independence while France suffered the Reign of Terror, in which 20,000-40,000 people were executed for 'counterrevolutionary' activities. 

The question that therefore arises is whether the current actions of the people of Egypt are simply a speed-bump on the road to democracy, or a dangerous precedent that should be of concern to the world. Another pertinent question that needs to be addressed is whether the people in Tahrir square are a true representation of the entirety of the Egyptian population? and therefore are their calls for Morsi to step down legitimate?

As always, the Attache remains at his desk, watching and contemplating the seasons of democracy. Winter is coming......but is it here to stay?

Death of the Nation-State

"In the age of globalisation, pooled sovereignty means more power, not less." 
~ Jose Manuel Barroso 

Interconnectedness is the sign of our times. Globalization theorists were the optimistic  about the full effects of this interconnectedness and some scholars from this school of thought even contemplated the notion of the demise of the Nation-State as we know it.

The world is now more connected than it has ever been in modern history, economies, trade, security and cultural issues have surpassed the traditional notion of statehood. Globalisation theorists posit that this move toward globalisation would lead to an evolution of the human society away from the Sovereign states. However, the State still remains the locus of governance despite the major advances that have been made in how human society interacts.

One may argue that despite the rise of globalisation, the state has managed to hold on to a significant role in international affairs. The state still makes decisions on behalf of its people at the global arena. Though some states go as far as to suppress the voice of its people at the international level. 

The state also holds sway against globalisation because of the question of identity. The citizen’s identity is closely related to their nationality and with that comes a 'loyalty to the state' that may be difficult to leave behind. This makes it difficult to encourage integration with other parts of the world.

On the other hand, despite the Sovereign state’s supremacy in governance, it is indeed dying a slow death. The modern state serves, more and more, an administrative role in modern society as opposed to a substantive role. The argument is that in the face of globalisation, the modern state has become a servant or a facilitator of its people's global activities. This argument suggests that there is a role for the state to play but it is increasingly limited by our ability to connect without the help of the state.

This has led to an increasingly multi-lateral world. There is a realisation in the international system that it is difficult for a state to survive while it is isolated form other states. However, global governance is still a dream that is far from achievement. The world is not yet ready to let go of the sovereign state in terms of governance. However, there is a slow but steady shift and this is in the form of regionalisation. Regionalisation represents the compromise that states are willing to make towards globalisation. Regional organisations such as the European Union and the African Union demonstrate that it is possible to work together and collaborate. However, these collaborations are only with our neighbours and those with whom we share similar interests and culture.

The view from the attache's desk is that the nation-state does have a role to play in governance for the foreseeable future. However, this role is being slowly eroded by globalisation and the first step of moving toward global governance could be regional governance. Perhaps the globalisation theorists will be proved right in the end. Perhaps it was only the period of time needed for globalisation to take root that they got wrong in their predictions. 

Why Bulls fight.....and the grass that is injured

"In bull-fighting they speak of the terrain of the bull and the terrain of the bull-fighter. As long as the bull-fighter stays in his own terrain he is completely safe. Each time he enters into the terrain of the bull he is in great danger. Belmonte, in his best days, worked always in the terrain of the bull. This way, he gave the sensation of coming tragedy." ~ Chapter 18, The Sun Also Rises, Ernest Hemingway

"In international relations, we all work in the terrain of the Bull" ~ The Attache

In the recent past, Russia and China have vetoed resolutions in relation to the conflict in Syria at the United Nations Security Council.

In the wake of the Arab spring, the conflict in Syria has continued to escalate. Attempts have been made, most recently by the British Government, to punish the Government of Syria by imposing economic sanctions. The Security Council has the mandate of tackling issues of global peace and security. Therefore, any such sanctions against Syria would have to be passed by the Security Council. However, in order for any resolution to be passed, the Permanent Five members of the Security Council must vote unanimously in favour of the resolution. 

In our current discussion Russia and China, who are part of the P5, have vetoed resolutions for sanctions in Syria. This means that the UN may not impose sanctions on the Syrian Government. The sanctions are meant to coerce the Syrian government to end the conflict.

There has been wide ranging academic discourse on the veto power and its use since its inception in the late 40’s. The P5 consists essentially of the victors of the Second World War. Scholars have argued that due to ideological differences, such as Socialism and Capitalism, Russia and China have traditionally been at odds in voting at the Security Council with America, France and Britain. This is an argument from a more Structuralist school of thought that talks about the development of two streams of society. This may be ‘the Core’ and ‘the Periphery’ or ‘Socialists and Capitalists’. These differences in ideology may explain why Russia and China may vote together against the other members of the P5.

On the other hand, a realist theory perspective may explain the actions of Russia and China in voting against the proposed sanctions. Scholars from this school of thought have very state-centric perspectives and they argue that national interests are of the utmost importance in the decision making of a state. 

This argument would lead us to the conclusion that there are certain national interests that Russia and China have in Syria and perhaps in the region that need to be protected. The Governments in Russia and China choose to safe guard interests by voting against any resolutions on Syria that may harm their National interests. These interests may be economic, military, a need to have a foothold in the middle-east, among others.

 The perspective from this desk is that it is relevant important to ascertain the motives of the fighting bulls and that perhaps it may lead to the development of solutions to the conflict in Syria.....and perhaps saving the grass a lot of damage.

Uhuru's Foreign Affairs Master Stroke

Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it - Dwight D. Eisenhower 

For those who are ardent followers of the attache's desk you will remember I spoke about the importance of President Kenyatta's nominee for the position of Foreign Affairs cabinet secretary my previous post on 'The Iron Law Burns Hot in Kenya'. The position is extremely crucial because Kenya's foreign policy is at a cross roads. Not only because of the infamous ICC cases that haunt our foreign relations  but also because of the evolving nature of the international system.

Much has been said about the ICC cases so I will not delve into this. MY position has remained clear that I do not believe that the ICC cases will have a major negative impact on Kenya's foreign relations.

As to the evolving nature of the international system, this is one to watch since it will have major repercussions for foreign relations for Kenya and globally. The world is slowly moving from a UNI-polar world to a MULTI-polar one. It is becoming increasing regionalised and the great powers of the last century are losing some of that luster. New powers are emerging and the regional agenda is becoming more prominent. 

The thing to understand about states is that they are constantly seeking to increase their sphere of influence. The emerging thought on how to go about it is a move towards regionalisation. Negotiate as a bloc and you negotiate from a stronger position than going at it alone. Control the bloc, and you control your negotiating position. We see it now with the E.U (for Europe), A.U (for Africa) and ASEAN (for Asia).

The appointment of Ambassador Amina Mohammed is therefore a master stroke from President Kenyatta. She brings on board the globally accepted diplomatic currency of CLOUT! and she has it by the bucket loads! As a career diplomat, lawyer, and Kenya's highest ranked U.N official (assistant Secretary General and deputy executive director, UNEP) she brings some credibility and international muscle to Kenya's foreign ministry.....and just in time to hit the refresh button on our foreign policy and how we conduct it.

Kenya is extremely well positioned internationally and It's about time we took advantage of that fact. Our democracy, economics, politics and culture are emerging, not to mention the geo-political significance of the country and perhaps a substantial mineral wealth. 

However, the country needs a fit foreign ministry to cash in on this and I hope a technocrat with an understanding of the international system will deliver. I also hope those UN best practices will also rub off on the ministry.

The outlook from the attache's desk is 'cautiously optimistic'. We have a professional at the helm. I hope she is up to the task of upgrading a system that might prefer the status quo.