2004 Conference Programme
1. Disease
and Security
2. Global
Governance: scenarios for the future
1. Disease
and Security
Villa Monastero, Lake Como, Italy, 23 April - 1 May
2004
See Conference Details
The link between war and disease goes back to the beginning of
human history and the relationship between these two horsemen of the
Apocalypse is unlikely to break soon. Both have recently,
however, undergone important transformations. In security terms,
throughout the 1990s new zones of upheaval appeared, or old ones
spread, in parts of Africa, Asia and Europe; even while stability
appeared to be consolidated elsewhere, September
11 signalled the appearance of a threat which was novel in being at the
same
time global and asymmetric. Meanwhile, in the health field, the
appearance
over the last decade of new infectious diseases, the revival of threats
once
thought controlled, the arrival of old diseases in new places, and the
appearance of infections immune to all antibiotics have all shaken
complacency in the developed world toward this ancient enemy.
Although both these phenomena have been discussed at length, this
conference will focus on the often ignored link between
them. Among areas of concern are: the threatened impact of
HIV/AIDS on domestic and international security, both in terms of the
stability of states to govern populations undergoing possible
decimation and in terms of conflict resolution when most combatants,
and even peace-keeping troops, are prime vectors for carrying the
disease; the effect of the re-appearance of immune resistant diseases
in areas where governments are unable to
cope; the problems consequent on the swelling size of cities, both in
terms
of being the location for the rapid spread of diseases once ‘background
noise’
in rural areas, and the front-line in dealing with epidemics, as
Beijing,
Toronto and other cities discovered during the SARS crisis; the threat
of
bio-terrorism and the possible role of bio-technology in laying waste
agricultural
economies, through such easily spread diseases as foot and mouth,
as
much as through human disease; and the ethical issues which will be
raised
as epidemics become more difficult to control, such as treatment
without
patient consent. Costly domestic policies are necessary to meet
these
threats, but given their novelty, how can sufficient political will be
generated
to overcome the bureaucratic inertia of government departments in their
separate
silos, public distrust of politicians, the reluctance of international
donors
to move quickly or fully enough, or the complacency or corruption
prevalent
in many parts of the world? The response to HIV/AIDS is gathering pace,
but
it has been slow and patchy. ‘Friction-free economics’ mean that
stockpiles
of vaccines and other medications are sufficient to meet present needs
but
not those of a possible future catastrophe. How can the reserves
of
these be built up, given the present structure and incentives in the
pharmaceutical industries, and how should they be deployed in the event
of a disaster? A crucial security measure would be
global disease surveillance. How can the level of trust be
achieved necessary to ensure that is a fully international
system? Urbanisation, global travel, the threat of terrorism, the
decline of antibiotic defences, inadequate political preparation – the
conditions are right for a ‘perfect storm’ in the prevalence of
disease, when its links with security will be all too apparent.
How can we forestall this?
Senior Fellows:
Dr George Poste, Director, Arizona Biodesign Institute,
and Del E. Webb Distinguished Professor of Biology, Arizona State
University
Dr Christopher Coker, London School of Economics
2. Global Governance: scenarios
for the future
Madingley
Hall, Cambridge, 21 - 29 October 2004
See Conference Details
Global governance is at a crossroads.
While the challenges to global security and well-being grow ever
sharper, the role of the institutions
at the heart of global governance is under question as rarely
before.
There have been hitherto unfulfilled plans for reform of the United
Nations
to bring it in line with the changes in the international arena since
its
inception over half a century ago. Preparing for the coming
decades,
what are the different possible directions reform might take?
More
immediately, what will be the legacy of those international
interventions
which have bypassed the authority of the Security Council, in
connection
with the former Yugoslavia and Iraq? Special Representatives of
the
UN Secretary-General already play an ad hoc role where regimes have
been
overthrown or have collapsed. Will there be a more general
restoration
of the U.N.’s trusteeship responsibilities to rebuild stability in
occupied
or failed states? In discussions of international relations there
has
been an increasing emphasis in recent years on international law, but
how
it might be administered remains highly controversial in a number of
ways.
A number of major powers, including the United States, Russia, China,
India
and Japan, have not endorsed the International Criminal Court. Does
this,
along with the controversy surrounding the status of those held at
Guantanamo
Bay, herald a renewed emphasis on sovereign rights and action, or will
such
impasses be overcome? There are other areas where global
governance
has been asserted more unequivocally, as in the WHO’s measures to stem
the
spread of SARS and in the initiatives it is leading with regard to the
HIV/AIDS
pandemic. What are the other challenges which might demand more
pro-active
responses from UN agencies or other international institutions? Which
will
best be dealt with by regional organizations? In the case of the
environment,
one of the great successes, despite some recent derogation, has
been
the Montreal Protocol to restrict the use of greenhouse gases, but the
Kyoto
Protocol remains in doubt, with not only the United States unwilling to
ratify
it and other states making paper commitments they are unlikely to
fulfil.
What are the possible directions which global governance might take in
this
key area of global concern? In the field of economics, the WTO,
with
the accession of China, has never had a broader remit, yet
anti-globalization
protestors and the stalling of the Doha round have brought its future
role
into question, at the same time as there is a general re-examination of
the
approaches and accountability of the World Bank and the IMF. Can
stagnation
be avoided and a new consensus forged, permitting the further
development
of these institutions? The question of accountability in general may be
becoming
more urgent, as the model of global governance being the reserve of
sovereign
states alone appears to some to be inadequate in a world where
non-state
actors, trans-national corporations and NGOs, are of increasing
significance.
Are fault-lines in the international system threatening the
development
of global governance, just at a time when there is an ever growing need
for
it? How might such tensions best be managed?
Senior Fellow:
Dr Michael Williams, Special Adviser to the UK Foreign
Secretary; formerly with the UN and with Amnesty International.