2004 Fellowship Programme
2004 Conference Programme

1. Disease and Security

2. Global Governance: scenarios for the future

1. Disease and Security

Professor Christopher Coker's Introductory Paper

  • 23 April - 1 May 2004

Senior Fellow

Professor Christopher Coker London School of Economics

Speakers

Globalization and urbanization: how far are these transforming the challenges posed by disease?
Professor Sir William Stewart Chairman, UK Health Protection Agency
The emergence of health as an international political issue?
Professor Colin McInnes Centre for Health and International Relations, University of Aberystwyth
State stability and the strategic impact of disease
George Fidas Visiting Lecturer, Elliott School of International Affairs, The George Washington University
The global significance of HIV/AIDS
Dr Stefan Elbe University of Essex
Global governance, intellectual property and the supply of medicine
Dr Amir Attaran Royal Institute of International Affairs and Idealith Research Foundation
The pharmaceutical battalions: the problem of discovery and reserves
Dr Raul Perea-Henze Senior Director, Science Knowledge & Policy, Pfizer Inc
Disease, Security, and the Rule of Law
Professor David Fidler University of Indiana
The nature and scale of the bio-terrorist threat and how to prepare for it
Dr Jez Littlewood Southampton University
SARS: how well did we do?
Elizabeth Prescott AAAS Congressional Fellow
Facing the future: what should be the priorities?
Professor Christopher Coker Senior Fellow

Advertised Synopsis
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?

Back to Top

2. Global Governance: scenarios for the future

Dr Michael Williams' Introductory Paper

  • 21 - 29 October 2004

Senior Fellow

Dr Michael Williams Special Adviser to the UK Foreign Secretary, formerly with the UN and with Amnesty International

Speakers

Is there a crisis of legitimacy in global governance?
Dr Michael Williams Senior Fellow
How effectively can the Bretton Woods institutions adapt to meet the changing needs of the 21st Century economy?
Alan Beattie Economics Leader Writer, the Financial Times
How far has the WTO been essentially a rich countries' club? What are the prospects now for the organisation and for the multi-lateral trading system?
Dr Jarrod Wiener Director of the Brussels School of International Studies
The role of the G8 in international peace and security
Dr Risto Penttilä Director of The Centre for Finnish Business and Policy Studies
What is the proper role of the United States in global governance?
Professor Philip Bobbitt University of Texas
Patrice de Beer Editor-in-chief, Le Monde
How far is the United Nations, and specifically the Security Council, reformable? What should the priorities for any reform be?
Hon Gareth Evans President and CEO, International Crisis Group
The global protection of intellectual property: in whose interests?
Dr Ian Brown President of EDRi (European Digital Rights)
Life beyond Kyoto? What are the chances of environmental challenges on a global scale being met with a global response?
Michael Meacher, MP former UK Environment Minister
In what direction is the doctrine of humanitarian intervention likely to develop?
Professor Mats Berdal King’s College London
New approaches to global governance: the challenges and opportunities ahead
Professor Amitai Etzioni George Washington Unversity, Washington DC
What is the role of global governance in the war on terrorism?
Dr Jez Littlewood Southampton University

Advertised Synopsis
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?

Back to Top

Summary of all Conferences

2004 Fellowship Programme
Go to 2004 Conference Programme

1. Biogenetics: the impact of advances on politics and society

2. Media Revolutions, Political Repercussions

3. Reconstructing States After Conflict: NGOs and the New Realities

Biogenetics: the impact of advances on politics and society
(in cooperation with the Ditchely Foundation)

  • Ditchley Park, Oxfordshire
  • 12-14 March 2004

Brief Description
It is perhaps symptomatic that the new century opened with the sequencing of the human genome by researchers in the USA and UK. Since then the debate about the implications of our increasing ability to modify and adapt both animal and plant life has grown in intensity, and it must be added, diversity. This is, of course, not a new debate, for example, after lengthy preparatory work the UN General Assembly, on 11 November 1997 adopted the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human rights. The preamble to the declaration referred to the risks, including the possible collapse of society’s material and moral solidarity towards vulnerable persons together with the risk that an increase in the inequality of distribution of the benefits of research and its applications could jeopardise the principle of the equal dignity of individuals. Article 1 goes on to affirm the fundamental unity of the human species and the supreme value of the preservation of this unity. These are among the points which underlie much of the contemporary debate. The aim of this conference is to see how the debate has developed and to try to draw some conclusions from its implications for politics and societies, broadly defined, in our countries. In discussions about the human genome concerns have been expressed that the human species has embarked on a course which will enable it to effect in self-modification of a more profound nature than has hitherto been possible. The levers of our evolution may increasingly be in our own hands. This could, over time, some fear, cause us to abandon the principle of the fundamental unity of the human species with potentially serious consequences. We are being forced to confront the question of what it is to be human. Much of this debate is played out at two levels. At the popular it is illuminated by sensational headlines about human cloning, designer babies, Frankenstein foods etc, and at the scientific, where the limitations of our present knowledge and abilities are more clearly understood, but where the urge to continue to enlarge our knowledge and then apply it in practical ways, continues to drive research forward. Few seriously believe that this process could, or should, be halted. The same dilemmas have been thrown up in the field of non-human animal and plant biotechnology. In a number of industrialised countries, particularly in Europe, “GM” has become a focus for opposition and occasionally violent resistance to its use or consumption. Risks of long-term environmental “pollution” are advanced against the introduction of such technologies although in the USA and in a number of other countries the technology is in use. By January 2001 more than 40 transgenic modifications relating to 13 different crops were approved and produced on an estimated 44 million hectares. A number of countries have also considered, or approved, release of one or more varieties of genetically modified fish (eg salmon), trees, microbes, drugs and vaccines for animals. Finally there are the societal aspects of this revolution. Both within and between societies there have been a range of reactions to advances in biotechnology. Some have argued on religious or ethical grounds against the use of gene modification in the human or animal reproduction process. Others have sought to divide approval for remedial applications from those aimed mainly at “enhancement” but have found that such a distinction is not as clear-cut as it might at first sight appear. There are also potentially serious implications for a society, in which divisions exist between those who are genetically enabled and those who are not.

Back to Fellowship Programme 
Back to Top

Media Revolutions, Political Repercussions
(in collaboration with Cumberland Lodge)

Speakers

‘You just want to sell newspapers, don’t you?’
Andrew Marshall Director, Business Development and Strategy, Kroll Inc., formerly Washington correspondent of The Independent
Juergen Kroenig Die Zeit
Informing the public in a risk society: how far is that possible through the modern media?
John Lloyd Financial Times
Matthew Bishop World Business Editor, The Economist
‘More heat than light’. Is media scrutiny of politicians working?
Lord McNally Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords
What power do media moguls wield in the democratic process? Should there be greater or lesser constraints on media ownership?
Beppe Severgnini Corriere della Sera
Spinning out of control?
Tim Livesey FCO, on secondment as Principal Adviser on Public Affairs to the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, formerly to the Press Office, 10 Downing Street
Pictures and ideas: how compatible are successful TV and serious thinking?
Robert Hanks Feature writer and TV critic, The Independent
Case Study 1: Science 
Matthew Barrett Editor of Horizon, BBC TV
Case Study 2: International Affairs
Paul Mitchell Wilton Films

Brief Description
Politicians and journalists: how far are they adversaries or collaborators, and what impact does this have on the public and the democratic process? What does the relationship (or power struggle?) between politicians and journalists do to the nature of politics; are politicians now too guarded, is politics trivialised, or is there too much focus on personalities? Are the imperatives on the media to entertain, provoke and make a profit, inevitably at odds with the political need to inform and engage people on important policy issues? Or have politicians used the media to spin a line so much that the public have lost trust and become cynical? Has the media created a new cultural ‘political’ agenda by focusing on the single issues promoted by celebrities, life-style choices and identity politics?

Back to Fellowship Programme
Back to Top

Reconstructing States After Conflict: NGOs and the New Realities

  • Château Klingenthal, near Strasbourg
  • 25-27 June 2004

Speakers

Relief work, development and the strategy and tactics of modern conflict: what are the current realities?
Dr Richard Caplan Centre for International Studies, Oxford University
How might the principles and practice of NGOs have to change?
Will Day Cambridge Programme for Industry, formerly CARE International
The problems as seen by international organizations
Alexander Costy Until recently in Policy and Planning unit of Office of the Special Representative, UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan
Security Sector Reform and State Reconstruction: Lessons from Liberia
Prof Andy Michels Director, Peace-keeping Operations and Humanitar-ian Affairs, DynCorp International, and Adjunct Professor of Interna-tional Relations, The Lillian Vernon Center for International Affairs, New York University
The problems as seen by governments
Michael Green UK Department for International Development

Brief Description
For many years NGOs - whether humanitarian, relief, or development - appeared to occupy a neutral space amidst the civil and international wars which frequently made their presence necessary.  The Red Cross is perhaps the clearest example of this.  In recent years, however, the inevitable effect of the presence of NGOs on combatants' relative levels of power has led both to the increasing targeting of their employees in country and to the greater involvement of the military in functions previously left to relief workers.  This conference will examine this phenomenon from the perspectives of NGOs, governments and inter- governmental organizations, and the military.  How will we all have to adapt?

Back to Fellowship Programme 
Back to Top











Webmaster Contact:
Great Agencies - Marketplace for SEO and PPC Companies
(888) 222-8311
Located in the Sunnyvale City Center
support@greatagencies.com