|
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
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
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
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
|