Simpol and elections: publicity and progress

Voting in the UK election for Members of the European Parliament has ended, though results will not be known until Sunday.

There were 16 candidates who supported Simpol, 6 of them lead candidates who are first on the list for taking up a seat if their party gains enough votes.

The UK campaign in the build up to the elections was regrettably low key, with the onus falling on local groups and individual campaigners and the indefatigable John Bunzl to contact candidates.

With a general election due within a year, and possible only months away, now is a time to be thinking about promoting Simpol to voters and politicians so we are ready. Personally, I would love to see at least one Simpol-UK training and preparing day, which we can start planning for now.

I have recently been invited to join the Simpol-UK Strategic Planning Group and would love to hear from anyone who is interested in being involved in helping to prepare for the general election, either in organising such a day, producing materials, contributing ideas or as a participant looking for support.

It can be immensely rewarding to take action - and taking action can be as simple as sending a message to candidates in your area: there is no need to commit to more than you are able.

As an example, I contacted candidates in the Eastern Region with the message I posted on my blog at:

http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2009/03/countdown-eu-election.html

I was pleased that the Green Party candidate, Rupert Read, gave Simpol his support, as a long-time Adopter himself. His comment was: "I have long been a signatory to Simpol, and hope that this election campaign will bring more power to your arm."

Rupert's support for Simpol will have benefited his campaign, with Adopters checking the website to see who had signed up or receiving updates I sent out. I even had someone telephone me directly just before election day to check who had made the Simpol pledge.

This benefits candidates and helps to put those supporting Simpol into power, so bringing us closer to the time when the policies developed through our democratic process can be implemented.

At the same time, Simpol gains publicity. Rupert posted news of his support on his blog as follows, available at:

http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2009/05/rupert-read-pledges-support-for.html

---quote

Rupert Read Pledges Support For Simultaneous Policy

In the Eastern Region, Green Party candidate, Rupert Read, has become the first to give his support to the Simpol approach. Other candidates have also been invited to do so.

The Simultaneous Policy is a package of measures being developed democratically by people around the world to address global problems.

Simpol proposals include creating a World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority (WTCRA) and 'Contraction and Convergence' - a policy aimed at addressing climate change.

Supporting the Simpol campaign does not mean you have to support individual policies however! It is free to sign up as a Simpol Adopter and all Adopters can vote on policies or put forward their own proposals.

Simpol policies have been picked up widely - the WTCRA policy (developed in Cambridge by Mike Brady) has been published in the newsletter Jus Semper in English and Spanish, for example. See:

http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2009/04/simpol-builds-networking.html

Click here to sign up or to learn more about Simpol.

http://simpoleuroelection2009.blogspot.com/

---quote ends

This shows Simpol synergy in action! In this case, not only does the candidate gain votes, people have been encouraged to sign up as Adopters. And proposals that have done well in past voting have been highlighted, demonstrating once again how putting proposals forward for inclusion in the policy package brings them to the attention of a wider audience.

Obviously I'm pleased that my own proposal comes in for special mention – though it remains to be seen if it survives future voting rounds to remain in the process.

Repeatedly I see how the strategy developed by John Bunzl proves itself time and again in all its facets. This should encourage us all. All that is missing is wider involvement - but that will surely come.

Even with a relatively low level of activity in these elections we will see MEPs elected who have pledged to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments.

With the general election on the horizon we can make a breakthrough in every constituency where there Adopters if we think ahead.

So if you are interested in helping to prepare, whether on the internet, at a future event or in your community, please contact me directly.

I'd welcome suggestions or requests and can take these forward to the Strategic Planning Group for approval.

The Group itself is open to new participants, so if you are interested, let me know and I'll pass it on.

The Simultaneous Policy campaign creates networking opportunities

The Simultaneous Policy campaign provides a democratic space for discussing how to address the global problems we face. It is a place to meet people, share and develop ideas and have your ideas reach a wider audience beyond the Simpol campaign.

The space exists in the virtual world, with the discussion forum and email lists, and the real world, with local groups, policy fora and events such as the recent street party in Brighton and participation in G20 demonstrations. Here's a picture of Barnaby Flynn with his moveable stall at the G20. I found this on the BBC website.



The annual vote on policies to be included in the Simultaneous Policy is a particularly fruitful time for making contact with people, if you are active in promoting the policies you back.

I made contact with Álvaro de Regil Castilla of the Jus Semper Global Alliance, which promotes the Living Wages North and South Initiative. I was invited to contribute a paper on my proposal for a World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority (WTNCRA) to the Jus Semper publication. This can be downloaded by clicking:
http://www.jussemper.org/Resources/Corporate%20Activity/Resources/MBradyWTNCRA.pdf

The paper has also been published in Spanish.

This has helped raise awareness of my proposal further afield. The paper has been added to the Eldis website, which is a resource database of the Institute of Development Studies, Sussex University:
http://www.eldis.org/go/topics/resource-guides/corporate-responsibility&id=42900&type=Document

Not only that, but it has been highlighted in the Eldis email updates. In turn, I have seen that the Eldis link has been sent to the OECD Watch email list. This is just over the past couple of days.

I think this shows there is a receptive audience for proposed solutions for global problems. Simpol encourages us to develop these and can actively link Adopters together to discuss a work in progress. You can post a work in progress to the Simpol forum at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/

And, of course, as the proposals are distributed, so is information on the Simpol campaign as a way to make them a reality.

Simpol visionaries

A proposal was submitted for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy in 2007 for 'Regulation of the Sale of Debt'.

Proposer David Smith, wrote: "The level of defaults on 'sub prime' mortgages in the US affects world markets and possibly the real economies, because these debts are sold on without being understood by the purchaser. The panic has affected credit and interest rates everywhere. In an interdependent world this probably has more effect on third world economies than on us. Surely there could be some kind of regulation which would force banks to evaluate such transactions properly beforehand. Why hasnt the international financial community already set its house in order? I dont know but partly because it is not very farsighted, but also there is a lack of will."

See:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=27.0

A year later, the international banking system collapsed and the world financial system would have ceased to operate had governments not stepped in.

Good to see a Simultaneous Policy Adopter was way ahead in warning of this. Unfortunately the proposal gained insufficient support in voting in 2007 and dropped out of the process. David's proposal for the 'regulation of derivative markets' also failed to gain support:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=26.0

Which goes to show that the democratic space promoted by Simpol is a great place to look for visionary ideas, but also that people who see the point of ideas need to help in explaining them and encouraging other Adopters to support them. As David said on his proposal for regulating the sale of debt: "This suggestion needs input from someone who undertsands financial markets better than I do."

Following the credit crunch, many journalists and others have investigated these issues and tried to explain them. If the proposal was resubmitted (perhaps in revised form) it would probably do much better in voting. There is now a requirement to have 9 seconders for proposals, which helps to beef up proposals and put together a team to promote them.

Some proposals do perhaps deserve to drop out. Certainly there was little support for Esperanto being made the world language. But it is also worth revisiting some of those that did not catch the imagination of Adopters in past voting. The policy development process is one of reformulation and refinement. See all policies on the discussion board at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/

You can post your own 'work in progress' to gain help in developing it and to find seconders at: at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?board=32.0

A New Year message from John Bunzl, founder of the Simultaneous Policy campaign

The power to create a better world is already ours

With the world in the grip of financial crisis and a deepening economic slump, those of us who've long been concerned about global warming, looming energy shortages and other global issues will no doubt be feeling even more despondent than before. To ordinary citizens all over the world, the ability to gain any traction on these issues seems inadequate and our efforts to get politicians to do anything substantive likewise seem somewhat futile. And yet the power to reverse this is, I contend, already in our hands if only we realise it. We - at least those of us in democratic countries - already have the necessary power to drive our politicians to implement substantive global solutions.

To fully realise our power, however, first requires that we take stock of the various misconceptions that prevent us from seeing it. We are limited not so much by corrupt or blind politicians, nor by greedy corporations, nor by the "money masters" - the private banks. We are limited only by the false walls of misconception we've constructed in our own hearts and minds.

The first of these is our assumption that politicians have the power to make the substantive changes needed to put the world on a just and sustainable path. There can be no doubt we believe politicians have this power because if we didn't, we'd hardly spend so much time lobbying them or taking direct action to persuade them to change their policies. We lobby them and protest because we think they have power - but they don't, at least not nearly as much as we think they do, and certainly far less than they'd need if they're to really solve global problems.

How can this be? Their lack of power stems from the fact that, today, capital and corporations can move fairly easily and instantaneously across national borders, so determining which country gains investment and employment and which loses it. Since politicians have no choice but to implement policies designed to attract or retain capital so as to maintain employment and competitiveness, it's not hard to see why they're constrained to implementing only market- and business-friendly policies which favour the rich, the corporations and the bankers and thus disfavour greater social justice and the environment. So, to lobby politicians in the way we do now is rather illogical. Because for any nation, implementing our demands unilaterally would risk making its economy uncompetitive, leading to capital flight, unemployment and so on. Implementing our demands, in short, would not be in the national interest. So, why do we persist in demanding substantive change from people - in this case our politicians - when they don't have the power to deliver? Clearly there must be something wrong with our thinking; with our conception.

Our second major misconception is that the above problem must be the fault of the rich or the corporations who move their capital around. While no one should condone poor or greedy corporate behaviour, we have to realise that on the whole corporations do what they do because not doing it would mean losing out to others. For corporations, acting ethically or refraining from taking advantage of countries with lower regulations and taxes would by and large mean losing out to their less scrupulous competitors, so it's not difficult to see why they so often fail to behave as we'd like. So while it's right we should highlight poor corporate behaviour when we see it, why do we persist in blaming corporations when it's clear that their behaviour is only the natural consequence of the lack of a level playing field of globally binding regulations? Again, there must be something wrong with our conception.

What's more, these misconceptions only lead us into contradictory thinking, such as identifying free trade as our enemy. At a recent Trade Justice strategy event, for example, delegates were disappointed that a survey carried out during the Make Poverty History campaign showed that supporters could not say what trade justice actually meant. Following that, a delegate from one major NGO gave his own answer, proclaiming that "We are against free trade and we're for protectionism, but only in certain circumstances". But he failed to see the inherent contradiction that if you are for protectionism only in certain exceptional circumstances, you must logically be for free trade in all other circumstances! What that delegate and most of his colleagues are missing, then, is that their real enemy is not free trade itself but the fact that free trade occurs without adequate global social and environmental regulations, without any redistribution of wealth across national borders, and without any adequate transnational enforcement. In short, it's not free trade that is our enemy; it is the lack of effective global regulations and governance. And if the leaders of our movement cannot accurately identify the real enemy, surely we shouldn't be surprised if the public cannot define trade justice.

But lying deep beneath these misconceptions are the false walls we build in our hearts. We build them on the above misconceptions and hold to them dearly because they allow us to blame, shame and complain about others and that makes us feel self-righteous; it makes us feel good - like campaigning warriors, boldly speaking out for the good of the world! But while raising public awareness of global abuses is certainly necessary, how can blaming people who are not really responsible possibly be good for the world? How can it be right to blame politicians or businessmen when it's not really their fault and when change is not in their power and when, moreover, if we were in their shoes, global economic forces would demand that we behaved pretty much as they do? This, perhaps, is why Gandhi asserted that "It is quite proper to resist and attack a system, but to resist or attack its author is tantamount to resisting and attacking oneself. For we are all tarred with the same b rush, and are children of one and the same Creator, and as such the divine powers within us are infinite. To slight a single human being is to slight those divine powers, and thus to harm not only that being but with him the whole world."[i]

If we want to help and heal the world, then, it is the largely unregulated global market system that we must recognise as our real enemy - that we must resist and attack - and not any person or corporation or mode of trade that operates within it. We must realise that we are all caught, at one level or another, in that system and are thus all "tarred with the same brush". And from that it follows that while none of us is really to blame, all of us must hold ourselves jointly responsible for changing the system itself - for doing something about it. When we stop blaming each other, then, we realise that we are all prisoners of the system and all in the same planetary boat. If we take down the false walls of misconception in our hearts, we open them to the truth that those who we fondly believed to be at fault are not, and so our hearts open to each other without discrimination or reserve and so to the whole world. For how else could we be permitted to do good for the world? How else could we possibly build a non-judgemental space that is open to all; the vital open and forgiving space that is needed to begin our joint search for a genuine global solution? None of this means we should stop our present campaigns, of course; it means only that we must recognise their limitations, and so realise that an additional, more global, thoroughly non-judgemental, more truthful, more inclusive approach is also needed.

Let us now go further to see what such an approach might actually look like. What might its design criteria be?

If the free movement of capital and corporations is a global phenomenon, our first deduction must be that only a truly global solution could possibly fit the bill. And since the nature of governments' failure to act is their fear of losing jobs and investment to other countries, it follows, secondly, that any solution must be implemented simultaneously by nations to avoid that fear. If all or sufficient nations act simultaneously, no nation, corporation or citizens need lose out to any other: global and simultaneous - everybody wins. But since dominant nations may not see global cooperation as in their interests and would seek to free-ride and undermine global cooperation, our solution must give citizens the power to compel their governments to cooperate. So our solution must not just be global and simultaneous but also be driven by citizens. And if citizens are to drive the process and be capable of compelling their politicians to cooperate globally, the solution must enable them to operate on politicians in a way that is democratic, legal and binding. It must, in short, operate through existing electoral systems but do so in a way that is completely new, has trans-national coverage and yet transcends party-politics.

For a few years, now, a relatively small number of citizens, primarily in the UK, have been test-running a global solution which meets all the above design criteria. Over the course of two general elections, in 2001 and 2005, they succeeded in getting 27 Members of the UK parliament and countless electoral candidates from all the main political parties to pledge to implement the campaign's global policy package simultaneously alongside other governments. In some UK electoral constituencies, more than one candidate signed the pledge, meaning the campaign gained a seat in parliament regardless which of those candidates won the seat. This showed that the campaign was capable of transcending party-political divides and was global in scope, leading one supporting MP, Lembit Opik, to recognise that, "We live together at once, on the same small planet. There are some things we should do together, at once, on this same small planet."

But how could a relatively small number of citizens achieve such big results in such a short time? The answer lies in their discovery of a new and powerful way to use their votes. They do this by making it clear to all politicians that they'll be voting in all future national elections for ANY politician or party - within reason - that pledges to implement the campaign's policy package simultaneously alongside other governments. Or, if they have a party preference, they encourage their favourite politician or party to sign that pledge. In that way, campaign supporters still retain the ultimate right to vote as they please but they also make it clear to all politicians that they'll be giving very strong preference to candidates that have signed the Pledge, to the exclusion of those who haven't. So politicians who sign the Pledge attract those votes and yet they risk nothing because the policy package only gets implemented if and when sufficient governments around the world hav e signed up to it too. But if politicians fail to sign the Pledge they risk losing votes to their political competitors who do, and so could risk losing their seats. With many parliamentary seats and even entire elections around the world often hanging on a relatively small number of votes, it's not difficult to see that only relatively few campaign supporters will be needed to make it in the vital survival interests of all politicians to sign up. And therein lies the power that citizens already have, even in dominant countries such as the USA, to ensure that their governments sign up and cooperate.

Thanks to this novel way of voting, not only have many UK MPs signed up, some Members of the European, Australian and other parliaments have too. The campaign has supporters in over 70 countries and they are self-organising to take the project forward and roll it out internationally. In 2005 they started a global process by which they - potentially with the help of chosen independent experts - gradually develop the global policies to be included in the campaign's overall policy package. This ensures that the policies to be implemented are democratically developed, globally inclusive, tailored to the needs of each country and yet that the process still remains open and flexible over time. Many non-governmental and campaigning organisations already have well thought out global policies to deal with climate change, oil depletion and other problems but what they don't have is a viable political means for getting them implemented in a globalised world. That's why they're increasin gly seeing this novel campaign as a vehicle for driving politicians and nations towards cooperatively implementing them. They're increasingly recognising that if politicians don't have the unilateral power to deal substantively with global problems, then citizens must logically take the lead both in designing the necessary policies, and in using their collective voting power to drive politicians to implement them simultaneously. So, the power to create a better world is already in our hands - we only have to use it; we only have to realise it.

The campaign we're talking about is called the Simultaneous Policy (or Simpol, for short). As Lembit Opik went on to say, "The compelling logic of Simultaneous Policy is really collective common sense - it's a campaign to find out how common sense really is!"

With global problems now mounting steeply around us, isn't it time more of us found out and played our parts? Isn't it time you let go your misconceptions and opened your heart to all the world? Isn't it time we all jointly discovered, as Gandhi said, that the "divine powers within us are infinite"?

Joining the Simpol campaign is free. Please go now to
http://www.simpol.org/en/main/Concept_FS.htm

Seasons greetings and happy New Year!

John Bunzl

Founder, International Simultaneous Policy Organisation (ISPO)

December, 2008. http://www.simpol.org

----------------------------------------------------------

[i] M.K. Gandhi, An Autobiography, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1927, 1929.

When is a question not a question?

There is a discussion on Simpol's discussion boards about 'provably false GDP figures'. See:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=70.0

I raised some questions about the analysis. Why was it wrong for certain assumptions to be made in calculating the figures, given there was a certain logic to them? What difference would it make if the figures were calculated differently? That kind of thing. The sort of probing that is needed when examining proposals that could be introduced simultaneously around the world.

My post was forwarded to a discussion group where the issues was first raised and provoked a surprising response, which someone posted back to Simpol's board.

You can read the correspondence there. The point of this blog is not an "I said, then he said" justification.

It is to ask: When is a question not a question?

In the minds of some beholders it seems questions are not questions, but rhetorical point-scoring constructions.

The question: What difference will this make? Is understood to mean: This will make no difference.

Then follows the attack of cynicism. But I would like suggest the cynicism lies with those who see an honest question in this way.

Is it a sign of the times and the paucity of our policy debate that enquiry provokes such a defensive reaction? This is a question we should seriously consider because the whole purpose of the Simultaneous Policy democratic space is to investigate ideas. For that we need to be able to question them and receive considered answers.

Considered answers appreciated.

Congratulations President Obama

And so the 44th President of the United States will be President Barack Obama. A historic day indeed. But what are the lessons I draw for the Simultaneous Policy campaign.

Firstly, it was a tight result. Though the Electoral College result suggests a convincing Obama win, the actual vote, as currently declared is Obama 52.1%, McCain 44.5%. Less than 8 percentage points, which means only 4% of voters needed to switch sides for the opposite result. And less than 70% of electors voted. Hence the focus by both candidates on trying to persuade their supporters to vote.

So if the Simultaneous Policy campaign could mobilize sufficient numbers of those who have given up on conventional politics to support the candidate pledging to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments, it could swing elections, even in the US. People did send messages to the candidates to this effect, but not in sufficient numbers this time around to put the campaign on their radar amongst all the other issues.

How is it that the country should be so nearly split down the middle, election after election? Surely it is because both candidates now and historically, position themselves either side of the centre ground. Despite the rhetoric and some key policy differences (ostensibly on Iraq, for instance), there is a lot of common ground. Similarities became even more striking during the campaign. For example, in the last Presidential debate, speaking on energy policy, Obama said he would look at offshore drilling, which had been one of McCain's key points of difference. It was a clever construction, seemingly a concession to those sympathetic to the 'Drill, baby, drill' chanting at the Republican Convention, while being easily abandonded with the comment: "We looked and decided against it."

Or at least those who feared Obama was selling out his climate-change credential will hope.

Once in the White House with oil lobbyists on one side and a public concerned about fuel prices and reluctant to change lifestyles on the other, maybe that drilling will go ahead.

Because Obama finds himself in the same situation as every elected leader. He needs to satisfy his electorate, which has the primary concern of their own well-being. That boils down to their jobs and financial security above all else. So when US companies threaten disinvestment if their agenda is not followed, they have a powerful lever.

While we can be hopeful that President Obama will deliver the change the world needs, we would be wise to continue to build public pressure for it.

The AVAAZ campaign is already gathering signatures for key parts of its own 'global justice' agenda. You can sign on at:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/million_messages_to_obama/

This gives you the opportunity to add your own additional message and I added: "Please pledge to implement, alongside other governments, the Simultaneous Policy - the policies developed and approved by people around the world to address global problems."

What those policies will be will be clearer when the results of the latest annual voting round are released shortly. But the opportunity continues for entering the debate and shaping the policies. You can join the discussion at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/

However hopeful we may be about President Obama and his leadership role, policy setting will still take place behind closed doors and international agreements will be reached on the basis of power rather than argument. The Simultaneous Policy makes the process democratic and transparent.

Votes being counted

The counting is taking place in the US Presidential election. Simultaneous Policy campaign supporters have been sending messages to the candidates asking them to pledge to implement alongside other governments the people's policies for dealing with global problems. Neither pledged to do so, but that does not stop whoever is elected doing so when in office. The prediction is, of course, that tomorrow we wake to President-elect Barack Obama and John McCain will still be a Senator.

At the same time, counting is taking place in the annual vote on policies for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy. Anyone can vote - and even put forward their own proposals - by signing up as a Simultaneous Policy Adopter, which is free to do at:
http://www.simpol.org/

Voting also takes place on issues, which may be addressed by one or more policies. Top issues and policies are given more space in campaign materials and public meetings. In last year's voting, climate change was the top issue. You can find the results in the 'policy' pages of the website and on the discussion board, where more details of policies are given and you have the chance to question those backing them. See:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/

These pages will be updated once the 2008 votes have been processed. Unfortunately the processing is not as well resourced as the Presidential race.

US Presidential candidates converge as the economy becomes the lead issue

As the two lead candidates in the US Presidential election campaign struggle to forge a decisive lead (Obama is slightly in front at present), the reality of the compromises to get elected start to show themselves, just as the Simultaneous Policy campaign analysis suggests.

It is the economy, stupid. Regardless of climate change and dependence on the finite resource of oil (which many say is now past its peak), Obama has joined John McCain in suggesting that high oil prices be tackled with increased oil availability, from selling strategic reserves onto the market to contemplating drilling of reserves off the coast of California, previously thought to be too environmentally risky. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/05/barackobama.uselections2008

The problem is that an opinion poll "released on Thursday showed that petrol prices were the main election issue."

Obama is tempering his support for increased oil flows as a necessary evil to get support for a broader package built on renewables, but the change in his rhetoric is being seen as a reversal of policy, canny footwork to get elected.

Tough decisions are difficult to sell in the heated environment of an election campaign. Particularly when the US economy is stalling and the 7-year-long attempt to lever open developing country markets has just failed at the World Trade Organisation.

Politicians - and voters - operate in the real world of competition between nations and the threat of jobs and investment moving overseas.

The Simultaneous Policy offers a parallel market in ideas for tackling global problems, wherein US voters can reclaim their sovereignty from business and financial markets in deciding how their country is governed and how to make a transition to a more cooperative world.

Ideas being debated can be found in Simpol's discssion forum. Anyone can put forward their own proposals by signing up as an Simultaneous Policy Adopters on Simpol's website.

Voters can call on the candidates to pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments, using this form:
http://www.simpol.org/voteusa.html

While the lead candidates may inevitably converge on policies dictated by competition between nations for the shorter term, they can also demonstrate, by making the Simultaneous Policy pledge, that they will respect the sovereign right of the people to decide the policies necessary to ensure our survival on this planet and its long-term, sustainable future.

Proposals for solar power stations are a good sign, but we need a framework for action

There is an exciting sign of things to come if the world really is to move to address climate change. The European Union's Institute for Energy is backing proposals for a massive solar power project (ie the size of Wales) in North African deserts. Massive sums will have to be found for the distribution system, but there is the potential for Europe to meet all its energy needs from this project, according to this report in The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/23/solarpower.windpower

There are some provisos as to whether the political will for action will be forthcoming. The key one is, of course, economic. According to the Guardian article, an investment of Euros 450 billion is required for a distribution system to provide 100 GW by 2050. There is the potential for solar systems to provide energy more cheaply than other methods. Renewable energy is becoming even more feasible as oil prices rise, and they will inevitability rise further as increased demand for energy chases finite oil resources, which are widely believed to be past their peak already.

But it is not quite as rosy as it may appear - and reminds me of some sandwiches I bought once when catching the train to London from Cambridge (more on those in a moment). The rising oil price is having another effect. In Brazil it is now becoming economically viable to tap oil reserves that lie below many kilometres of rock off the coast of Rio de Janeiro. Yesterday the Secretary for Economic Development for Rio de Janeiro State said the country must capitalise on the high price of oil. In the US the cost of oil is prompting ever louder calls for reserves off the coast of California and Florida and in the Gulf of Mexico to be tapped.

Supply and demand increasing the price of oil is clearly not going to address the problem of carbon emissions or peak oil if it leads to an increase in oil production. As another example, Gordon Brown recently appealed to Middle Eastern countries to increase oil production to help meet demand and damp down prices. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/gordon-brown-in-saudi-arabia.html

Ideas under discussion within the Simultaneous Policy democratic process offer better solutions. Contraction & Convergence envisions a reduction of emissions to sustainable levels, with equitable distribution of the right to emit. The Oil Depletion Protocol proposes a managed weaning off of oil. It seems that whatever approach is taken, there is merit in taxing carbon emissions rather than trading them as trading does not necessarily provide an incentive to develop new, cleaner technologies.

Which brings me to my sandwiches, bought at Cambridge train station. They were organic, packaged with cardboard from recycled sources and the transparent film was made from cellulose and so 100% bio-degradeable. They were perhaps the most sustainable sandwiches I have ever bought. There are some that argue that we should rely on consumers favouring such products to change business practices. They argue that instead of imposing regulations, companies should be encouraged - and rewarded - for showing Corporate Social Responsibility, in other words, doing the right thing voluntarily. They would point to my sandwiches as an example of this working.

I see the lesson of the sandwiches differently. This product was the only one that had gone the sustainable route. If, however, there was a requirement that manufacturers of goods had to use recyclable or bio-degradable components wherever possible and take responsibility for processing any that are not (a so-called circular economy rather than a linear economy - see this clip on Youtube), then sustainable products would be the norm, rather than the exception. We need to be moving in this direction as, by definition, the world cannot survive unsustainably for ever.

Another example more directly linked to climate change, comes from my previous life as an electronic engineer. I worked on a computer-controlled diesel engine. The motivation for this research and development project was new European Union regulations on emissions which could not be met with conventional mechanical pumps. Greater control of the engine was required to improve efficiency and so reduce emissions. The main pump manufacturers were competing to produce the best solution and win orders from car manufacturers.

The Simultaneous Policy aims to provide the framework to prompt the innovation and other changes required to address global problems. Present mechanisms of commodity trading ramping up prices and emissions trading offsetting emissions may not quite do it when it comes to climate change and peak oil. We need the coherent set of policies being developed through the Simultaneous Policy campaigns democratic and transparent process (you can join in with proposals and cast your vote by signing up as a Simultaneous Policy Adopter on the official websites). The implementation strategy means that powerful vested interests that currently divert and undermine political effort are side-stepped.

The news on solar power stations is a sign that there is a way through the transition to a sustainable economy. We just need to provide the framework to make things like this happen. Play your part by signing up as an Simultaneous Policy Adopter.

Shut out of the WTO Green Room

The open letter below from Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) proves the point that current methods of global policy making are not based on winning the argument, but on abusing power. At the current discussions on the so-called development round of the WTO, the rich nations are arm-twisting poorer countries to open their markets to transnational corporations, while offering lesser access to their own markets.

In previous meetings the developing country block was organised and united enough to say that no deal is better than a poor deal, and the same may happen again. Yet the world is in need of a better regulated system of trade as the credit crunch, out of control oil prices and rising food prices are all blamed in part on predatory speculation. As I wrote yesterday, policies persued by WTO, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund are also implicated in the food crisis. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/07/cambodia-haiti-food-security.html

But can we expect anything different? Nations compete with each other and protect their own best interests, particularly their economies. Those with power use it. While President Morales is calling for a different agenda to be followed, there are those who argue that Bolivia should instead concentrate on becoming more effective at competing. Brazil - which has many natural advantages over Bolivia - is achieving both increases in standards of living and reduction in inequality by embracing globalization. President Lula, one-time trade union activist, dropped his radical policies to get elected. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/brazil-success-lula-light.html

The Simultaneous Policy campaign is bringing people together around the world to discuss the policies they wish to see implemented to address global problems. You can join in by signing up as an SP Adopter on the Simpol websites. You can see policy suggestions already under discussion in the Simpol Forum. The campaign offers the chance of a coherent set of policies, for example, where climate change, sustainability and trade justice are addressed together, instead of being at odds with each other. This is one big plus, and is founded on the belief that simultaneous implementation of these policies will break through the destructive competition between nations.

Our leaders at present are forced into many decisions (or lack of them) because they are told by business leaders that investment and jobs will otherwise leave the country. Countries are played off against each other to offer the most attractive location for companies to operate and to host their headquarters. Hence, the type of behaviour at WTO described by President Morales.

John Bunzl has described the policy development process as a parallel market in ideas. There is the market where countries compete for investment and global justice campaigners are limited to winning what concessions they can. And there is the Simultaneous Policy market where we can discuss the policies that are really necessary. He has described this in an analogy of kids fighting over sandwiches, which you can read here:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/sp-analogy.html

President Morales has suggestions for alternative policies. If Adopters want to support them within the Simultaneous Policy campaign then they are welcome to put them forward. But they will need to be defended. To survive voting rounds to be included in the final policy package, the argument must be won on its merits.

---Letter from Evo Morales, reproduced on many sites, including:
http://www.art-us.org/node/360

Letter from Evo Morales to the WTO

On the WTO's round of negotiations

International trade can play a major role in the promotion of economic development and the alleviation of poverty. We recognize the need for all our peoples to benefit from the increased opportunities and welfare gains that the multilateral trading system generates. The majority of WTO members are developing countries. We seek to place their needs and interests at the heart of the Work Programme adopted in this Declaration. Doha World Trade Organization Ministerial Declaration, November 14, 2001

With these words began the WTO round of negotiations seven years ago. In reality, are economic development, the alleviation of poverty, the needs of all our peoples, the increased opportunities for developing countries at the center of the current negotiations at the WTO?

First I must say that if it were so, all 153 member countries and in particular, the wide majority of developing countries should be the main actors in the WTO negotiations. But what we are seeing is that a handful of 35 countries are invited by the Director-General to informal meetings so that they advance significantly in the negotiations and prepare the agreements of this WTO "Development Round".

The WTO negotiations have turned into a fight by developed countries to open markets in developing countries to favor their big companies.

The agricultural subsidies in the North, which mainly go to agricultural and food companies in the US and Europe, will not only continue but will actually increase, as demonstrated by the 2008 Farm Bill [1] in the United States. The developing countries will lower tariffs on their agricultural products while the real subsidies [2] applied by the US or the EU to their agricultural products will not decline.

As for industrial products in the WTO negotiations, developing countries are being asked to cut their tariffs by 40% to 60% while developed countries will, on average, cut their tariffs by 25% to 33%.

For countries like Bolivia the erosion of trade preferences due to the overall lowering of tariffs will have negative effects on the competitiveness of our exports.

The recognition of asymmetries, and the real and effective special and differential treatment in favor of developing countries is limited and obstructed when implemented by developed countries.

In the negotiations, there is a push towards the liberalization of new services sectors by countries when we should be definitely excluding basic services in education, health, water, energy and telecommunications from the text of the WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services. These services are human rights that cannot be objects of private commercial relations and of liberalization rules that lead to privatization.

The deregulation and privatization of financial services, among others, are the cause of the current global financial crisis. Further liberalization of services will not bring about more development, but greater probabilities for a crisis and speculation on vital matters such as food.

The intellectual property regime established by the WTO has most of all benefited transnational corporations that monopolize patents, thus making medicines and other vital products more expensive, promoting the privatization and commercialization of life itself, as evidenced by the various patents on plants, animals and even human genes.

The poorest countries will be the main losers. The economic projections of a potential WTO agreement, carried out even by the World Bank, [3] indicate that the cumulative costs of the loss in employment, the restrictions to national policymaking and the loss in tariff revenues will be greater than the "gains" from the "Development Round".

After seven years, the WTO round is anchored in the past and out of date with the most important phenomena we are currently living: the food crisis, the energy crisis, climate change and the elimination of cultural diversity. The world is being led to believe that an agreement is needed to resolve the global agenda and this agreement does not correspond to that reality. Its bases are not appropriate to resist this new global agenda.

Studies by the FAO point out that with the current forces of agricultural production it is possible to feed 12 billion human beings, in other words, almost more than double the current world population. However, there is a food crisis because production is not geared towards the well-being of humans but towards the market, speculation and profitability of the big producers and marketers of food. To deal with the food crisis, it is necessary to strengthen family, peasant and community agriculture. Developing countries have to recover the right to regulate [4] our imports and exports to guarantee our populations' food supply. We have to end consumerism, waste and luxuries. In the poorest part of the planet, millions of human beings die of hunger every year. In the richest part of the planet, millions of dollars are spent to combat obesity. We consume in excess, waste natural resources and we produce the waste that pollutes Mother Earth.

Countries should prioritize the consumption of what we produce locally. A product that travels half around the world to reach its destiny can be cheaper than other that is produced domestically, but, if we take into account the environmental costs of transporting that merchandise, the energy consumption and the quantity of carbon emissions that it generates, then we can reach the conclusion that it is healthier for the planet and for humanity to prioritize the consumption of what is produced locally.

Foreign trade must be a complement to local production. In no way can we favor foreign markets at the expense of national production.

Capitalism wants to make us all uniform so that we turn into mere consumers. For the North there is only one development model, theirs. The uniform models of economic development are accompanied by processes of generalized acculturation to impose on us one single culture, one single fashion, one single way of thinking and of seeing things. To destroy a culture, to threaten the identity of a people, is the greatest damage that can be done to humanity.

The respect and the peaceful and harmonic complementarity of the various cultures and economies is essential to save the planet, humanity and life.

For this to be in fact, a round of negotiations about development and anchored in the present and future of humanity and the planet it should:

• Guarantee the participation of developing countries in all WTO meetings, thus ending exclusive meetings in the "green room". [5]

• Implement true asymmetric negotiations in favor of developing countries in which the developed countries make effective concessions.

• Respect the interests of developing countries without limiting their capacity to define and implement national policies in agriculture, industry and services.

• Effectively reduce the protectionist measures and subsidies of developed countries. [6]

• Insure that the right of developing countries to protect their infant industries, for as long as necessary, in the same manner that industrialized countries did in the past.

Guarantee the right of developing countries to regulate and define their policies in the services sector, explicitly excluding basic services from the General Agreement on Trade in Services of the WTO.

• Limit the monopolies of large corporations on intellectual property, foster the transfer of technology and prohibit the patenting of all forms of life.

• Guarantee the countries' food sovereignty, eliminating any limitation to the ability of the States to regulate food exports and imports.

• Adopt measures that contribute to limit consumerism, the wasting of natural resources, the elimination of greenhouse gases and the creation of waste that harms Mother Earth.

In the 21^st century, a "Development round" can no longer be about "free trade", but it rather has to promote a kind of trade that contributes to the equilibrium between countries, regions and mother nature, establishing indicators that allow for an evaluation and correction of trade rules in terms of sustainable development.

We, the governments, have an enormous responsibility with our peoples. Agreements such as the ones in the WTO have to be widely known and debated by all citizens and not only by ministers, businessmen and "experts". We, the peoples of the world, have to stop being passive victims of these negotiations and turn into main actors of our present and future.

Evo Morales Ayma

Presidente of Bolivia

---

[1] The 2008 Farm Bill was approved on May 22 by the US Congress. It authorizes spending that includes subsidies to agriculture of up to 307 billion dollars in 5 years. Of these, there will be approximately 208 billion dollars that can be spent on food programs.

[2] The current text in Agriculture proposes the reduction of US subsidies by a range between 13 and 16.4 billion dollars per year. However, the real subsidies that will actually apply to the US are of approximately 7 billion dollars per year. On the other hand, the European Union is offering in the WTO negotiations the reform it carried out in 2003 to its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), without proposing further opening.

[3] Developing countries have little to gain in the WTO Round: the projected gains are of 0.2% for these countries, the reduction in world poverty is of 2.5 million (less than 1% of the world's poor) and the losses due to forgone tariff revenues will be of at least 63 billion dollars. (Anderson, Martin, and van der Mensbrugghe, "Market and Welfare Implications of Doha Reform Scenarios," in Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda, Anderson and Martin, World Bank in Back to the Drawing Board: No Basis for Concluding the Doha Round of Negotiations" by Kevin P. Gallagher and Timothy A. Wise, RIS Policy Brief #36).

[4] This regulation must include the right to implement taxes on exports, to lower tariffs to favor imports, ban exports, subsidize domestic production, establish price bands, and in short, any measure that, given each developing country's reality, better suits the purpose of guaranteeing the population's food supply.

[5] The green room meetings is the name of the informal negotiation meetings at the WTO in which a group of 35 countries selected by the Director-General participates.

[6] A real cut in agricultural subsidies in the US would have to reduce them to less than 7 billion dollars per year.

Turning Weapons into Windmills

The Spring 2008 edition of the Simultaneous Policy newsletter has a policy supplement. This lists the policy suggestions that have been submitted and survived the annual rounds of voting so far. There are also some new suggestions (including one of mine which I'll write about another time).

Space is given in the newsletter to issues or policies gaining a high proportion of support in annual voting rounds. In this policy supplement there are a couple of guest articles on the theme of peace and disarmament. As it is the nature of SP to prompt cross-cutting ideas, the issue of climate change is linked in by one of the authors.

The theme of the supplement is: Turning Weapons into Windmills.

Nuclear disarmament received 61% support. The proposal referred people to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) website for further information. For further details and discussion, see the board dedicated to it at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?board=18.0

The CND site is promoting a proposed Nuclear Weapons Convention, which was launched by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) in 2007. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) was launched at the same time to promote adoption of the Convention.

Marion Birch of Medact - the UK member of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War - writes about the Convention and campaign in the policy supplement. Those who are in favour of the Convention could also promote it to Simultaneous Policy Adopters to add substance to the nuclear disarmament proposal and provide a parallel route for gaining publicity and support. If Adopters vote to keep it in the process then implementation of the Simultaneous Policy could see the Convention introduced more quickly than by other means.

The other proposal given space in the policy supplement is for a 'Defensive Defence Policy', which gained 54% last time around. See:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?board=16.0

The proposer, Barbara Panvel, gives an update and references other sources of information, including a briefing called 'Oceans of Work' by Dr Steven Schofield.

She writes:

---
It was good to see Defensive Defence included as a Simultaneous Policy proposal in 2007 and to see that 54% of voters liked the suggestion and hoped it would be developed further - enough to keep it ‘in play’ but far below the front-runner, which was Contraction and Convergence with 80% of the votes.

Dr Steven Schofield also felt that, “Global warming is an emergency far greater than any other we have faced. This is the real war and it is the one we are losing.” He pointed out that sufficient resources to construct a postcarbon economy would be available if major industrial powers co-ordinate a programme of arms conversion on an international scale.
---

The illustration included in the supplement suggests this would make it possible to turn weapons into windmills.

You can download it by clicking:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/Pages/spideasspring08.pdf

Whether you agree with these proposals or not, you can join in the policy discussion and voting, sign up as a Simultaneous Policy Adopter on the site of the organisation that promotes the campaign (Simpol).

Listening to Zimbabweans

Robert Mugabe won the much-criticised Presidential run-off election held last Friday after his opponent Morgan Tsvangirai had pulled out of the contest, citing the risk to his supporters. Reports, including from Amnesty International, do indeed suggest killings, violence and intimidation of opposition party workers and general warnings that people should vote for Robert Mugabe or face the consequencies.

Calling himself President, Robert Mugabe has attended the African Union meeting in Sharm El-Sheik, Egypt. Despite appeals from Western countries, Zimbabwe is not on the agenda, according to the Zimbabwean paper, The Herald, which reports today:

---quote begins
Although speakers at the opening did mention Zimbabwe, their comments were not hostile but encouraged dialogue between the major political parties in the country.

At his swearing-in ceremony in Harare on Sunday just before he flew here, Cde Mugabe said Government was prepared for dialogue with the opposition MDC-T, but only if it came into the talks with its own agenda and not a Western-foisted stance.

AU chairman President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania said while the people of Zimbabwe should be congratulated on the just-ended election, the country needed assistance to move ahead because it was facing serious challenges.

The economic malaise bedevelling Zimbabwe has been a result of the British, American and European Union-imposed illegal sanctions that the West are threatening to deepen following Cde Mugabe’s landslide victory over their favoured MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai.

In his speech, AU Commission chairman Mr Jean Ping said Africa must help Zimbabwe’s parties to work together in the interest of their country to overcome the present challenges.
---quote ends

Which just goes to show that the official view from Zimbabwe is very different to that portrayed in the West. The lack of overt criticism of the electoral violence by most other heads of state has drawn comment in the Western media, such as The Guardian, which suggests that some other leaders cannot defend the democratic rights of Zimbabweans when their own democratic credentials do not stand scrutiny. There is a suggestion that some, such as South Africa's leader, Thabo Mbeki, are reluctant to criticise Robert Mugabe, because of his support during the apartheid era and his role as a freedom fighter.

Perhaps for some, who may see democracy as something to be exploited rather than be subject to, Mugabe's strong hand in retaining power is also something to be respected.

Comments on The Guardian news story included some saying, basically, 'leave them to it', either with the suggestion Africans are best placed to resolve their own problems or a more dismissive 'they don't deserve our aid' view. I was prompted to post the following comment:

---

mbe2, your comment that we should leave Africa and withdraw aid prompts two thoughts. Firstly, the net transfer of wealth is not from rich countries to poor in the form of aid, but from poor countries to rich in the form of resources and, despite much debt cancellation, loan repayments. Industrialised countries trade with Africa, usually on poor terms for the African nations, and, for key resources such as oil, bringing chaos (there was a report from Christian Aid a few years ago examining how countries with oil suffered for their riches rather than gained).

Secondly, we are part of a common humanity. Which is why people campaign for debt relief, fairer terms of trade and increased aid in the industrialised world and for democracy and better governance in African countries.

Instead of abandoning Africa, I think it is far better to strengthen links directly with the people of Africa, in contrast to their leaders, to hear their views both on their national situation and on how they would like global problems to be addressed.

The leaders at the African Union meeting are representative of African leaders, but not necessarily of African citizens.

The Simultaneous Policy campaign aims to bring people together around the world to share their views on global issues and discuss, develop and approve the policies they wish to see implemented. An African has as much right to participate in that process as a European, an Asian, people from the Americas, the Pacific, the Middle East etc.

---

Now, there are Simultaneous Policy Adopters already in Africa - they participate in some of the on-line discussions. But there needs to be far wider involvement if a representative view of the people is to be heard within the campaign. It would also be illuminating and refreshing to hear the views of Zimbabweans on the election without the filter of Western media.

The Herald provides one view: President Mugabe as legitimate defender of the interests of Zimbabweans.

You can hear Robert Mugabe's spokesman, George Charamba, in a video clip on the BBC website at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7483060.stm

You can read a report from the Zimbabwe Election Support Network, a coalition of 38 Non-Governmental Organisations, which seem to be mainly religious groups, women's groups and lawyers. According to information on its site: "ZESN has been observing all elections in Zimbabwe since 2000. For the first time in eight years, due to the late invitation to observe today’s election and a huge reduction in the number of ZESN observers (from 15 433 to 500) by the Minister of Justice as well as the harassment and intimidation of its observers, the Network was unable to field short-term accredited observers to observe the presidential run-off election."

All the same, its report documents violence and intimidation. See:
http://www.zesn.org.zw/publications/publication_217.doc

---Extract
In most rural areas and some high density urban areas like Mbare and Sunningdale queues were observed amidst reports that people were being forced to go and vote. In Masvingo North, at Matova, St Stanislaus and Mahoto polling stations observers reported that youth militia and traditional leaders were writing down names of all those who were going to the polls as they entered the polling stations and were again asking voters to provide the traditional leaders with serial numbers of their ballot papers as they left after casting their vote. The same pattern was also noted in Esigodini, Chitungwiza, Zengeza and Mufakose where voters were being asked to provide suspected members of ZANU PF with their serial numbers after voting. In Zengeza, a known ZANU PF losing candidate in the harmonised elections addressed voters at her house before they cast their votes ordering them to record serial numbers of their ballots and surrender them to her. In Mazowe Central at Howard polling station, suspected ZANU PF members were recording the names of voters in a register. This was taking place from a distance of about 300m from the polling station.
---extract ends

There are more such details in the report.

I have looked for blogs from Zimbabwe citizens and haven't been able to find much so far (feel free to post links and comments here). One Zimbabwe site does have a forum, where Zimbabweans have posted comments. See:
http://www.zimbabwe.8m.com/forum.html

Should any Zimbabweans find my blog, please do comment. Looking beyond the election, please do give your views on how to address global problems through the Simultaneous Policy campaign by signing up as an SP Adopter (links on the right) and visiting the discussion forum at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/

How SP creates a parallel market in political ideas to resolve global problems

Here is an email from John Bunzl, founder of the Simultaneous Policy (SP) campaign, posted to Simpol's yahoo group (see links in the side panel).

He describes how politics currently operates in the context of competition between nations, where each government is bound to protect its own economic interests, lest it lose investment and jobs (and then in a democracy lose power), and so international progress on global problems is generally too little, too late. A parallel market of possible policies is allowed by the SP approach.

Here's John's analogy:

---
The idea of a "parallel market" is the essence of the Simultaneous Policy approach and in my first book I used the analogy of group of 4 or 5 boys fighting over a packet of sandwiches to describe it.

If they all simply carry on fighting they are stuck "in the current market", as it were, and the sandwiches will be destroyed to everyone's detriment (as will we and our planet if we carry on competing destructively!) Staying stuck in the current market thus spells inevitable disaster. But if one of the boys, while still continuing to fight, speaks up and proposes that he'll stop fighting if all the other boys stop too (i.e. simultaneously), then that boy has, effectively, created a parallel market. As the boys continue to slug it out in the "current market" (as they must in order to protect their positions) they are all also invited to participate in the "parallel market" and can thus negotiate for peace and a beneficial sharing of the BLTs (even while they continue to fight).

So if agreement can be reached in the parallel market, its implementation automatically brings peace to the current market - and the two markets become one (but a new, higher, more encompassing and more conscious one).

So that's what the Simultaneous Policy is: a parallel market allowing us to bring peace to the current market.
---quote ends

Does Brazil's success under 'Lula light' mean the financiers were right?

When Luis Inácio Lula da Silva stood for election to the Presidency of Brazil in 2001 he faced a classic financial market attack, as predicted by John Bunzl in his book The Simultaneous Policy, published that same year.

Lula, as he is popularly known, had stood in the past on a radical left wing platform including policies such as renegotiating loans to the International Monetary Fund. He had lost three times before, twice to Fernando Henrique Cardoso (FHC) who had introduced Thatcherite privatizations and participated in Tony Blair's 'Third Way' international get togethers.

But free-market economics failed to deliver social cohesion in a country with a massive gulf between rich and poor which fuels a virtual state of civil war in the major cities where drugs gangs rule most of the slum areas or favellas. Lula was riding high in the opinion polls again José Serra, FHC's designated successor.

Bankers and investors weighed in, risk rating Brazil on a par with Angola and Nigera. Angola: swinging between civil war and anarchy. Nigeria: rampant corruption. Brazil: Lula, a left-winger, looked like he might win. The Brazilian Real fell against the dollar as investment dried up and currency fled the country. Interest rates climbed and inflation began to follow. There was talk that Brazil would go the way of Argentina that was in crisis after the link between the peso and dollar had been broken and had slid to 30% of its previous value.

Lula met financiers from São Paulo to New York, pledging that he had not only dropped his earlier policy of renegotiating Brazil’s foreign debt, but would follow FHC’s spending plans for the first year of his government. He announced as his running mate, José Alencar, a millionaire business man, in an alliance with the Liberal Party.

He was billed as ‘Lula light’ in the media, a less threatening version of the old Lula.

With the economic fears of the electorate laid to rest, he won convincingly for his promise to tackle the inequalities in Brazilian society, which have left over 30% of the population below the poverty line and crime soaring. In Rio de Janeiro, where police raids on drug gangs in the favellas prompt the hijacking and burning of buses in the city centre, the vote for Lula was 79% in the run-off against Serra.

Lula won a second term despite his party being embroiled in a scandal where public contracts had fed massive payments to many members of Congress who had joined his ruling alliance. A few were thrown out of Congress by their peers, more by the electorate. Whether the law will catch up with those involved still remains to be seen.

Lula's flagship programme has been 'Fome Zero' or 'Zero Hunger'. It was billed as support for small-scale family agriculture. After his victory it was controversially hi-jacked by Nestlé (which I monitor closely as part of my job), which used it to distribute processed food, including powdered milk, while advertising its support heavily. National and international protests resulted. The programme transformed into 'Bolsa Familia' or family income support, with families receiving payments to put them above the poverty line on the condition they vaccinate children and put them through school.

Lula's handling of the economy has been lauded (though the architect of his policy, Antonio Palocci, fell in another corruption scandal harking back to his time as a small-town mayor). Brazil's risk rating on the credit market has fallen to the point where in 2008 it was listed as an investment-grade country by Standard and Poor. As the International Herald Tribune reported in April this is: "signaling that Brazil is now officially recognized as a safe place for investors to park money." Brazil's annual growth is above 5% while other developed economies wobble on the brink of recession. The money is flowing and easy credit is fuelling a consumer boom. Coupled with discovery of new oil fields, Brazil, long billed as the country of the future, feels like it is arriving.

The impact on the poor has been documented in a report released today by the Institute for Research in Applied Economcs. The three poorest percentiles have seen their income rise up to 5 times that of the richest, reducing inequalities. The BBC in São Paulo reports those with monthly incomes in the bands R$ 206 (about US$100) , R$ 378 e R$ 422 have seen incomes increase by 21,96%, 29,91% and 15,79% between 2002 and 2008. For comparisson the three most rich (with average income of R$ 1.159, R$ 1.797 e R$ 4.853) have seen gains of 2,3%, 2,1% and 2,6%. The inequality ratio has fallen from 0.543 to 0.505.

While criminality remains so problematic that the army has been sent into some of the favellas in Rio, economic activity is booming, with small businesses flourishing (and, as an aside, Nestlé is once again targeting the poorest with a range of what it calls 'Popularly Priced Products' - again including its milk powder).

Gains are threatened by oil and food price rises. However, Brazil is protected as its domestic energy is almost entirely hydo-electric (and energy use was shocked into an efficiency overhaul in 2001 when there was a sudden realisation that the water levels were too low to sustain the country) and it has its own oil supplies for transport, making it virtually self sufficient. Brazil also has had, for decades, many cars running on alcohol from sugar cane plantations and is developing its bio-diesel production.

While much of the world is blaming the use of land for bio-diesel for increases in food prices, Brazil has much land still under-utilised - even without encroaching on the Amazon and other sensitive ecosystems. This week, Lula said he would not be following the examples of Argentina, Bolivia and Mexico, which have put a freeze on food prices and obstacles to exports (see the Folha de São Paulo). He is leaving the market to set prices while promising to make massive amounts of credit available to boost the next harvest by 5%. The sum of R$65 billion (about US$32 billion) is being made available to agrobusiness and R$13 billion to family farms (see the Folha de São Paulo).

Even the political class is recovering its reputation in Brazil, with the Senate recently refusing to renew an unpopular tax on bank account movements and currently engaged in simplifying the entire tax system.

As for renegotiating the loans with the International Monetary Fund, Lula paid them off early in 2005, along with those owing to the Paris Club of donors, saving a fortune in interest payments. He is reported in Brazzilmag: "We are making this payment because we want to show the world and the market that we are in charge. When we do things we might make mistakes or we might get things right, but we decide."

Brazil's government, through a great deal of luck as well as judgement, has played within the rules of the financial markets and is, at present, on a winning streak. There may be problems for the future in the making: consumer debt at home and the credit crunch in its export markets, peak oil and food price inflation. But no doubt the financiers look to Brazil as vindication and contrast it with other Latin American countries following very different paths.

So is a global financial system that punishes those who do not follow its decrees working? Should other countries simply follow Brazil's example?

Or are reforms already put forward for inclusion in the Simulteanous Policy necessary, such as the Tobin Tax on financial speculation and an International Clearing Union to replace the International Monetary Fund? Are those calling for a complete overhaul of how money is created correct to promote their Monetary Reform proposal? Is a country's health measured too narrowly by GDP as those proposing Beyond GDP measures suggest?

Within the Simultaneous Policy campaign those defending present global governance systems, such as the International Monetary Fund, have as much right to participate in proposing, discussing, developing and approving policies as anyone else. Join the debate and cast your vote by signing up as an SP Adopter at:
http://www.simpol.org/

Which candidate for US President will respect the sovereignty of the people?

If the support for the candidates to be President of the United States of America is as finely balanced between John McCain and Barack Obama as the opinion polls suggest, the situation is perfect for US citizens to reclaim their sovereign right to govern themselves. The easiest action to take is to send a message to the candidates via the Simpol page at:
http://www.simpol.org/voteusa.html

In theory in a democracy the government is of the people, by the people and for the people. But in a globalized world the will of the people is too often neglected.

When formulating policy on addressing global issues, be it climate change, trade, access to resources or anything else at this level, every leader puts the national economy in first place. They are warned by business leaders that too extreme measures could see investment and jobs draining away to other countries. The movement of either fills politicians with genuine fear. These are not idle threats.

In international meeting after international meeting, necessary action is compromised by this economic imperative. Politicians may argue that protecting the national economy is the same as protecting the interests of the people. If this approach had delivered a way of living on the planet that is sustainable and stable, they might have a point. If people were satisfied with the choices offered to them, then perhaps all is fine.

But is the way our leaders are tackling global problems really the way we, the people, want them to be tackled?

The way to answer this question is surely by asking it.

This is what is happening in the Simultaneous Policy (SP) campaign, promoted by Simpol, an international network of national organisations. People around the world are invited to propose, discuss, develop and ultimately approve the policies they would like to see implemented.

There is no charge to take part, simply sign up as an SP Adopter, which also involves calling on politicians to pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments. Everyone is welcome. If you do not like any of the policies already under discussion you can vote against them and put forward alternatives if you wish. Give your views in the Simpol discussion forum at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/

This process is immensely empoweriing for a number of reasons. Firstly, the Simultaneous Policy is to be implemented by all, or sufficient, governments acting together. This changes the context. For example, at present if voters in the US election are asked whether they want the US to open its borders to trade to a greater extent or follow a more protectionist approach, they will answer based on their assessment of what it will mean for their jobs and income, considering competition with other countries. It is a very different question to ask, would you like the international system of trade to operate differently, for their to be different rules?

Proposals for encouraging greater trade - or alternatively encouraging more local production and consumption - would be based on a consensus between Adopters across the world. Policies will be linked to make a coherent package, so, for example, an ending of barriers to trade could be combined with ensuring the pollution and climate change costs of transportation are not ignored, but included in the cost of products. Transnational corporations could be expected to respect minimum standards wherever they operate, making it impossible to cut costs by moving to a country run by a dictatorship that does not protect the rights of its citizens. And so on, as the people decide.

SP aims to solve the big international problems only. It does not include perhaps 95% or more of politics, which is local and national. SP is not a way to enforce policies or ideologies on other countries, but a way to empower people in each country to decide how to address global problems considering their own best interests and in a way that is acceptable to people in other countries.

Although global in its scope and to be implemented by all, or sufficient, countries acting together, the Simultaneous Policy is not one size fits all. Countries are at different starting points, which can be taken into account. It is for SP Adopters to decide.

The Simultaneous Policy approach allows Americans and citizens of every country to reclaim their sovereign right to govern themselves, a right undermined by powerful vested interests that currently dictate or constrain global policy setting.

Once the content of the Simultaneous Policy is determined by those who choose to take part and sufficient pledges to implement it have been made by governments - prompted by their citizens - voters in each country will be asked to approve it. Implementation will only go ahead with the approval of the people of the country as a whole.

Candidates in the US Presidential election are being asked to make a pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments when all, or sufficient, governments have made the same pledge. It is a statement of intent that indicates to voters whether the candidate believes in the sovereign right of citizens to have their voices heard and respected.

Until there are sufficient governments, the President will have little choice but to operate in competition with other nations, under the threat that jobs and investment will be lost if he upsets business and financial interests, so support for SP will be just one factor voters will look to in deciding how to vote. SP Adopters are asked to encourage their preferred candidate to make the SP pledge. Adopters without a preference can call on all candidates to make the pledge and vote for the one who does.

A Presidential pledge to implement SP alongside other governments will have more than symbolic value. It will bring the world one step closer to implementation of the policies chosen by the people. Politicians in much of the English-speaking world have already signed the SP pledge, including in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, as well as in developing countries such as Brazil, East Timor and India. There are SP Adopters in many more industrialized and developing nations.

In the US Presidential in 2000 a few hundred votes eventually decided who won. With the election this year also finely balanced, the candidate who supports SP could find it propels him into a winning position.

The candidates can make the pledge to implement SP in the knowledge that when implementation is triggered the global policies will have the support of the citizens of the US. It is only on that basis he would be expected to deliver on the pledge.

So the fundamental question is, which of the candidates - John McCain, Barack Obama or others - believes in the sovereign right of US citizens to have their voices heard and respected over those of vested interests?

Find out by sending a message to your preferred candidate or to all candidates calling for support for the Simultaneous Policy by going to:
http://www.simpol.org/voteusa.html

Our right to decide

The Irish have rejected the European Union Lisbon Treaty in a referendum by 53.4% voting 'No' and 46.6% voting 'Yes'. Turnout was 1.6 million.

While this is bad news for the EU project, it is further evidence that the Simultaneous Policy (SP) strategy is both necessary and correct.

The EU treaty has already been ratified by 18 of the other 27 Member States. In every case this has been by national governments, without consultation of citizens through a referendum. You can find a useful table on Wikipedia at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon_treaty#Ratification

In the UK the treaty is a hot political topic, particularly whether to hold a referendum or not. Despite promising a referendum on a proposed EU constitution (which was scrapped as referenda in France and the Netherlands opposed it), Prime Minister Gordon Brown is arguing the Lisbon Treaty is a lesser reform and so new rules apply: no referendum.

The rejection of the treaty by Ireland should derail the whole process as all 27 Member States are required to approve it. The EU Commission, the bureaucrats behind the treaty, led by EU President, José Manuel Barroso, suggest there are two options. The Irish could be asked to hold another referendum and vote yes, or the project proceeds with Ireland as a semi-detached member. The Commission argues that one 'No' should not trump the 26 'Yeses', assuming all other governments pass the treaty.

The Commission is, of course, valuing the 'Yeses' of national governments equally to the result of a referendum.

In a globalised world it is important to have supra-national agreements at regional and global level. The EU project has been flawed, however, by its democratic deficit. The unelected Commission has powers far greater than those of the elected Parliament and does dictate to or manipulate Member States. The Commission itself is the subject of much criticism for its handling of EU affairs, not least because it has been unable to get the accounts cleared by the European Court of Auditors for 13 years.

This leads to public distrust of the EU as a whole and the rejection of the constitution and now the Lisbon Treaty when the people have been asked (though in Spain the constitution was approved in a referendum). Governments, on the other hand, approve of the changes to the way the EU is to be run on the basis they will make it more effective and are a step towards a more democratic and accountable organisation. Will Hutton, writing in The Guardian, has argued that the views of the people of Ireland should be rejected on this basis:

"The European Union is a painfully constructed and fragile skein of compromises that allows 27 democratic states on our shared continent to come together and drive forward areas of common interest to further their citizens' well-being. The elite that plots this is a nonexistent phantom invented by populist demagogues. The beleaguered, unloved treaty would have improved Europe's effectiveness and tried to address its much talked about democratic weaknesses."

He concludes: "Maybe pro-Europeans can win Ireland's second referendum and then, in 2010 or 2011, our own. But referendums work best for the demagogue, the dissimulator and scaremonger, as Hitler and Mussolini, lovers of referendums, proved. Increasingly, Ireland and Britain are heading for the European exit and that could portend further break-up of the Union. Pro-Europeans look out."

This situation raises questions for the Simultaneous Policy (SP) campaign and Simpol, the growing network of national organisations that promotes it.

There are similarities and differences with the EU treaties.

A significant difference is that SP is limited to addressing global issues. It is not intended to harmonise national legislation as the EU does. There is no meddling with national sovereignty. The vast majority of politics is outside the scope of SP, as I observed in a recent blog.

The content of SP is propposed, discussed, developed and approved by SP Adopters - and anyone can sign up as an Adopter free of charge - not an elite. You can take a look at policies under discussion and the support they gained in the last round of voting at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/

The policies will be finalised prior to implementation (see this blog for information on how implementation will be achieved). As the campaign develops, the number of Adopters involved in policy development and voting in all countries will continue to grow and become significant. Yet, it will still be an opt-in process. Accordingly the Simpol Founding Declaration undertakes that national approval by all citizens of voting age will be required. The only way I can see that working in practice is through 'Yes/No' referenda, like that in Ireland on the EU treaty.

SP will not be a 'one size fits all' package as Adopters in each country will have brought their views to the discussion. So hopefully the likelihood of support from other citizens will be high. We are talking about responses to global problems developed by the people, for the people.

But what if it does go wrong and a referendum in a country does not approve implementation? The politicians there who have pledged to implement SP alongside other governemnts when all, or sufficient, governments have made the same pledge can invoke the provisional nature of that pledge. If the final content is unacceptable they do not have to go ahead - indeed they should not go ahead if they do not have the approval of their citizens.

Whan all voting is in, those countries that have approved SP will still, hopefully, be sufficient for implementation to take place. If not, Adopters will have to look again. If so, then those countries who remain outside can seek changes or re-evaluate once they see the policies working in practice.

Having the country with the biggest global impact - the United States of America - involved is going to make a big difference to whether there are sufficient nations. The forthcoming Presidential election is the chance for US citizens to assert their sovereign democratic rights by calling for the candidates to pledge to implement SP alongside other governments. Whether you are a US voter or not, you can send a message using the form at:
http://www.simpol.org/voteusa.html

Those supporting SP can do so safe in the knowledge that at the end of the day they can oppose its implementation. But also with the hope and expectation that SP will deliver the changes we need to address global problems and the political will to make them reality.