Azeem Ibrahim: Christine Lagarde was the Wrong Choice

On the day that Alistair Darling, writing in The Observer, declares Lagarde is the "right choice" for the IMF we publish this contrary view. Dr Azeem Ibrahim is a Fellow and Member of the Board of Directors at the Institute of Social Policy and Understanding and a former Research Scholar at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and World Fellow at Yale.

The new IMF chief, Christine Lagarde, started work this week as what The Economist called “chief firefighter.”  The Greek debt crisis will surely be on top of her agenda as she continues the bailout policies established by her predecessor.  A consensus vote confirmed her candidacy following the ignominious departure of disgraced Dominique Strauss-Kahn, with the eventual support of the US, China and Russia.

Many IMF members feel that the time has come to end the deal established in Bretton Woods in 1944, where the US gets the leadership of the World Bank and the IMF leadership goes to a European.  With 43% of the IMF capital now provided by emerging countries, they are entitled to have more say in IMF leadership and should expect to in the future.

However, as Patrick Stewart of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote recently (6/2/11): “The apparent lesson of this episode is that while emerging powers are quite content to criticize existing global institutional arrangements, they do not yet constitute an effective bloc that can unite behind an agreed program of action.”

Perhaps Mme. Lagarde will be a one-term IMF leader and will use the position as a stepping stone to the French Presidency in 2017 whether Sarkozy wins in 2012 or not.  When Sarkozy sent Strauss-Kahn to the IMF in 2007, he was removing a potential competitor.  Now with Mme. Lagarde, he may be grooming a potential heir and successor.

Azeem Ibrahim: Bin Laden, the enemy of Islam did not deserve an Islamic funeral or burial in a Muslim grave yard

Azeem Ibrahim is a Fellow and Member of the Board of Directors at the Institute of Social Policy and Understanding and a former Research Scholar at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and World Fellow at Yale.

  The world awoke on the 2nd of May to the long overdue news of the death of Osama Bin Laden.

Bin Laden, who in his 1996 fatwa officially declared war on the United States and unofficially declared war on Islam and all Muslims who did not subscribe to his perverse beliefs, was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents around the globe - the majority of them Muslims. Even President Obama in one of the most important speeches of his presidency confirmed:

"We must also reaffirm that the United States is not, and never will be, at war with Islam. I’ve made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader. He was a mass murderer of Muslims."

Bin Laden, who liked to dress in Muslim garb and spoke in eloquent Arabic, was not in any way qualified to issue fatwas and legal edicts but nevertheless encouraged the killing of ‘rejectionists’ (Shia Muslims) and bombing of Muslim shrines.

So what should the US have done with this body of a mass murderer of Muslims?

After the US announced that Bin Laden was buried at sea, some bloggers started to argue that his body should have been handed to the Saudi’s who could have given it an Islamic burial.

I believe that would have been a mistake.

Azeem Ibrahim: British universities need to be properly funded if they are to remain globally competitive

Azeem Ibrahim is a Research Scholar at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Member of the Board of Directors at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding and Chairman and CEO of Ibrahim Associates. You can follow him on Twitter @AzeemIbrahim.

Over the last few weeks, students and prospective students have reeled in horror at the prospect of having to pay more to go to university. The Browne Review of how we fund higher education recommended that universities be allowed to put up courses’ prices. Understandably, students have complained about the prospect of some students leaving university with a debt of over £40k, all students leaving with a debt of £7k per year, and, to top that, the interest rate on the loans going up.

Where they are right is that the Government has to make sure that expensive courses don’t put off bright, poor kids from going to university. Where they are wrong is in their assumption that universities are just there for the benefit of those who study in them. Universities are much, much more important than that.

They do research which enables our engineers, entrepreneurs and industry to be internationally competitive. Other research pushes ever outwards the boundaries of human knowledge on which our claim to civilisation depends. They provide hubs of knowhow and creativity which powers so much of the new business creation of this country. And, of course, they provide our young people with the skills they need to grow our economy every year in this post-industrial society.

If you look further afield, you see that other countries have begun to cotton on. The government of China, for one, has now decided that the ‘next phase of its economic development’ is for it to become a hub of superior knowledge and education in its region. It is beginning to apply the same top-down vigour which it traditionally applies to building highways, dams, and bridges, to higher education. Between 1997 and 2007, the number of Chinese students going to university did not double or treble, it quintupled. And China is investing in an unprecedented way. A recent Time magazine article quoted the President of Yale, and he sounded rattled:

"This expansion in capacity is without precedent... China has built the largest higher-education sector in the world in merely a decade's time. In fact, the increase in China's postsecondary enrolment since the turn of the millennium exceeds the total postsecondary enrolment in the United States."

What kind of future can our universities expect in a world in which China pours so much money into universities? We may be proud that our universities are globally competitive today, but will they remain so in ten or twenty years’ time? Because there is no doubt, that when all is said and done, money might not be a sufficient condition for great universities, but it is one that is very necessary indeed.

Azeem Ibrahim: The law should recognise that terrorists are not just criminals, they are traitors

Azeem Ibrahim is a Research Scholar at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Member of the Board of Directors at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding and Chairman and CEO of Ibrahim Associates.

In recent weeks, we have heard once again about the danger of a terrorist attack on Britain. Britain’s security service, MI5, believe that the threat is at its highest for at least a decade – in other words higher now even than the aftermath of 9/11. This is partly because of dissident Irish Republican violence, and partly because of terrorist violence inspired by al Qaeda. It is clear that violent Islamic extremist plots have not gone away.

I have been a strong and consistent supporter of educational programmes to teach young Muslim kids that violence is against the true teachings of Islam. In the long term, this is the only way to prevent young people turning to terrorism.

But when we do have good evidence that someone has taken part in a terrorist plot, the state should come down on them with its full force. I believe that the traditional offences which Britain charges potential terrorists with are not enough.

British subjects who plot to destroy the fabric of British life, destroy government buildings, transport or businesses, who sow fear into the seam of the daily life, who seek to rupture the day-to-day workings of the British economy or the business of State, or who act to spread disorder and fear, should be considered not just terrorists, but traitors. They should be charged with treason. This would not be so new – it used to be used against Irish insurgents.

Azeem Ibrahim is a Research Scholar at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Member of the Board of Directors at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding and Chairman and CEO of Ibrahim Associates.

Azeem Ibrahim: Only private enterprise can get the economy back on track - so the Government must do more to boost it

Azeem Ibrahim is a Research Scholar at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Member of the Board of Directors at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding and Chairman and CEO of Ibrahim Associates.

We are facing choppy economic waters. Low growth, a budget which many say is risky, and no obvious panacea on the horizon as was the case in the Seventies with the discovery of north sea oil, the Eighties with the financial big bang, or the Nineties with the boom which resulted from the growth of the internet.

At times like this, it is sometimes prudent to return to first principles. Over the long term, there is only one way that any country gets out of an economic slowdown, and that is by working its way out.

However necessary stimulus may have been in as a short-term solution to a crisis, there is simply nothing a government can do by way of stimulus which is a substitute for initiative, enterprise, and get-up-and-go from the grassroots up. Economies do not just revive, growth does not return, the public finances do not ease their way back into the black, by the efforts of bureaucrats moving money from A to B. They revive by companies making plans for the future, investing more capital, and taking on more workers.

It happens by individuals deciding to take the plunge and set up in business, from making that leap from conception to fully-formed business plan, and from business plan to investment and a first day at a new office which they chose themselves, rather than another day as in the old job as an employee. It works when people transfer ideas into plans, plans into businesses, and businesses into employment. That in turn increases the tax take, which in turn hauls the public finances back into health. It also acts as its own stimulus, putting more spending money into the pockets of more new employees, whose spending stimulates the economy even more.

The point is this: the private sector is the key. Economies and public finances return to health when companies start hiring and people start making use of their natural entrepreneurial flair to start new businesses.

Azeem Ibrahim: Why We Must Keep Trident

Azeem Ibrahim is a Research Scholar at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Member of the Board of Directors at the Institute of Social Policy Understanding and Chairman and CEO of Ibrahim Associates.

In the last week or so there has been something of a spat within government about the future of our Trident nuclear defence system. The Chancellor wants it to be paid for out of the defence budget and the Ministry of Defence does not.

By putting Trident up as a potential target for cuts, the Chancellor is playing a very dangerous game indeed. Our nuclear capability is an insurance policy which we cut at our peril. And it actually represents very good value.

Let’s look at the figures. Firstly, the cost of Trident at the moment is not a great deal. For the last forty years or so, Britain has had one submarine submerged every moment of every day, silently ensuring that no other nuclear power in the world would ever think about using the ultimate weapons of mass destruction against us. It is, as they say, the ultimate insurance policy. This costs us £1.5 billion per year, a drop in the ocean of government’s yearly expenditure.

Compare that to the cost of doing what we would have to do to retain that security. The previous government proposed a modernisation which would have allowed us to retain our nuclear deterrent which would cost £21 billion over the next twenty years or so. That is, of course, just £1 billion each year. A nuclear attack, of course, doesn’t bear thinking about. As a cost of retaining our ultimate insurance it, a further £1 billion per year is cheap.

Compare that to the value of the debt which has forced those cuts. Last year it was a staggering £167 billion. On any reckoning, the £1 billion per year it would cost to renew Trident would barely makes an impact.

Azeem Ibrahim is a Research Scholar at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Member of the Board of Directors at the Institute of Social Policy Understanding and Chairman and CEO of Ibrahim Associates.

Azeem Ibrahim is a Research Scholar at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Member of the Board of Directors at the Institute of Social Policy Understanding and Chairman and CEO of Ibrahim Associates.

Azeem Ibrahim: The Welfare State cannot sustain the current levels of long-term unemployment

Azeem Ibrahim is a Research Scholar at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Member of the Board of Directors at the Institute of Social Policy Understanding and Chairman and CEO of Ibrahim Associates.

These days, when we talk about unemployment, we are normally have in mind the people who, up and down the country, are busy going from door to door with their CVs, sitting at home searching recruitment websites, checking their watches to make sure they get to the interview on time, and generally trying as hard as they can to find themselves a job again. It is right that we concentrate on how to help those people.

But it is important that in our rush to think about them, we don’t ignore another category of unemployed people: those who haven’t been in work for a long time, perhaps for whom having a steady job which paid enough is a distant memory. Because over the next decade, as the recovery turns back into growth and growth turns back into boom, there will be millions of people left at home, still not working.

Before the recession, Britain’s economy had been in a better position than it had been in decades. From the early nineties until the crash, Britain had a longer boom than we had done for years. For those fifteen years, it was easier for anyone who was looking for a job to find one than it had been in decades. You would expect that during these sunny times, the number of long-term unemployed people would have fallen, as those who had not had jobs for years got up from their sofas and went out to the Job Centres to try to find work.

Azeem Ibrahim is a Research Scholar at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Member of the Board of Directors at the Institute of Social Policy Understanding and Chairman and CEO of Ibrahim Associates.

These days, when we talk about unemployment, we are normally have in mind the people who, up and down the country, are busy going from door to door with their CVs, sitting at home searching recruitment websites, checking their watches to make sure they get to the interview on time, and generally trying as hard as they can to find themselves a job again. It is right that we concentrate on how to help those people.

But it is important that in our rush to think about them, we don’t ignore another category of unemployed people: those who haven’t been in work for a long time, perhaps for whom having a steady job which paid enough is a distant memory. Because over the next decade, as the recovery turns back into growth and growth turns back into boom, there will be millions of people left at home, still not working.

Before the recession, Britain’s economy had been in a better position than it had been in decades. From the early nineties until the crash, Britain had a longer boom than we had done for years. For those fifteen years, it was easier for anyone who was looking for a job to find one than it had been in decades. You would expect that during these sunny times, the number of long-term unemployed people would have fallen, as those who had not had jobs for years got up from their sofas and went out to the Job Centres to try to find work.

Azeem Ibrahim: The stark truth of what the National Debt means for us all

Azeem Ibrahim is a Research Scholar at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Member of the Board of Directors at the Institute of Social Policy Understanding and Chairman and CEO of Ibrahim Associates.

The National Debt is a confusing issue. Unlike schools and hospitals, you can’t see it, so you can’t see when it gets worse. Unlike crime, it doesn’t threaten your physical safety, so you can’t feel that something urgently needs to be done. Unlike climate change, there are no scientists to back up the claims for how urgently we need to deal with it. Unlike abortion or euthanasia, nobody has a best friend or relative who has suffered deep emotional scars from having had an experience related to it. And unlike bombings or natural disasters, it never gets concentrated coverage, so it never suddenly seems urgent. Rather, it is terribly urgent, but only a little bit more urgent each news-cycle.

All of this makes the issue of the national debt hard to understand. But that’s only half of it. Once you have learned about just how high the mountain of money which we are asking future generations to pay in our name actually is, you still face disagreement on how big a problem that is. Some economists argue that even though the national debt looks eye-wateringly big, we don’t need to worry about it. Others argue that the national debt is a really big problem right now. That kind of argument never happens with crime figures.

Let me tell you straight: the national debt is a really big problem right now. It has its claws round the neck of the British economy, and they are tightening. The reasons why do not make the news enough.

Each year, like any person, household, or company, the government has income and outgoings. The income, of course, is what you pay it in tax, the outgoings are what it spends. The difference between the government and people, households, and companies, is that they know that their outgoings can only exceed their income up to a point. After that, companies know they will go bust, families know they will have their homes repossessed, and people know they will get a negative credit rating or start having their stuff taken away by the bailiffs.

Azeem Ibrahim: Why the next government must ring-fence defence spending

Azeem Ibrahim is a Research Scholar on the International Security Program at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, a Board Member of the ISPU and Vice President of the United Kingdom National Defence Association.

So, Gordon Brown has finally admitted what every man and women in the Army, Navy, and Air Force has known for the last eight years at least – our Forces have been suffering real-terms cuts. They have been grossly underfunded.

Sir Kevin Tebbit has already said that as Permanent Secretary he was operating the Ministry of Defence under a permanent crisis budget. Geoff Hoon has admitted that the last Strategic Defence Review was not fully funded. And the Conservative Party has been arguing as much for years.

Where do we go from here?

I believe that despite the straitened financial circumstances, Britain must retain current levels of defence spending over the next parliament. There are three good reasons.

Firstly, if we do not, our military standing in the world will decline further than it already has. For centuries, our forces have been the foundation of Britain’s place as a pre-eminent power in world affairs.  Over the last few years, that reputation has been slowly strangled through political neglect. Twenty years ago defence spending was 4% of GNP, now it has fallen to 2.6%. Underfunding of our armed forces has left a skeleton of what was once a feared and formidable force. We do not have enough troops. As of late 2008, the British armed forces were 3.2% below the official requirement. At various points in the last few years, many battalions are as much as 42% under strength.

Azeem Ibrahim is a Research Scholar on the International Security Program at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, a Board Member of the ISPU and Vice President of the United Kingdom National Defence Association.

Azeem Ibrahim: The NHS must change and we must not be afraid to say so

Azeem Ibrahim is a Research Scholar on the International Security Program at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, a World Fellow at Yale University and the Chairman of ECM Holdings.

No wonder we Brits have so much affection for the NHS: whether you are rich or poor, if you have something wrong with you, you can get it checked out and get world-class treatment. Because we all share the payment for healthcare through taxes, we don’t have to worry about being able to afford it. Even if we grumble about it now and then, that reassurance is the main reason why most of us feel a certain loyalty to the health service.

The problem is that if we are not careful, we might end up paying for that loyalty ten or twenty years down the line. In the next decade or two, the NHS is going to face some severe challenges.

The first is more old people. Imagine a room containing a representative sample of the British people. In the twentieth century, you would walk into the room and find a good balance of ages, but that is changing. Last year, for the first time, you would walk into the room to find more pensioners than under-16s. In 2025, half the people in the room will be over 50. Not only is the post-war baby boom working its way through British society, but the boomers are going to live longer than previous generation. They will need more healthcare per person than the NHS budgets for at the moment.

The second problem is less money. The NHS is likely to face a funding reduction of £8-10 billion in real terms between 2011 and 2014, according to the NHS Confederation. It also says that even after 2014, the NHS’ budget might carry on declining. It accepts that “the NHS will not survive the impending spending squeeze unchanged.”

Azeem Ibrahim: Every quango should be put before a "Dragon's Den" to question its role and very existence

Azeem Ibrahim is a Research Scholar at the International Security Program, Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and a World Fellow at Yale University.

Everybody is talking about cutting the number of quangos, organisations set up by the government. Unlike companies like Woolworths, which can go bust if not enough people have any use for what they’re doing, once a quango is created it will exist forever until a minister or civil servant decides to shrink or abolish it. And unlike a company, we pay for its services through taxes whether we want to or not, whether or not we find it useful.

There has never been a better time for cutting wasteful spending on quangos than right now. In this financial climate, companies all over the world are having to tighten their belts, and us taxpayers understand that government should do the same.

But saying that is the easy part. The hard part is doing the hard thinking about which quangos are worth keeping, and which should go. What is needed is a sort of ‘Dragons’ Den’ for quangos, in which each can be grilled in turn by a sceptical panel about whether what they do is actually worth doing.

So, in that spirit, here are some suggestions for what the dragons might ask.