Listening attentively to a paper on Aid and the Millenium Development Goals at the NZAE ’09, it occured to me that perhaps the traditional aid model should be completely ditched. I let that thought swirl for a few moments whilst i considered the ramifications and then came back to the idea with a simple vision.

Let peer to peer aid be the new model driven by people not governments.

Why are governments involved anyway? Well that’s not about aid really, its about influence…ok let’s be brutal it’s about money and power. Yes it’s all about politics: quid pro quo, backhanders and the rest of it. We’ll give you money and you help us out, vote for us at the UN or give us some nice contracts for whatever.

That’s the good bit. Now let’s see it in action. Up the government chain on one side and down the other. Hands out all the way up, across and down. Let’s not even go there. Of course some governments take this seriously and see aid as a genuine redistribution of national income but the model has been sorely abused over the years.

Even locally we had the Niue government telling the NZ PM that if it didn’t receive aid quickly it would turn to China instead. It doesn’t get more blatant than that. More and more aid has become a strategic tool in the foreign office of wealthy nations.

Francis Fukuyama recently reviewed two books on the subject both with similar themes but differing opinions: “The Challenge for Africa” by Wangari Maathai and “Dead Aid” by Dambisa Moyo. What I like most is that these are books coming from Africans themselves and women as well. It’s a refreshing change to Western University academics. It’s also an area of quite passionate debate. Here’s a great debate with Dambisa Moyo, Hernando de Soto, Paul Collier and Stephen Lewis on whether foreign aid does more harm than good.

Some issues are clear: corrupt governments and a weakened civil society; years on the western government welfare teat; trade barriers and resource depletion. The West carries the guilt and assuages it with cash even if its straight into the Swiss bank account of the latest tyrant.

So if governments are the problem why not remove them from the picture?

Well perhaps that is what will happen. Today the UK Conservatives unveiled a new policy on aid. As part of that they proposed a Gbp40m fund called “My Aid” which would allow the people to vote on their favourite aid project. Ok this all sounds a bit like the next reality show but for me it signals a subtle change in direction.

What if governments simply dropped their Aid budgets and gave that money back in either tax cuts or tax credits for giving? What would happen?

- Microfinance would take off.

- Giving platforms would widen and internationalise.

- There would be more targeted and personal involvement.

- Social Media would drive this (TwitterAid?).

- This would lead to grassroots build up and development of localised civil society.

- It may lead to an increase in giving as government moves out of the way.

- And maybe less celebrity nonsense as well!

Above all this p2p Aid model would be people driven and . as with microfinance, be very empowering. The aid infrastructure will still be necessary but that too may require some modification or restructuring. The Kiva and Wokai models will be very useful for this as will giving and donating platforms.

Yekaterinburg could well be a name to remember much like Maastricht, Yalta, Bretton Woods and other places that carry major political history on the back of their relative obscurity. A few weeks ago the big 4 players, Brazil, Russia, China and India, met to in Yekaterinburg to discuss the vexed issue of the $, US assets and US global financial dominance.

As I’ve discussed before there is a major shift underway in the way the global market is structured. Not just in terms of currencies but also trade and influence. The BRICs have a powerful case to make: 40% of global currency reserves and almost half the world’s population (though Russia’s population is declining, a somewhat serious issue).

There is a strong feeling that the US has acted recklessly overt he last 30 years in flooding the world with $ and creating huge imbalances which have caused such chaos in global markets. So whilst there is always plenty of posturing and grandstanding, especially from the Russians, there is a real case for the US to answer:

- Global trade imbalances.

- Cowboy capitalism.

- Turbo boosted monetary expansion.

- Instability in global financial markets.

It’s also interesting that the meeting of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) was held at the same tim and the US was not invited even though it wanted to attend. There is a strong argument that there is no real alternative to the $ but that doesn’t excuse the facts. One dominant currency has not helped create a stable system. It has simply allowed to issuer to experience huge profits from seigniorage and wield extraordinary political and economic power.

And can we really take the rating agencies seriously? They are all US based organisations. Ultimately whether the $ loses influence or not depends on the alternatives. I still believe a commodity backed currency is a likely development, given the nations involved.

At the same time the development of local currencies will help create a more stable and complex system. For now though expect more talk about a $ alternative and expect it to be driven by the BRIC crew starting with the upcoming G8 summit in Italy.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

The focus so far has been on freedom, equality and the application of the rule of law. But no article better enshrines the fear many people live with, namely that someone will come to your house and take you away.

Arbitrary arrest and detention are weapons of fear. They walk closely in hand with torture, which can be liberally applied in some dark, dank cell where no one is watching.

This is a weapon for crushing democracy and freedom. Countries like Burma continue to use it today to make sure their population is suppressed and bathed in fear.

When you go to bed tonight spare a thought for those who sleep lightly whilst waiting for the knock at the door.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law

Of course they do.

The question is: what law?

A kangaroo court is a law of sorts. Or perhaps Sharia Law appeals? If you think stoning a woman to death is still an appropriate punishment.

Or perhaps you could be under “house arrest” for 13 years.

Yes recognition as a person before the law is important but perhaps not as important as the law itself and its application in a fair and open manner.

Elites have always ruled the world even in open democracies. Sure this was expected in dictatorships regardless of political persuasion but in democracies? What happened to “government of the people, by the people, for the people”?

In his new book, “Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making“, David Rothkopf explores the globalisation of the new elites, naming some 6000 players who basically run the whole show. From media to banking he lays out how close these people are and how they are shaping and making the world in their own images. The link between politicians and business is crystal clear. In some countries its hard to tell the difference with the US a great example of this.

If anyone felt the US financial authorities were in collusion with the banking system look no further. The current US Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, is a former Goldman Sachs Chairman and Chief Executive. Rothkopf reveals the shennanigans that took place over the bail out of Bear Stearns. He tells how bank heads met over the weekend to hammer out a deal for Bear Stearns. Clearly the deal had to be done that weekend lest the market really fall apart on the Monday. This type of round table pow wow is becoming more and more common as the fragility of financial markets continues to be revealed.

On one hand this sounds good: we have capable people in government and business to take charge of managing a crisis. They all know each other and have worked with each other. They know the score.

But: are they not the same people who caused and are part of the crisis? Is there any chance we get to hear the truth of the matter? Do ordinary shareholders and citizens matter anymore?

Well there have always been plenty of stories about how the Fed operates and the murky manner in which its was founded.

But one thing is clear from this article and the activities of those in power. They run the show in a “we know best” style. The question all concerned people should have is whether power should be so concentrated and in the hands of so few.

I wonder what Lincoln would have made of it.