The Simultaneous Policy News • Spring 2011

It’s Simpol !

ISPO • PO Box 26547 • London • SE3 7YT www.simpol.org

● Up with People Power! SMK hosts training workshop for activists!● Rant of the Month: QUIT BEING SO @*!#%* ANGRY!!!!!!!!!● Can a quarter of a million people be wrong? John Bunzl reflects on the deeper reasons behind recent UK cuts and why national marches aren't enough● Babe goes to Brussels! Tracy Worcester takes Pig Business to the European Parliament

THE KEEPING IT POSITIVE ISSUE!

Contents EditorialSMK People Power Conference 2011 3

Newswatch 6Robert Hickey on mad dictators and the need for global measures to foil them

Marching Towards Oblivion? 8John Bunzl's take on recent UK protests and the real causes of "austerity measures"

Simpol News 9

Rant of the Month! 10Sarah Beaver sez: take a chill pill yo!

Policy Views 11Mark Horler spells out the connection between food and war

Debating agricultural policy at the EU 12with Tracy Worcester

Back Cover 16No Freaking Out poster - yours to keep!

Get your FREE copy of "Solving Climate Change:Transforming International Politics" by John Bunzl- just drop an email to: dtrimble@simpol.org

The Simultaneous Policy

It’s Simpol !

ISPO • PO Box 26547 • London • SE3 7YT www.simpol.org

International Simultaneous Policy Organisation

Simpol promotes the Simultaneous Policy, which aims to deliver social justice around the world, resolve global problems like environmental destruction and regulate the economic power of international capital for the good of all. Simpol seeks solutions to problems that individual national governments cannot resolve by acting alone. This is because the problems transcend national boundaries, and because the global competitive system means that any government that acted alone to try and resolve such problems could effectively make its country uncompetitive.

Simpol aims to achieve these objectives by encouraging ordinary people around the world to oblige their political representatives and governments to move toward coordinated international resolution of global issues for the good of all. This is because it is only by countries all agreeing to implement changes at the same time that problems no individual government dares tackle alone can be resolved in a satisfactory way. Simultaneous implementation of such policies would ensure that no country became uncompetitive as a result of pursuing policies that were right for the planet and which embodied people’s higher aspirations.

All you need to do is sign up as a Simultaneous Policy Adopter which costs you nothing. By so doing you agree in principle to vote at elections for any candidate, within reason, who has signed a pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments. Alternatively, if you have a party preference, your Adoption signifies you will encourage your preferred party to make this pledge. This is the simple mechanism Adopters use to advance their cause.

Simpol’s approach is peaceful, open, and democratic. If you Adopt you will have the opportunity to contribute to the formation of specific policies that answer global problems and join with others in using your vote in a new and effective way to drive the politicians of all parties to implement these policies.

How do you want the world to be?

An occasional newsletter published by Simpol-UK (www.simpol.org.uk) for the

INTERNATIONAL SIMULTANEOUS POLICY ORGANISATION (ISPO)info@simpol.org

Editor: Diana Trimble (dtrimble@simpol.org) Production: Diana Trimble & Mike Brady.

Cover: Artwork by Random Designs, based on a concept by Diana Trimble

Meeting up in Cyberspacewww.myspace.com/simpoluk; http://simpol.blogspot.com; Second Life: SP Adopters' hang out, Tangun.

The Simultaneous Policy www.simpol.org

by Diana Trimble

Sheila McKechnie, the brilliant Scottish campaigner most famous for defining the field of consumer rights, said that when she began work at homeless charity Shelter¸ she had thought she was joining a campaign for the homeless but found instead a home for the campaign-less. This remark reveals a lot about the well-meaning but somewhat ineffectual and hobbyist nature of many worthy NGOs “back in the day”. But this one woman’s talent for strategy, organization, research, and constructive confrontation, soon transformed the fortunes of Shelter as well as those of thousands of vulnerable people.

Oh, and she is probably also responsible for evolving the dialectic about homelessness into one that recognized the root causes. Hard to believe then that she died at only 55, a terrible loss that was turned into an opportunity with the 2004 establishment of the Sheila McKechnie Foundation (SMK), in her memory. Sheila’s pithy quip was recounted by Campbell Robb (present Shelter C.E.), at the closing of the brilliant People Power Conference held at 15 Hatfields in Southwark, London, on March 22, 2011. Robb further elaborated that it was this instinctive understanding of effective campaigning that inspired colleagues to establish the foundation and ensure that her legacy continued.

And what better way to honour such a tireless and successful activist than by running a strategy learning centre to support and develop new generations of campaigners?

I’d been wanting to participate in a SMK event for a while and finally got my chance when I was generously awarded one of several bursaries that are available to organisations with budgets as petite as Simpol’s.

I was delighted to see that early on the bill was Polly Higgins (Simpol supporter, forest activist, author of the Declaration of Planetary Rights, and founder of Trees have Rights Too) featuring in a “balloon debate” entitled “Who can inspire people power to tackle climate change?” Polly stressed in her 7-minute pitch that “We the People” is a phrase at the heart of important documents such as the UN charter (and, I would add, the American Declaration of Independence) and it is worth remembering and cherishing the reason for this. She is correct (and I wasn’t the only person who thought so, for she aced the debate). Isn’t this the core of the word “democracy”? It is meant to signify government both for and by the people, but if the people are disenfranchised, alienated from the political process, and powerless to influence the shadowy forces that govern international deal-making, then the claim appears farcical. If the people have no power then there is no real democracy. It’s a sham. Exactly what Simpol says.

Which brings us to the purpose of the conference – let’s get “the people” to take their power back by wising them up about the way things really work! Which brings me back to my personal pet peeve about the street-activist scene both here in the UK and in the US: I’m bothered that valid mistrust of governing institutions has led many to think that politics can be completely bypassed. It’s as if there is no need to engage with present political systems - since the aim is to bring it all down.

Editorial 3

Polly Higgins wins over the crowd at the SMK 2011 conference

UP

WITH

PEOPLE

POWER!

The Simultaneous Policy www.simpol.org

4 People Power

Everyone has their role to play, even rioters at an otherwise peaceful protest, and so I’m not saying that everyone has to get into politics, but in today’s world it is disingenuous to think that it doesn’t matter. So yes, the sound byte may go that regular people kicked up a fuss about selling off England’s forests and the government backtracked, for example – but it still came down to MPs either passing or rejecting the plan.

As Louise Hanson (Head of Advocacy, Which?) cogently pointed out during a lively “Question Time” debate, the forest proposal was actually something of a no-brainer battle for the government to throw the towel in on: not much money in it and it made them look like creeps, so they were only too happy to back swiftly away from that particular terrible idea. At least until the furore dies down….

But once the outraged celebrities think the battle is won, once the Facebook campaign is stale and Avaaz has moved on, who is it that makes sure political promises are kept? Campaigners who don’t run away from the fact that they have to thanklessly maintain pressure on and relationships with those in the halls of power, that’s who. These are the people you’ve never heard of who will be persistently working away to make sure that the government doesn’t backtrack on the forests, long after the lovely Trudy Styler has returned to her tantric devotions.

Happily, and unsurprisingly considering Sheila McKechnie’s example, this conference was neither a complaint-fest nor a substance-less love-in, but was packed with practical information and, dare I say it, political savvy. John Hilary (Exec. Dir, War on Want) set the bar for the day with his mid-morning workshop on “60 years in the struggle for global justice” in which he described with expertise and wit some of his brilliant tactics for navigating the political minefield that is the terrain of the anti-poverty lobbyist. I really wished that the audience had included some of the sweet idealists I’ve met (especially in California) who truly believe that we can just focus directly on waking up the collective heart of humanity and not worry about the nuts and bolts in the meantime. Like I said, everyone has a role and so I’m not going to actively try and prevent anyone from chanting for world peace, have done it myself and think it’s a fine activity; but as Hilary’s erudite synopsis of the last half-century plus of social justice campaigning PROVED, it takes ink on paper – often in the form of money – to make real changes in this world in which we now live. You just can’t bank on the likelihood of a transcendent act to sort things out: we need to change laws.

So though I agree, in principal, that actually all

everyone needs to do is become blissfully aware of the interdependence of life and immediately wars and environmental destruction would cease, I’m not betting on this spontaneously occurring on a significant scale in the next ten years. Other than having a world rave with plenty of chemical assistance, I can’t work out how to trigger such a Mass Awakening, and the logistics of planning that party would stump even “Saint” Bob.

So it’s back to “boring” lobbying politicians, fundraising, getting one’s message in the media, research and writing and all that other good stuff.

Only it’s not boring! Learning techniques that can make a campaigner more effective can actually be surprisingly fun and exciting, children. Certainly there was a great buzz in the rooms of 15 Hatfields on March 22nd as smart, committed people working on a wide range of issues, came together to take a serious step forward in correcting the power balance between citizenry, governments and big business. There was a definite feeling in the air, sometimes expressed from the podium, that this is it: the turning point; this is when we get smart about how things work and start working them to our own collective advantage. To which I would add - instead of thinking we can just riot, pray, party, march, or abstain-from-voting our way to changing the world.

Simpol has had a bit of a hard time in the image stakes when it comes to trying to take our message to the direct action posse, which is why I have so much respect for our Grassroots Outreach Tsar, Barnaby Flynn, who bravely takes the Simpol stall to streets and festivals despite uncertain weather and sceptics.

One memorable incident he recalled to me involved the ignoble fate of Simpol flyers that had been dropped off at anarchist coffee-house the Cowley Club, in Brighton. When my worthy colleague went back to see if any had been taken, he found that they now had VOTING WANK scrawled across the front. It’s funny...only it’s not!Trying to pick up Simpol supporters at Climate Camp 2006, which I did with Barnaby, was equally hilarious as half the people had made-up names and/or didn’t vote and/or didn’t have an address / email / phone number and who regarded us with deep suspicion when we mentioned proudly that we had cross-party MP support. I love these people’s commitment to physically showing up and participating in spectacles, but we need more than that. We need some of us to be sitting at the meeting table where the decisions get inked, as well as a bunch of us making noise in the streets outside the meeting room.So it was incredibly relieving and gratifying that People

The Simultaneous Policy www.simpol.org

Power was packed with people that had figured this out already and were making sure to spread that knowledge and with it the tools to deploy our power.

One person who should certainly know from experience what it takes to achieve seemingly impossible agreements is Quintin Oliver, Director of Stratagem, a lobbying firm based in Northern Ireland, which delivers valuable consulting advice for organisations needing to engage with government. It was heartening to see him take a strong stance on charities being overtly political, an absurd restriction regarding which frightens many into being mealy-mouthed. It was with great relish that he recounted advising charity reps on how far they could go without losing their funding, which turned out to be quite a bit further than they thought.

Then, Oliver’s experience on the groundbreaking “Good Friday Agreement” of 1998 formed the background to a stimulating presentation exploring the successful semiotics of powerful lobbying. If a memorable message can be quickly delivered with arresting images and concise slogans then your campaign (coffers) will receive an enormous boost. Coca Cola knows this, so we have to be clever about it too.

This of course is one of the challenges facing Simpol, regarding which I sought advice at the conference. Put simply, it is a real head-scratcher to come up with a snappy, clever, CONCISE way to lucidly transmit a methodological concept that takes at least 10 minutes to explain properly! We have no cute animal to save, no specific disaster to avoid; the disaster we are trying to avoid is already happening, in the form of doing everything the same old way that’s already failed. But how do you pitch a paradigm shift?

Fortunately, there are people who just might possibly have the answer to this question and I met one of them in the form of Chris Norman, of co-hosting organization the Good Agency, with whom I instantly decided I’ll be meeting very soon. Clearly there is both a science and an art to advertising, and when the “product” is a rather big idea, there is just as clearly a need for a further refinement of these techniques. I hope to know more about this soon. Watch this space! (If I could just get everybody to realize that Simpol supporters are better-looking, more intelligent and have fresher breath….)

There isn’t space here to cover all the other activities of the day, but it must be said that SMK didn’t shy away from that annoying issue all campaigns must face – the getting of money; this was confronted in

an excellent session on fundraising featuring Stephen Pittam of the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and Martin O’Brien from the Atlantic Philanthropies. After getting to gently tease Pittam in public for turning Simpol down a couple of years ago, I asked him to talk about his main comment to us then, which actually I completely understood, regarding the unfortunate difficulties of funding what he termed “visionary programmes”. He explained that when it comes to formal gifting there is an all too familiar paradox at play: although it is exactly such long-range visions that are needed, the whole culture of philanthropy is stacked in favour of short-term deliverables. (Hmm. Sounds a lot like big business.) Rowntree does write cheques for multiple-year projects, such as the quest for the Freedom of Information Act which went into double digits, but not many and not often. But all is not lost; the session also confirmed my growing conviction that Simpol has an excellent case for getting some privately-held ballpoints moving if our mission strains against the restrictions and requirements of institutional grant-giving. That even becomes part of the pitch if you see what I mean. Aha! Perhaps I’m starting to think like a real campaigner at last!.On the production side of things, I have to say that despite an initial timing setback, courtesy of London Transport, this was one of the most smoothly-run and well-focused events I’ve attended. There was absolutely no wind-baggery from either podium or floor, no 15 minute comments masquerading as questions, and as Nicholas Parsons might put it, everyone managed to reach the bell without repetition, deviation or hesitation. That really is rare and helped make People Power 2011 what I can only call a “slam dunk” - despite my aversion to misappropriated sports lingo.

I can now announce that this is going to be an annual event, so start planning for 2012, oh people of power!

I can’t think of any better conclusion than to leave you with some lyrics from another great female hell-raiser, renegade rock-poet Patti Smith. I ask that you pay special attention to her use of the word “decreed”. A decree is usually defined as “an authoritative order having the force of law” and that usually means ink on paper folks, so if you’re one of us that want to see real, permanent, global changes for the better, within our lifetime; then I suggest you get yourself in touch with the good people at SMK, who aren’t just preparing the leaders of tomorrow, they’re equipping the shaker-uppers of today so we can get some new decrees.

cont. next page

People Power 5

The Simultaneous Policy

6 People Power / Newswatch

The power to dream / to rule to wrestle the world from fools it’s decreed the people rule it’s decreed the people rule LISTEN I believe everything we dream can come to pass through our union we can turn the world around we can turn the earth’s revolution we have the power People have the power ...

© Patti Smith, “People Have the Power”, 1998

found spray painted on a wall in Indonesia.

Newswatch by Robert Hickey

I really do try to avoid ad hominem attacks. But despite acknowledging that this is widely considered to result in a logical fallacy I really, really can’t help myself here.Go and find yourself a picture of Muammar Gaddafi, take a moment and stare at it …just look at him.

Last time I checked, there are certain standards and norms, a gravitas, if you will, that leaders must project in order to be taken seriously on the world stage. I am not even referring to his expulsion of Italians from Libya, his claim that all his bodyguards needed to be female virgins, that all Europeans should convert to Islam, that the EU should pay Libya 5 billion Euros to stop illegal immigration from the country. He also called Barack Obama “my son” and said that Obama should stay president forever, called the UN Security Council a “terror council”, claimed that the European nations should pay Africa $7.7 trillion in reparations for colonialization (where this figure comes from and how this money would be distributed was apparently not clarified). He is reported to have said about the United Nations that “this place was founded by terrorists”. He also, at one point threw a copy of the UN Charter on the ground and aired other choice non-sequiturs including comments on the U.S. Civil War, the hanging of Saddam Hussein, and Gaddafi's support of Somali pirates.

But forget all this for a moment and just take the guy in all his glory. And then ask yourself, seriously, what’s going on with those sunglasses? Is this calculated and masterful political PR or does he really subscribe to the ‘sun-never-sets-on-a-badass’ mentality. While the logic-craving part of my brain would like to think that this is simply a case of the fine line between genius and insanity evaporating, I still find it hard to chalk it up to an overall master plan. But maybe I am wrong; maybe he is just that good.

But when the interesting/fascinating/humorous show (for an uninformed observer looking from the outside in) turns into a case of a murderous, nightmarish rage where a Captain Ahab-like character has a monomaniacal focus on maintaining the status quo, the lighthearted jesting that Gaddafi evokes in the minds of many evaporates faster than his thin sheen of political legitimacy. But when that is gone, and all that remains is the glinting promise of oil drenched petrodollars - the main obstacle to which is a chaotic social system - the emergence of both economic and Wilsonian idealistic reasons for intervention begin to emerge.

However this opens the question as to what mechanism the international community is supposed to rally under? Perhaps due to a moment of clarity or maybe due to the ‘clock-is-right-twice-per-day’ effect, Gaddafi himself, in the aforementioned speech, referred to the ineffectiveness of the UN in responding to humanitarian crises. Suggestions of economic sanctions, a no-fly zone, asset freezes and other more…ahem…’direct’ measures have been thrown around. On February 28th governments around the world condemned the actions of the Libyan government against its own people at a UN Human Rights conference in Switzerland but the specific shape of what actions will be taken regarding the current and future state of foreign intervention into Libya remains unclear. Watching CNN the other night, I watched the head of NATO say that they will only take action based on a UN mandate. It is clear that the “soft” measures such as sanctions, asset freezes and travel bans require global cooperation in order to have the desired effect and are imprecise in achieving specific and narrowly defined objectives and aims. Often, it seems to me, they harm the people who are trying to be helped at least as much as they alter the course of official government policy.

The ‘other’ methods of coercion - the so-called ‘hard’ measures - also bring their own uncertainties into the very complex equation of the positives and negatives of foreign intervention in domestic affairs. The costs in monetary and legitimacy terms are too enormous for a single foreign power (glance over at the U.S.) to go it alone or even with the reluctant compliance of other

The Simultaneous Policy

Newswatch 7

militaries. This creates all new sorts of problems as to the concrete objectives and aims of such an undertaking. The most obvious one is the blowback from the claim of regime supporters that the revolution is not organic but is rather financed by foreign interests for economic or ideological reasons. The other obvious issue is the question of what to leave in the place of what was overthrown. It is clear though, that in issues of human rights, genocide, and downright lunacy, the world needs to act with one voice in deciding how to proceed.

Of course, countries have their own opinions of what needs to happen, both to satisfy their own conception of right and wrong as well as to look out for their own interests a la realpolitik. But this inherent weakness in democracy, the long amount of time it takes to come to a consensus (among stakeholders) and take action, is exactly what such a humanitarian crisis cannot afford. It is of the utmost importance to have a mechanism in place by which any situation can be judged against objective criteria to determine its degree of compliance with the UN Charter or other previously agreed upon documents. If it fails to meet a certain standard - say for example people are being shot in the street for expressing their non-violent political opinion - all the members of the UN Security Council as well as the all capable countries must contribute to its prevention and/or halting. Period.

As I have been putting the pieces together in my own mind about the Libyan crisis and the necessary mechanism by which to address it by the international community (at least the part of the community that has more than simply demagogic support for human rights) it began to dawn upon me that the International Simultaneous Policy Organization can contribute to overcoming this issue as well. Since it is often politically and economically difficult for one country to deal with such crises alone and without a coalition of the worlds' nations (a real coalition with proportional representation from the world’s militaries), it is necessary that all countries enact any such policy simultaneously in order to ensure that all countries are equally responsible for ensuring the prevention of such events.

This would be of benefit to countries like the U.S. who have gone to war with less than a thumbs-up from the international community on more than one occasion. On the one hand, the whole world would not look only to the United States to lead the way both with money and material to stop such an event. On the other hand, the United States would not have the mandate to go-it-alone as all countries would be bound by objective criteria to act. This would constrain the mandate of the U.S. (or any nation) to engage in unilateral action as well as prevent the community of nations scapegoating of the United States inactivity to justify their own inactivity.

So, I suppose then that, based on the Libyan case, I would like to propose developing a simultaneous policy to be added to the Simpol mix which binds all nations to take action when human rights abuses meet certain pre-defined criteria. Let’s call it the ‘Moral Imperative Simultaneous Policy’. Not that inventive, and perhaps misleading, but it will do for now and perhaps someone else can suggest a snappy name? Because, when it really comes down to it, we humans have allowed leaders with some of the most vile, unsavory characteristics to run amok and lead us for too long. When you take a step back it’s amazing that the international community has accepted it for so long. It is one of the great tragedies of human history. With the roll-out of instant communications we know that it is happening and can no longer deny or ignore it. We have the power to put an end to it. What that means in practice is the difficult part, but with genocides occurring many times after the Second World War - many of which went entirely unchecked - clearly something is amiss.

Once we realize that those people are really our people (in the sense that the only difference between us is the fact that we were randomly born in a different place on this spherical ball of matter) the imperative for such action, I think, becomes even stronger. * * *

Robert Hickey (not pictured above) is known by friends and enemies alike as a 'project officer', who once decided that the idea of destiny was a government conspiracy to increase economic productivity. History will remember him for discovering that there are exactly 11 ways to skin a cat, after peer review showed that his proposed 12th way was shown to be similar to the third. After briefly considering a career as a lawyer, he inadvertently ate an old pastrami on rye sandwich and realized that the difference between the two sides of a conflict is only a result in the randomness in time and place. Since then, he often wonders why we just can't talk our problems out.

The Simultaneous Policy

8 UK Cuts and Protests

ARE 250,000 UK PROTESTERS

MISSING THE POINT?By John Bunzl Trustee ISPO and Simpol-UK

While it’s understandable people are angry about the disastrous damage government cuts will do to their lives and to the lives of millions, few seem to ask whether it’s really right to focus our anger on the coalition government. Yes, Labour perhaps wouldn’t cut as deeply or as quickly, but cut they would – and it would hurt.

The truth is governments are adopting severe austerity measures not out of autonomous choice, but precisely because they have no choice. No choice, because it’s not the misguided ideas of politicians, but the dynamics of unregulated global markets and financial flows that today determine the very narrow parameters within which all governments must operate. Yes, some political parties may choose to go a little faster than others, but when it comes to the overall direction, there’s no choice at all.

What we have to understand is that governments, regardless of the party in power, are in competition with one another. They firstly have to keep regulations light and loose to remain attractive to footloose global investors, banks and corporations. Because, if they get out of step with other nations, banks and corporations would only move elsewhere, so costing the country revenue and jobs. In the good times, then, each government is forced to compete with all others to de-regulate and de-tax; a dynamic they have no choice in if they want to keep their economies growing. In good times, that growth can fund increased government debt and public spending, so keeping everyone happy. But as light-touch regulation over time spawns loose practices and increasingly profligate lending, a debt bubble inevitably builds and builds…. until eventually it bursts; and then the music abruptly stops. But when crisis hits, that’s not the end of the competition. For governments still then have to compete with each other, but this time to keep public debt low so as to keep their borrowing costs relatively lower than other countries, lest they fall foul of global bond markets and default – and keeping debt low inevitably spells austerity measures.

If governments aren’t at fault and are merely the

victims of footloose global bond markets and fickle corporations, then surely it’s the banks and corporations we should blame? But before we jump to easy conclusions, let’s look at it from the banks’ and the corporate point of view. In a world where all large businesses can easily re-locate their operations or tax domiciles to lower-cost countries, any bank or corporation that failed to take advantage would only lose out to those that do. It would lose profits and share value and ultimately find itself either bankrupt or the target of an unwelcome takeover. The same goes for bonuses. Any bank failing to pay top dollar would only lose good staff to banks that do. The same, likewise, goes for any bank that refrained in good times from profligate lending. Any bank failing to lend to the max would only lose out to banks that do. As Chuck Prince, the CEO of Citigroup said at the height of the financial crisis, “as long as the music keeps playing, you gotta keep dancing”.

So we’d be wrong to think banks or corporations are at fault or in control. Sure, they’ve been greedy, reckless and unscrupulous. But the real problem is that governments, because they’re locked in to competing to de-regulate and keep their economies growing and attractive, have allowed the tail—the banks and corporations—to wag the dog. And in that failure, governments have left the banks and corporations to run riot; a riot the bill for which we’re all now paying and will continue to pay for decades to come.

The reality, then, is that in good times or bad, governments are caught in an ultimately ruinous game they cannot control; caught in the torrents and eddies of global financial flows far too powerful for any government or institution alone to control. Competing with one another has, for governments, become a vicious circle none can escape; a veritable ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ that will ruin us all. The idea, then, that an individual government has the power to reverse the cuts if only we protest loudly enough is to misunderstand and vastly underestimate the new global context in which we all now live; a global world with global

The Simultaneous Policy

UK Cuts and Protests / Simpol and UK news 9

problems that now demands more than merely national governance.

We do therefore have to question the wisdom of protesting against people who aren’t in control. I mean, how silly is that? Why would any responsible person do that?! For, to mis-direct our protest will not only lead to endless and fruitless frustration. In offering no positive solutions it also risks becoming ultimately destructive.

But the point is this: all the while governments fail to co-operate globally to bring global financial markets, including the banks and corporations, under proper accountability and governance, financial markets, global warming, global poverty and many other global problems will only keep on worsening. The point, then, is not how to stop the cuts, but how we citizens can get all governments to step out of the destructive vicious circle of competition they’ve got themselves—and the rest of us—locked into, and in to a virtuous circle of global co-operation in which all of these problems can be solved.

What this demands of us, above all, is that we let go of the idea that individual national governments still have the power to substantially change things. Because, in a globalised world it’s not governments, but anyone or anything that can move across national borders that has the power, be it corporations, the rich, the hedge-funds, the non-doms, or the banks. Those confined within national borders—small businesses, the middle classes, the poor and indeed national governments themselves—are the ones who are relatively powerless in this new global context; the ones who, lacking the ability to move globally, become today’s sitting ducks.

It’s time, then, to start thinking and acting globally; to start realising that our governments, acting alone, are relatively powerless, and that only by using a globally effective means of driving governments to co-operate—a means such as Simpol—can we, ordinary citizens, expect to see global problems addressed and ultimately solved.

Simpol UK Newsby Barnaby Flynn

We will be upgrading and the UK website so people can instantaneously contact their MP (by enetering their post code), to let them know they now support Simpol and will be voting accordingly. Also, on the home page people will be able to take part in co-creating the global policy solutions alongside other supporters. I would like to thank Brighton based growing company Bozboz ltd for giving us free hosting and development support. The website will be truly revolutionary, focusing the power of our votes to achieve global change and creating the space for people to be at the cutting edge of global policy. The UK team of volunteers is growing steadily. Please join our friendly team, blogging, developing the website, networking with other NGOs and campaigns, creating events, doing research and street campaigning, and setting up local groups. To take part please email barnaby@simpol.org Brighton team is also growing and we meet every third thursday of the month. 7.30 p.m. at the Brighton Peace and Environment Centre, just across from the Brighton train station. http://www.simpol.org.uk* * *

SAVE THE DATE!OK, so maybe national marches fail to fully recognize the complex global reailty, but then what about unified global marches! Well, mark September 25, 2011 on your calendar because that's the day planned for worldwide mass demonstrations against ecocide, as announced by Polly Higgins at the SMK People Power Conference. Stay in touch with her website and stay in tune with the plan.

The Simultaneous Policy www.simpol.org

RANT OF THE MONTH! by Sarah Beaver

I found it hard to actually find something in the world that makes me truly angry.

Actually I don’t think there is any current issue in the world that makes me ANGRY.

THE ONLY THING THAT ANNOYS ME IS HOW SO MANY PEOPLE ARE ANGRY ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WE ARE FACING BECAUSE IT JUST DOESN’T LEAD ANYWHERE!!!!!!

Being ANGRY and tackling things with an adversarial approach is damaging because fighting something will NOT make it go away: if anything it will exacerbate it. It’s like when someone is in pain, and tries to fight the pain, and it gets even stronger.

ACCEPTANCE IS THE KEY!!!!!!! WORKING WITH WHAT IS THERE!!!!!!!!!

Take for example the large amount of campaigns that are based on resistance. Campaigns against the cuts for example DEMAND that banks should pay their fair due, and are as such BLAMING the banks and making them responsible. This is NOT going to work, however, because cuts are a GLOBAL problem and can only be solved GLOBALLY. Such campaigners need to start taking on responsibility and come up with a REAL ALTERNATIVE which in this case would be MONETARY REFORM.

The Problem With Angry People is thus that they don’t, or better, CAN’T see the bigger picture. It is because they are STUCK on a nation-centric level on which they are looking for solutions that will never be efficient or long-term. They see the problem as lying within their system and try to fight

this system instead of working with it/making use of it.

WHY IS IT SUCH A LONG AND HARD PATH FOR PEOPLE TO START ARRIVING AT THE WORLD-CENTRIC LEVEL?

BUSINESS HAS ALREADY ADOPTED IT, SO WHY DOES IT TAKE SO LONG FOR ALL HUMANS TO DO TOO?!??!?!?!?!??!!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!

It annoys me how so many people try to fight the world-centric level when I try to explain Simpol to them or how they just cannot grasp it!!!!!! It’s almost like they’re scared of it, scared of change. I remember one of my friends telling me that she didn’t think Simpol was such a good idea because any politician that adopts the Simpol pledge will be able to be in power. But it doesn’t matter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What MATTERS are the global policies (chosen by the people) that would be implemented, no matter which party. On a world-centric level, the party itself becomes insignificant.

IT ANNOYS ME THAT PEOPLE CAN’T SEE THAT ANGRY CAMPAIGNING DOES NOT LEAD ANYWHERE.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, resistance is necessary but creation is just AS important, and we need to come up with a solution to work towards. PEOPLE ARE NOT SEEING the next move that needs to be taken, which is GLOBAL CO-OPERATION. People need to be more rational and pragmatic and realise that it is only the global and simultaneous move that will make a change. We have to MAKE USE of the competitive part in the system instead of fighting it, and USE IT AGAINST ITSELF.

10 Rant of the Month

Ed. - Not since Brian Wills ranted about the lack of positive news reporting (It's Simpol, Autumn 2009) have we had anyone attempt the tricky and advanced rant-manoeuvre: "moaning about moaning". And I must say, at first reading it appeared to be thoroughly calm and lucid - not a rant at all!!!! But with a little help from the auto-rantinator (which merely adds a smattering of formatting and some extra punctuation marks), I can now reveal the true depth of frothing outrage at the heart of one woman's seemingly reasonable anti-rant, making this hands-down winner of the title for Spring 2011! I bring you.....the..

The Simultaneous Policy www.simpol.org

The answer to me, seems so simple, but it baffles me how people just cannot or don’t want to grasp it.

IT SEEMS THAT MORE HUMANS NEED TO GROW UP! STOP BEING ANGRY! HOPEFULLY IT WILL HAPPEN QUICKLY!!!!!!!!!* * *Sarah Beaver is a young woman who has spent the last three years trying to find out what goes on in the human mind. But having obtained a degree in Psychology has made her realise that the knowledge about the human mind has now become even more complicated. Ever since then she has struggled finding work-related things to do in the world of people who are more qualified. She is currently doing a part-time job as a support worker and is relying on the system to make her stay alive. Alongside this she is trying to improve her musical skills, playing the piano and the clarinet. Sarah has spent ages trying to figure out how she can make a change in the world and Simpol seemed to her to be the best way. So now she writes blog entries for Simpol and helps the men of the Brighton Simpol group with the stalls.

Simpol and Global Food Insecurity - A Policy View

by Mark Horler

Recent events in North Africa and the Middle East have shocked the world. We have been amazed by the swiftness of the fall of Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia. We were inspired by the prolonged, peaceful and ultimately successful efforts to depose Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. Currently, we are all appalled by the bloodshed and tyranny on display in the attempts of Muammar al-Gaddafi to hang on to power in Libya.

There are, of course, a multitude of reasons that these (mostly peaceful) revolutions have taken place;

most of all, people desire freedom from oppression and tyranny. People want their families to live in peace and their children to grow up in a world that is good. These goals unite people across the world, as witnessed by the huge international solidarity movement that sprang up in support of the people of Egypt.

Nevertheless, we must ask ourselves, why now? If we take Egypt as an example, we might be justified in wondering why it took so long to happen. Mubarak was in power for 30-odd years. What suddenly prompted this huge movement which ousted him and ultimately spread throughout the region, with global geopolitical effect? It is possible for such things to happen spontaneously. Perhaps a more likely scenario though, is that a series of small events accumulated over time into a cascade that could not be stopped – the snowball effect, although this was more of an avalanche!

There is insufficient space here for a detailed analysis of all these possible ‘small things’. But one factor that has been raised that fits neatly into this category is food insecurity. It has been suggested that rising global food prices have pushed people in the region into a state of food insecurity. If we return to the factors that unite people, we know that people want to secure the well being of their families. Food insecurity undermines this at the most basic level. It certainly seems plausible then, that food insecurity might well be enough to drive people out into the streets in protest – the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.

In the case of Tunisia and Egypt this led to something very positive, in the form of non-violent revolutions. But history suggests that this is not likely to be the case in many countries, as current events in Libya demonstrate. In fact, as autocratic and despotic leaders have now had time to prepare and see what is coming, I fear we may see significant bloodshed.

It will be for the international community to decide how to respond to that conflict as it develops. One Simpol adopter has recently outlined a proposal that precisely targets this issue and we look forward to the completed proposal when it is ready, at which point it will be available on our website, along with other proposed policies.

As important as tackling violence is fixing the problems underlying it, so another crucial area ripe for the Simpol approach is this matter of food insecurity, or as Simpol sees it, the global causes of food insecurity.

Rant of the Month / Global Food Insecurity 11

The Simultaneous Policy

A recent article on the Simpol-UK blog highlighted a BBC radio programme: ‘Feeding Frenzy’ (John Waite, Radio 4 - links on p.15 ). The program delved into whether or not the speculative buying, selling, and storing of huge amounts of food drives up global food prices, thus causing the poorest people of the world to be unable to feed their families. There is strong evidence of a direct connection between the two. In particular there is the practice of bankers ‘betting’ on food prices and the fact that the governments of developed nations have slowed the process of regulating this practice.

It is clear that any attempt to implement such regulation could only be achieved through international cooperation as doing otherwise is likely to result in capital flight and the skewing of commodities markets in favour of some nations over others. Simultaneous Policy provides the perfect mechanism to drive this agenda forwards.

Simpol is not the only organisation developing models of global governance. We are in the process of forming alliances with other NGOs working in this area, and hope that they’ll consider utilizing our frame for globalising their concerns, while supporting the Simpol methodology as a way to achieve their aims.

* * *Mark Horler has spent 10 years working in the care industry and, as a result, now feels that he probably ought to have his own support worker. For many years he was consistently very angry about the state without actually finding a way to do anything about it that didn’t just end up making him more cross. Then Simpol came along. Mark likes to contemplate the deep and meaningful aspects of life and is thus very well acquainted with his navel. He also quite likes pasta.* * *

Babe Goes to Brussels!

by Diana Trimble

I bet you’ve seen the much-loved 1995 Hollywood film Babe starring an adorable “talking” piglet and his equally anthropomorphized farmyard friends, and enemies. The storyline, you’ll recall, follows events sparked by Babe’s horrified comprehension of his

destined pride-of-place at Christmas dinner, which fate he escapes by learning a new trade - sheep herding. A heart-warming modern fairy tale, not meant to be analyzed too deeply, Babe does however seem to have a subtly vegetarian message; only Hannibal Lecter could imagine enjoying a Babe-Lettuce-‘n-Tomato sandwich! (I wouldn’t be surprised if an entire generation of kids returning from seeing the movie suddenly got squeamish about pork.) By emotionally capitalizing on the instinctive recoil felt by most children when first they realize that lunch meat is made of dead cute animals, Babe is necessarily a bit disingenuous and merrily swerves around the fact that piglets without Babe’s mad skills on the sheep range don’t so easily avoid a future as part of some human’s meal plan.

But there are some fates even worse than death, as any pig incarcerated in the giant, concentration camp-like facilities of pork-bully Smithfield corporation would tell you... if only, like Babe, it could talk.

Because real pigs are verbally challenged, they need humans to do their talking for them, and fortunately for Babe’s species, they’ve found their cHAMpion (sorry) in the politely relentless form of campaigning activist and filmmaker of the shocking exposé Pig Business (It’s Simpol!; Autumn, 2009): Tracy Worcester.

Simpol Adopters who participated in 2009’s vote on policy suggestions will recall the proposal for International Farm Animal Welfare Standards, that was overwhelmingly approved by Adopters as appropriate for the Simultaneous Policy method. It was, in fact, the success of Simpol-supporter Tracy, in spotlighting the industrial farming issue internationally, that inspired me to put that proposal forward with the help of Compassion in World Farming. It seemed like a good issue for Simpol, as one that transcends national borders, because it is very logical to question the point of establishing livestock production standards on a national basis, if there is nothing to stop cheap sub-standard imports from flooding the market and squeezing local (standards-abiding) farmers into bankruptcy? Surely there is need for the same regulations to apply throughout the industry? Surely this is an example of destructive competition at its worst?!

Having already made waves around the world, an updated Pig Business was recently screened (February 9th, 2011), followed by a debate on “The Hidden Costs of Factory Farming”, at the European Parliament; in order, as Tracy put it “to inform the politicians, commissioners, councillors and their advisers about the negative impacts of industrial farming on people, pigs and the planet, with suggested solutions” and in hopes of impacting on the European Union’s Common

12 Global Food Insecurity / Pig Business at the EU

The Simultaneous Policy

Agriculture Policy (CAP), which is up for revision this summer.

None other than José Bové, the French Via Campesina folk-hero who organized the witty protest demolition of a McDonalds in 1999 and is now an MEP, had insisted that the film be shown in its entirety, despite Tracy’s self-deprecating (and baseless) fear that this might dissuade attendees.

I was curious to see the EU process in action, methods of supra-national agreement being Simpol’s area of study, and also because of a personal interest in this specific issue and a major sense of dis-ease about big business controlling the food supply. So I got myself on the Eurostar to Brussels to see what happens when you manage to bring an issue that far.

Not to overtax my Babe analogy, but I bet far fewer people will recall the darker and less popular sequel of 1998, un-coincidentally a peak year of giddy excess in the world of corporate mega-mergers. That film, Babe: Pig in the City, followed our porcine hero on an urban mission to save the old farm from crippling debt and imminent takeover, (whilst also trying to befriend scary animatronic chimpanzees of questionable loyalties). But as Babe’s Eyore-ish side-kick, Ferdinand the duck, gloomily points out to him: “You’re just a little pig in the big city – what can you do? What can anyone do?”

I think you’ll agree that the duck makes a good point. Certainly, nearly identical frustrated resignation pours from the mouths of the Polish farmers, local butchers and other brave under-pigs speaking out in Pig Business, as they anticipate their inevitable extinction in the face of Blob-like Smithfield.

So why then is it not obvious to those in decision-making positions that, as Joe Brewer of progressive Seattle-based think tank Cognitive Policy Works has written: “Farm and food policies should be guided by their impacts on communities, not their impacts on commodities”? What is currently the actual driving force behind these policies, if not such an intuitively reasonable premise as this?

Well, as Simpol followers will be unsurprised to hear, the most oft-repeated word I heard from my seat there in the Brussels auditorium was “competition”. The following exchange between a Polish and Danish MEP unintentionally illuminates the way pressure to remain competitive is constantly used to justify avoidance of adhering to higher environmental (i.e. cost-increasing) standards, even when invoking this excuse is quite possibly just spin. Certainly there

appeared to be disagreement over exactly who had the edge:

Czeslaw Adam Siekierski, MEP: “Poland loses out to Germany and Denmark because of the huge supermarket chains, because Denmark has a lot of vertical integration.”

Dan Jørgensen, MEP:

“ to me it was both a little bit funny and tragic to hear you say the Polish farmers lose out to the Danish farmers, because earlier today I was in discussion with the Danish minister for the environment. She wants now to apply to the EU that Denmark should get an extension on the environmental goals setup in the framework directive. Why? What is the reason? Because we cannot compete with the Polish.”

As I sat there and listened it occurred to me that competition is supposed to inspire excellence, as when two physically prepared athletes face off, but when the goal of the competition is simply to produce the cheapest product then it does the exact opposite. If you pay attention and watch out for it in the press, you will discover that some justification or other to do with competitiveness is used, sometimes apologetically, for almost every weak decision in government, from environmental and labour regulation to tax law and, well, pig farming.

But if you’ll pardon the pun, I don’t want to get too bogged down in the specifics of the pig issue, regarding which I refer you to the excellent Pig Business website instead. I want to look at it rather, as yet another lens through which a still more radical issue facing humanity comes ever more clearly into view.

As both John Bunzl and Ken Wilbur have pointed out – it’s not the issues themselves that are the fundamental problem, they are solve-able, but not without methods by which we can globally achieve agreement on what to do about them! To echo Ferdinand, the pessimistic duck, what indeed can anyone do?As Tracy sees it:

“Food and agricultural goods should be exempted from World Trade Organisation (WTO) global trade rules so that all nations and regions have the right to protect

Babe goes to Brussels 13

The Simultaneous Policy

themselves from low cost and low welfare imports, i.e. implement food sovereignty. Farmers could then be protected from the vagaries of the global economy and change their methods of production and produce food for local markets. Governments can then procure high welfare and sustainably produced meat from local farmers for public services like schools and hospitals. The giants should be taxed to remunerate society for the true costs of their production.”

Knowing that John Bunzl, founder of Simpol, tends to anticipate the arguments and tactics of the business-minded, I asked him to respond to Tracy’s vision. Would that work, would it be enough, or do we inevitably arrive back at this core issue of agreement-making?

John said:

“I can fully understand Tracy’s motivation, here. And if all nations implemented protectionism for agricultural products, then that would in principle allow them to implement higher welfare standards. But it would also have other consequences. That’s because different nations depend to differing degrees on different agricultural products, or have strengths in production of some foods but not others. Meanwhile, some nations may, for geo-environmental reasons, not be able to produce certain vital commodities at all.

So it’s difficult to see protectionism working beneficially for everyone UNLESS it was cooperatively agreed and managed by all nations with due compensations and exemptions being agreed in the process. If it isn’t, all you would be achieving is to replace beggar-thy-neighbour free-trade with beggar-thy-neighbour protectionism as countries would then engage in a tit-for-tat raising of food import tarrifs.

So the REAL point here is that, whether it’s free-trade or protectionism or a combination of the two, global, cooperatively agreed management is paramount. The need to achieve global cooperative governance thus transcends (and includes) the need for improved welfare standards. You won’t get the latter without the former.”

The truth is that the same applies to things such as Brewer’s ideas about “framing” – OK, but....how is the changed frame agreed on then?

And again, I would say it to those like Mute Schimpf, of Friends of the Earth, who quite rightly pointed out in Brussels that true costs of industrial farming are concealed by factors such as that present CAP subsidies are mostly given towards the very biggest companies that in theory shouldn’t need them, while there are also un-quantified community and environmental costs as well. Using a different formulaic instrument to arrive at this true cost, that took in the correct relevant factors would give a very different picture indeed, and perhaps even show companies like Smithfield to be far from profitable. That’s a great idea, OK, now how do we get the agreement on this instrument...?

From my one day in Brussels, I concluded that it must be assumed that events such as “The Hidden Costs of Factory Farming” – as important as they are – are not really where pivotal opinions are swayed. There simply isn’t enough time in that environment to have a proper “debate” – not to mention the issue of who exactly is in attendance - and what followed the film was less a debate and more like an extremely truncated live comments section. From the assembled 300 or so, only about 5 “questions” were taken. (Side-rant: why don’t organizers of events and conferences just admit that most people are actually going to comment or critique and call this the “Comments and Questions” section instead..? I always find it faintly absurd when the moderator with the mic cheerily shouts, “OK! Next question!” following the awkward silence after the eventual conclusion of a meandering monologue most notable for its utter lack of resemblance to anything that could remotely be branded a “question.” End-rant. ) I was frustrated by not being one of the people picked so didn’t get to raise any of my points publicly. So clearly, public forums such as this are not where the real debates, the real deals, are being made.

As we all know by now, a nether-world of unofficial understandings and yes, private enrichments, is often the murky domain wherein many important policies get decided in ways that bypass our democratic processes, which may be viewed as frustratingly sluggish and slow. I would argue, yet again, that this skewed reality only persists for the same reason: we don’t currently have a properly applicable global methodology of agreement making; one that includes citizen involvement and has a system of trade-able incentives to equalize advantages and detriments in a formulaic way, so that what is good

14 Babe goes to Brussels

The Simultaneous Policy

and what is “good for business” cease to be at odds. If we had such a system in place, there’d be no need for side-deals to “sweeten the pot”.

What I’m talking about, Ladies and Gentleman, is agreements that have fairness built into them because they originate in an ideology of co-operation and not competition-run-riot. That’s the vision of Simpol, and why I continue to promote the organization. For the time being, I think Dan Jørgensen, MEP is correct in his sober assessment that:

“Right now, the only thing that is stopping the [industrial] farmers expanding even more is EU legislation. EU legislation: the habitat directive, bird protection directive, the water framework directive and with the water framework directive, when that’s implemented directly, if we implement it correctly this will be the biggest tool that we have. The best tool that we have.”

Certainly, until this fundamental issue of agreement-making is addressed, the secondary issue of destructive competition and its effects on industry and society cannot be fully resolved. Until then, sadly, Smithfield and Co. will continue to take advantage of cheap labour and lax environmental standards wherever they can, knowing that it gives them a competitive advantage that small producers cannot match; casually destroying ancient ways of working the land and distorting humanity’s very relationship with and attitude towards domesticated animals in the process, as they Blob their bacon-flavoured way around the world they wish to brand with their logo.

As I boarded the Eurostar back to London I couldn’t help thinking that I wish life was a little more like a Hollywood movie sometimes, with neat and instant resolutions to thorny problems, happy endings and the good guys taking the day.

Alas, it will be a while yet before we learn if Tracy will be as fortunate as Babe in saving the old farm from the economic forces of destructive competition that deny its priceless value. * * *

For more information on Pig Business and Tracy’s global campaign, please see:

http://www.pigbusiness.co.uk/

UPDATE: PIG ON CAPITOL HILL!

Pig Business has now been screened in Washington D.C., where long-time supporter Robert Kennedy Jr. and Ohio Democrat Congressman Dennis Kucinich spoke to a packed house that included in the audience two Members of Congress, Congressional staffers, U.S. officials, agriculture industry lobbyists, environment, health and animal welfare NGOs and local traditional farmers.

More details are available on the Pig Business website.

OTHER LINKS FROM THIS ISSUE

SMK 2011 Campaigner Awardshttp://www.smk.org.uk/campaigner-awards/

Nominate an unsung hero(ine), which could even be....yourself!

The Good Agency - creative strategies for campaignershttp://www.thegoodagency.co.uk/

To listen to “Feeding Frenzy”, (cited in Global Food Insecurity) go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00x9z74

Polly Higgins - Trees Have Rightshttp://www.treeshaverightstoo.com

Simpol Bloggers of the Worldhttp://simpoluk.wordpress.com/

More Pig Business and Links 15

The Simultaneous Policy

www.simpol.org

Please take this poster and display it wherever you see people freaking out because they don't know what to do about global problems.

Tell them about Simpol....solutions for the planet...

Back Cover No Freaking Out poster Yours to keep and display!