The World in 2011: Cassandra

IN A few days' time—January 9th, if all goes to expectations—the people of the autonomous southern part of Sudan will vote for independence, so ending half-a-century of conflict and bitterness between the mostly Arab and Islamic north and the mostly non-Arab and often Christian south.

Assuming the southern secession goes ahead (and many fingers still have to be crossed for a peaceful process), the world can look forward to a new country—and the United Nations to a new member state, its 193rd.

But is the UN list the criterion for what constitutes a country? Pedants might add the tiny Vatican City (after all, the Pope pays “state” visits abroad). Political scientists might add, too, the Republic of Kosovo, which declared its independence from Serbia in 2008 and is recognised by some 72 countries, including the United States but not Russia (and certainly not Serbia). Realists would surely add Taiwan (or the Republic of China, as it calls itself, in contrast to the People’s Republic of China).

The Montevideo Convention of 1933 declared that a state should possess a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the ability to enter into relations with other states. That might seem conclusive enough at first glance, but at second glance it leaves plenty of scope for dispute. Taiwan would certainly qualify, despite its cold-shoulder from the UN. Arab idealists (or dreamers, given the frustrations of Middle East peacemaking) might add Palestine, which has observer status at the UN, a government of sorts, and relations with plenty of states. On the other hand, its territory is hostage to a peace settlement with Israel and remains stubbornly undefined. Moreover, the dreamers have to accept that the Palestine Authority has yet to declare statehood—and such a declaration is surely the first requirement of all.

But a declaration goes only so far. Abkhazia, for instance, is recognised only by a handful of countries (admittedly including Russia). The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is recognised only by Turkey. Transnistria is recognised only by Abkhazia and South Ossetia (whose own independence again has only a handful of supporters). The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, in what used to be the Spanish-run Western Sahara, is accepted by 81 states—but not by Morocco, which claims all of its territory and which can point out that the SADR government has to meet in exile in Algeria. Cassandra reckons a good case could be made for Somaliland, which is not recognised by anyone but seems to run its own affairs well enough. By contrast, the Somali Republic, which is recognised by everyone, is the very definition of a “failed state”.

Meanwhile, spare a thought for Scotland and Wales. They have their own flags, their own governments (well, an “Assembly” in the case of Wales), and their own independence movements. Yet virtually the only time they exist on the world stage as separate countries is when they play football…

WITH the festive season upon us, thoughts naturally turn to food—but a moment’s sober reflection shows that in the West, at least, we are collectively getting too fat for our own good. Britain’s Jamie Oliver is a chef constantly campaigning for good, healthy food, and in The World in 2011 he bravely looks at the challenge of feeding the planet in 25 years’ time. But Mr Oliver is not the only noted chef and restaurateur to take up the cause of good and sensible eating. At The World in 2011 festival in New York earlier this month we invited José Andrés to share his thoughts on the subject. The Spanish-born Mr Andrés (who incidentally trained at El Bulli, the famous Catalan restaurant which will be closed in 2011 to allow its chef, Ferran Adrià, a 30-month globe-trotting sabbatical) is the man who has introduced both avant-garde and traditional Spanish cuisine to Americans. Now he has real influence in America as the boss of Think/Food Group—and this is what he had to say in New York:

Even today with the public's growing interest in food and diet issues, politicians rarely include food as part of their political platforms. I hope to change their minds and have them give food the attention it deserves. First because they must. Second because the public has begun to demand it. The time has come to recognize that food, how we produce it, process it, package it,sell it, cook it and eat it, is as important as any other issue. I predict that politicians will be asked “What’s your food agenda?”

One thing that makes me very happy is to see the growing activism among chefs in America. Chefs like Tom Colicchio, Bill Telepan, and Rachel Ray and food writers like Michael Pollan have gone to Congress, indeed sometimes even have testified before Congress, have lent this support to Mrs. Obama's effort to combat childhood obesity. My point is that chefs have found their voices as advocates on food issues. We have a unique perspective on these matters and an ability to influence how the public eats. I hope one day we will unite to form a lobby, a powerful voice in the national debate about how we can better feed America and the world. I predict that in 2011, if we are not invited to the table, we will bang on the door until we are let in!

This year, the issue was school lunch and childhood obesity. Next year, Congress will deal with the Farm Bill again. This is the moment that Congress indirectly decides how this country is going to be fed. When this country was founded, Thomas Jefferson dreamed of a nation of small farmers. Today, Jefferson would not recognize the kind of big agribusiness benefits from the Farm Bill. Why does just one class of farmer benefit so much from this system? I predict in 2011 that we will need to level the playing field.  This country has been built on the shoulders of the small-business people, family business, and entrepreneurs. Give the small farmers the chance to compete with big agribusiness.

Today we have created a world where food seems to be the cause of many of our problems, both in America and abroad. Food and the way we grow it and produce it are a major cause of environmental degradation. Food and the way we cook it are the cause of many health problems. In America, we are talking about calorie-dense but low-nutrition foods and overeating.  In the developing world, we are dealing with problems of malnutrition, respiratory diseases from cooking fumes, deforestation, and failing farms.  Food policy demands are all around us.

But we need to start seeing food as the solution. Food used the right way can end hunger. Food used the right way can help fight obesity and malnutrition. Food and the right farming practices will create employment in the developing world where it is needed most. Food when prepared the right way can help improve the environment. Food can be the answer.

But more importantly, today in Washington there is a fierce discussion about the deficit, tax cuts, about the military, social security, and Medicare.  I guarantee you that unless we start making good, really good, sound good food and we make the right decision then Americans won’t be healthy and our food suppliers won’t provide us with the food that we need.  But people, we will in time, it’s as easy as going today to your home and planting a seed. People of America, readers of The Economist, food is the solution.  Let’s endorse it every day of our lives.

THOSE who are mathematically, or at least numerically, inclined will doubtless have noticed that New Year’s day will be a palindrome—and will be so regardless of whether you prefer the British way of putting the day before the month or the American habit of month first and then day. The World in 2011 has devoted a full article to the numerical niceties of the coming year, and even calculated how saying the year in a particular way will save you energy. But we clearly have not gone far enough, as David Winberg points out in this wonderful letter, printed in the Christmas edition of The Economist…

SIR – Your fetish with the number 11 (“A year of palindromes”, The World in 2011) reminded me of Mad magazine’s obsession with upside-down years. There was one in 1881, and 1961 was the last upside-down year until 6009, so Mad devoted its January cover to it that year. It was viewable from right side up or upside down. I expect The Economist to do no less on 1.1.11.

David Winberg

New York

AS ATTENTIVE readers will be aware, The World in 2011 is the 25th time that The Economist and invited guests have predicted the future (not always with total accuracy…). But an American website is offering an intriguing twist on forecasting the next 25 years: why not, it asks, send a message from the present to be revealed in 25 years’ time? The present already being part of the digital age, the idea is that you should make your message on video and it will then be stored in a time capsule. As the site puts it:

Our new goal is to get ANYONE and EVERYONE interested in joining our time capsule to submit a video. We're collecting the videos and will store them in a time capsule for 25 years. Then, in 2035, we're going to track folks down and host a huge installation / viewing party, starring our participants.

Assuming that the formats will still be readable a quarter of a century from now, it could be a party worth going to…You have until December 31st to submit your message to the future.

PREDICTIONS are a chancy business (we regularly admit our failings in each edition of The World In…), and we are really lengthening the odds by asking several experts—of which more in subsequent posts—to celebrate the 25th edition of The World In…by looking forward 25 years to 2036.

But a colleague in New York has pointed out to Cassandra that we are wimps compared with the New York Times in September 1931. The “gray lady” asked various luminaries—from Dr Mayo of Mayo Clinic fame to Henry Ford (of Ford cars fame…)—to look not 25 years ahead but 80 years. The mathematically-minded reader will immediately recognise that the year of their prophecies was 2011. See what they predicted back in 1931—and then look at ours. Cassandra hopes we will not be too embarrassed.

SCROLLING through Facebook today (always a useful distraction from life’s chores…), Cassandra remembered that only a few days ago the Facebook boss, Mark Zuckerberg, signed “the Giving Pledge”—that wonderful idea by Warren Buffett that billionaires should promise to give away the greater part of their wealth within their lifetime to worthy causes.

So far the Giving Pledge lists 57 signatories, most of whom, like the Los Angeles tycoon Eli Broad, are far from the full flush of youth. That, of course, makes sense: it normally takes quite a bit of time to amass your first billion dollars. What makes Mr Zuckerberg’s pledge so newsworthy is that he is so young: a mere 26. The same is true of a fellow Facebook pledger, Dustin Moscovitz, also 26 but worth “only” $1.4 billion compared with Mr Zuckerberg’s $6.9 billion.

Cassandra wonders how long the list will grow in 2011. There are new billionaires in China, but attempts to woo them to the list have so far been ignored (some super-rich Chinese apparently skipped a dinner with Warren Buffet and Bill Gates in case they were asked to stump up). The same reluctance is true of Indian billionaires, too. Perhaps they could be inspired by Mr Zuckerberg’s youthful example:

People wait until late in their career to give back. But why wait when there is so much to be done? With a generation of younger folks who have thrived on the success of their companies, there is a big opportunity for many of us to give back earlier in our lifetime and see the impact of our philanthropic efforts.

Quite so, but what exactly constitutes a philanthropic effort? One of the predictions in the World in 2011 is that many of the super-rich will prefer to promote their ideas. America’s Koch brothers, for example, give massive support to right-wing and libertarian causes. Going towards the other end of the political spectrum, George Soros supports liberal and progressive causes, especially in former communist countries. Mr Soros’s support for democracy is such that it surely does not matter that he has not signed the Giving Pledge—he has already done good things with his money.

LIKE many millions of other TV-viewing Brits (possibly 20m, if predictions prove correct), Cassandra was hooked last night by the first part of "The X Factor” final. For those who have managed to remain immune to The X Factor, it is a talent contest for singers in which contestants—some horribly out of tune—are culled over the months in a process that depends, ultimately, on a vote by the viewing public, influenced by the opinions of a panel of judges.

The American equivalent is “American Idol”, and what the two shows have in common is not just the huge amounts of moolah they bring to the Fox network in America and ITV in Britain but also the presence of the Atlantic-hopping Simon Cowell as the lead judge. The only real difference is that The X Factor judges “mentor” the acts that get through to the final rounds.

Mr Cowell, wonderfully caustic in many of his comments, is surely the best known Briton in America (certainly better known than Britain’s present prime minister). He outrages contestants and viewers with the directness of his criticism (normally prefaced by “If I’m being honest…”).  But without Mr Cowell’s penchant for stirring controversy would either show draw in the millions?

We will soon find out. In 2011 American Idol, celebrating its tenth series, will for the first time be without Mr Cowell. Instead, Mr Cowell, whose Syco company co-produces the programme, will launch The X Factor in America in September. American Idol has been consistently the most popular show on American TV—but Cassandra’s bet is that it will soon start losing viewers to The X Factor: after all, Mr Cowell tends to give better entertainment value than many of the contestants. For what it’s worth, Cassandra thinks the viewers were wrong last night to eliminate Cher Lloyd...

THE anniversaries that 2011 will mark are events to celebrate (save, of course, for the dreadful tenth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America). For example, we will have the 250th anniversary of the world's first school for veterinarians (in Lyon, which is perhaps why the French cosset their dogs even more than the British theirs); the 150th anniversary of Italy as a united country (though many Italians think there remains a deep divide between the north and the Mezzogiorno); and the 50th birthday of a certain Barack Obama (with the greying hair to prove it).

But are there important anniversaries that we have overlooked? At least one appreciative and musically sensitive reader in Camarillo, California, thinks so:

I have just enjoyed your 25th Anniversary Special Edition of The World In 2011. One story mentions IBM's upcoming 100th Anniversary, and another laments the success rate of your 2010 predictions. 

As a London-based publication, I thought surely that you would guarantee yourself a better success rate by predicting that The Rolling Stones will tour in 2011 for their 50th anniversary.

Best regards, 
Tom Friel

As a Stones’ fan, Cassandra at first felt suitably admonished—but then checked the dates. Surely, the first time the Rolling Stones (billed as the Rollin’ Stones) played a formal gig was in 1962 at the Marquee Club in London’s Oxford Street…Mind you, a 49th anniversary tour would be pretty impressive. Meanwhile, we will guard Mr Friel’s prediction for The World in 2012.

ON THE cultural front, 2011 will be a year of big biennials. Where might a grand global tour of these events take you in the year ahead? Speaking at The World in 2011 Festival in New York on Friday, Glenn Lowry, director of New York's Museum of Modern Art, singled out four of them.

First, in March, is the tenth edition of the Sharjah Biennial, in the UAE (http://www.sharjahart.org/biennial/sharjah-biennial-10/welcome.) The region will orchestrate a crescendo of culture in the coming years, as ambitious new museums open in Abu Dhabi.

The Venice Biennale (http://www.labiennale.org/en/Home.html) runs between June and November. This is the grandest and most global of the bunch. This year, for the first time in since its beginning in 1895, it will be curated by a woman, Bice Curiger.

The 12th Istanbul Biennial  (http://www.iksv.org/bienal/english/bienal.asp?cid=105) kicks off in September. With Turkey placed strategically between east and west, and on the front line between Islamic and Western cultures, this may well be the most politically edgy of the four. According to Mr Lowry, the country's cultural scene is fizzing.

Lastly, also in September-November, there's the 8th Mercosul Biennial (http://universes-in-universe.org/eng/bien/mercosul_biennial/2011), in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Its speciality is a focus on Latin America.

Where to go if you had to pick one of the four? To experience the vibrant crossroads of culture, head to Istanbul.

THE British press is seething that England’s bid to host soccer’s FIFA World Cup in 2018 garnered a pathetic two votes out of 22 from the FIFA executive committee. Was it a fix? Was it revenge for the recent allegations in the British media of FIFA corruption (there was a particularly devastating BBC TV programme just three days before the vote)? Was it a deliberate attempt to humiliate the distinguished trio—Prince William, David Beckham and, not least, David Cameron, the prime minister—who had travelled to Zurich to present a bid described by even non-Englishmen as excellent? Magnanimous English congratulations by the trio to the victor, Russia, cannot hide their mix of shock and disappointment.

The fuss will doubtless die down soon enough, but in the meantime the man who will really relish Russia’s triumph is its prime minister, Vladimir Putin. Unlike Mr Cameron, Mr Putin did not go to Zurich to support his country’s bid, apparently angered at allegations of FIFA vote-rigging (he did, however, fly to Zurich to thank FIFA after the vote). Now he can look forward to 2011, basking in the reflected glory of a sporting choice made only a couple of days after revelations, thanks to WikiLeaks, that American diplomats consider his country a “virtual mafia state” and reckon that he has illicitly squirreled away a personal fortune.

The interesting dilemma for Mr Putin is whether to stay as prime minister or become president again, replacing Dmitry Medvedev. The presidential election is not actually due until 2012, but in practice its result will be known by the end of 2011 (when parliamentary elections will also take place, inevitably to be won by the United Russia party, whose purpose is essentially to keep the ruling bureaucracy in power). Some analysts have speculated that Mr Medvedev might object to leaving office, and oppose any Putin bid. Maybe, but whether Mr Putin remains as prime minister or retakes the presidency, it is clear that it is he, and not Mr Medvedev, who wields real power in Russia. As the American diplomatic cables pointed out, Mr Medvedev is Robin to Mr Putin’s Batman.

IN THE world of global finance and economics it’s tempting to nominate Dominique Strauss-Khan, the 61-year-old managing director of the International Monetary Fund and former French finance minister, as the man of the moment. Actually, rather a long moment: DSK (as his compatriots invariably call him) has been in the limelight ever since the global financial crisis began. Whether boosting the IMF’s reserves or coordinating rescue packages for Greece and Ireland, DSK has impressed with his intellect and energy—and, of course, his multilingual charm (he is fluent in French, German and English and once told Cassandra that in his youth he could speak Bahasa Indonesia).

But a big decision awaits DSK in 2011: should he stay at the IMF, gathering the plaudits and indulging his passion as a professional economist, or should he resign in order to make a bid for the French presidency as the candidate of the Socialist Party? The presidential election is not until 2012, but the Socialist Party will select its nominee from a primary contest in the autumn of 2011—and the candidates must enter the race by June.

The opinion polls regularly show that DSK would defeat President Nicolas Sarkozy in 2012. Indeed, Mr Sarkozy no doubt recognised this threat way back in 2007, when in one of his early acts as president he nominated DSK for the IMF in faraway Washington, DC.

The problem, however, is that DSK’s popularity with ordinary French voters is not matched by his popularity with Socialist Party stalwarts. For them, he is simply too “liberal”, ie too fond of the free market. He made a bid for the party’s nomination for the 2007 presidential election, and came second. Will he want to fall short again?

For what it’s worth, Cassandra’s bet is that he will take the risk. After all, being boss of the IMF may be important, but being president of the French Republic is more important still. And if he fails, there will surely be other jobs in the offing.