CANADA 2020 Named THINK TANKS TO WATCH

for the complete report download 

 http://gotothinktank.com/dev1/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/GoToReport2013_Final.pdf

1

JANUARY 22, 2014


THINK TANKS AND CIVIL SOCIETIES PROGRAM
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS PROGRAM

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
Copy of Record will be issued on 1/30/14
 2013 GLOBAL GO TO THINK THANK

INDEX & ABRIDGED REPORT
James G. McGann, Ph.D.

Director

Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program

University of Pennsylvania
 Philadelphia, PA USA 2 3



The Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program
 "Helping to bridge the gap between knowledge and policy"
  Researching the trends and challenges facing

think tanks, policymakers, and policy-oriented

civil society groups…

Sustaining, strengthening, and building

capacity for think tanks around the world…

Maintaining the largest, most

comprehensive database of over

6,000 think tanks…
 All requests, questions, and comments

should be directed to:

James G. McGann, Ph.D.

Director

Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program

International Relations Program

University of Pennsylvania

Telephone: (215) 746-2928

Email: jmcgann@sas.upenn.edu
 2013 Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this report may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the University of Pennsylvania, Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program.4




Acknowledgements
  First and foremost, I want to express my deep appreciation to the 2,000 plus scholars, journalists, policymakers, think tank directors and donors, from every region of the world that participated in the 2013 Global Go To Think Tank Index (GGTTI). I would like to thank the over 1,950 functional area and regional specialists who served as expert panelists and provided valuable insights and assistance as I compiled the report.

Thank you also to my research interns for their help in compiling and analyzing the data for the 2013 Index. I would like to extend a special thank you to the project leads for the 2013 GGTTI, Deborah Allison, Benjamin Fogel, and Natalia Kopytnik, who assembled and edited this year’s report. In addition, a word of thanks to the current and former interns who gave up several nights and weekends to help edit the report, conduct the data analysis and the development of enhance the graphics for this year’s report. In this regard special thanks goes out to Travis Taylor, Jillian Rafferty, Fadwa Kingsberry, Bailey Scott, and Andrew Metrick. They, in conjunction with the research team, put in long hours to help improve the Index’s quality and appearance.

I would also like to express my appreciation to the United Nations and the United Nations University for hosting the briefing and global launch of the 2013 Global Go To Think Tank Index in New York, and the World Bank for hosting the Washington, D.C. briefing and launch.

Thank you all for your support over the years, and for your help in making the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program at the University of Pennsylvania a continued success. 5
 



Background on the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program
  The Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP) at the University of Pennsylvania conducts research on the role policy institutes play in governments and civil societies around the world. Often referred to as the "think tanks’ think tank," TTCSP examines the evolving role and character of public policy research organizations. Over the last 25 years, the TTCSP has developed and led a series of global initiatives that have helped bridge the gap between knowledge and policy in critical policy areas such as international peace and security, globalization and governance, international economics, environmental issues, information and society, poverty alleviation, and healthcare and global health. These international collaborative efforts are designed to establish regional and international networks of policy institutes and communities that improve policy making while strengthening democratic institutions and civil societies around the world.

The TTCSP works with leading scholars and practitioners from think tanks and universities in a variety of collaborative efforts and programs, and produces the annual Global Go To Think Tank Index that ranks the world’s leading think tanks in a variety of categories. This is achieved with the help of a panel of over 1,900 peer institutions and experts from the print and electronic media, academia, public and private donor institutions, and governments around the world. We have strong relationships with leading think tanks around the world, and our annual Think Tank Index is used by academics, journalists, donors and the public to locate and connect with the leading centers of public policy research around the world. Our goal is to increase the profile and performance of think tanks and raise the public awareness of the important role think tanks play in governments and civil societies around the globe.

Since its inception in 1989, the TTCSP has focused on collecting data and conducting research on think tank trends and the role think tanks play as civil society actors in the policymaking process. In 2007, the TTCSP developed and launched the global index of think tanks, which is designed to identify and recognize centers of excellence in all the major areas of public policy research and in every region of the world. To date TTCSP has provided technical assistance and capacity building programs in 81 countries. We are now working to create regional and global networks of think tanks in an effort to facilitate collaboration and the production of a modest yet achievable set of global public goods. Our goal is to create lasting institutional and state-level partnerships by engaging and mobilizing think tanks that have demonstrated their ability to produce high quality policy research and shape popular and elite opinion and actions for public good. 6
 



Table of Contents
  Introduction 7

Overview of Modifications and Enhancements to the Global Go To Think Tank Index 8

Methodology and Timeline 11

2013 Rankings Categories 17

2013 Think Tank Statistics 19
 2013 Global Go To Rankings Results 26



Top Think Tanks in the World 26

Top Think Tanks by Region 34

Top Think Tanks by Area of Research 51

Top Think Tanks by Special Achievement 72

Appendices 105

Background on the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program 115

The Research Team 116 7
 



Introduction
  The 2013 Global Go To Think Tank Index (GGTTI) marks the seventh year of continued efforts by the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program at the University of Pennsylvania (TTCSP) to acknowledge the important contributions and emerging global trends of think tanks worldwide. Our initial effort to generate a ranking of the world’s leading think tanks in 2006 was a response to a series of requests from donors, government officials, journalists, and scholars, to produce regional and international rankings of the world’s preeminent think tanks. Since its inception, our ongoing objective for the GGTTI report is to gain understanding of the role think tanks play in governments and civil societies. Using this knowledge, we hope to assist in improving the capacity and performance of think tanks around the world.

Since 2006, the ranking process has been refined and streamlined, and the number and scope of the institutions and individuals involved has steadily grown. The process, as in past years, relies on a shared definition of public policy research, analysis, and engagement organizations, a detailed set of selection criteria, and an increasingly open and transparent nomination and selection process. As part of the nominations process, all 6,826 think tanks catalogued in the TTCSP’s Global Think Tank Database were contacted and encouraged to participate, in addition to, over 9,000 journalists, policymakers, public and private donors, think tanks, and functional and regional area specialists. This group of peers and experts was surveyed to both nominate and rank public policy research centers of distinction for 2013.

To refine and validate the generated ranking lists, TTCSP assembled Expert Panels comprised of hundreds of members from a wide variety of backgrounds and disciplines. Additionally, new media – the website and social media presence – helped us communicate and disseminate information about criteria for this year’s Index to a wider audience (please see "Methodology and Timeline" for the complete set of nomination and ranking criteria, and "Appendices" for a detailed explication of the ranking process). Given the rigor and scope of the nomination and selection processes, the rankings produced thus far have been described as the insider’s guide to the global marketplace of ideas.
 As a final note, we would like to remind you that the data collection, research, and analysis for this project, as in previous years, were conducted without the benefit of field research, a budget, or staff. We are confident that the peer nomination and selection process, as well as the work of the international Expert Panels, have enabled us to create the most authoritative list of high performance think tanks in the world. Still, efforts to streamline and perfect the process are ongoing. We are continually seeking ways to enhance the process and welcome your comments and suggestions for improvement. We further encourage you to provide the names and contact information for prospective expert panelists for functional and regional areas covered by the Index.



Thank you for your continued support of the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program at the University of Pennsylvania and of the annual Global Go To Think Tank Index. We hope our efforts to highlight the important contributions and emerging global trends of think tanks worldwide will foster insightful discussions, and debates on the present and future roles of these vital institutions. 8
 



Overview of Modifications and Enhancements to the Global Go To Think Tanks Index
  Each year we attempt to respond systematically to the comments and suggestions to improve the nomination and ranking process for the Global Go To Think Tank Index (GGTTI). Since the inaugural report in 2006, the nomination and selection processes have changed significantly. While the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP) continually seeks to improve the nomination and selection process, several statements should be acknowledged. First, we do not claim that the annual rankings are error-free. As with many ranking systems, the GGTTI has its fair share of limitations, which we continually seek to overcome. Second, critiques highlighting the rankings’ comprehensiveness fail to understand our commitment to studying the contributions and impact of think tanks worldwide. The Index’s aim is to produce an inclusive and far-reaching report of international think tanks. Moreover, we hope to extend the Index to even more think tanks around the world.
 Recent Years’ Modifications
  TTCSP is committed to increasing the quality and representativeness of the Index every year we conduct the survey. Since 2010, hundreds expert panelists have participated in an evaluation of the ranking criteria and nominations and indexing processes. As a result, the Index has undergone a number of major changes designed to limit bias, expand the rankings’ representativeness, and improve the overall quality and integrity of the nomination process. The following modifications have been made to the Index over the last several years:

2010

 In 2010, a ranking list for think tanks with an annual budget of less than five million dollars was created. This category helps to recognize the work of smaller think tanks that produce influential research, but might otherwise be edged out in the rankings by think tanks with larger budgets and greater manpower.

 American think tanks were removed from the global ranking in an effort to improve the visibility of global organizations, and recognize the inherent advantages of American think tanks.

 The methodology was revamped to encompass an open nominations process in which all 6,480 think tanks identified by the TTCSP at that time were invited to submit nominations. This replaced a system where the Expert Panels developed the initial slate of institutions. The change dramatically increased the levels of participation, and greatly improved the quality and representativeness of nominated institutions.

 An outreach effort was launched in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) to improve the Index’s inclusivity.

9
 


2011

 The Latin America category was restructured into two categories: "Top Think Tanks in Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean," and "Top Think Tanks in Central and South America."

2012

 The Latin America categories were further refined into: "Top Think Tanks in Mexico and Canada," "Top Think Tanks in Central and South America."

 The Asia category underwent revisions in order to prevent the group’s total domination by China, India, Japan, and the Republic of Korea. As such, the Asia section was divided into two categories: "Top Think Tanks in China, India, Japan, and the Republic of Korea," and "Top Think Tanks Asia (excluding China, India, Japan, and the Republic of Korea)."

 Six new special achievement categories were created: "Best Independent Think Tanks" (financially, structurally, and legally independent of government and political parties), "Best Advocacy Campaign," "Best Policy Produced by a Think Tank 2011-2012," "Best For-Profit Think Tanks," "Top Energy and Resource Policy Think Tank," and "Top Education Policy Think Tanks." These categories recognize both special achievements and excellence in particular areas of study. This expansion aimed to better recognize the diverse range of issues think tanks address, and the new organizational types that have emerged over the past five years.

 The "Best New Think Tanks" category now examines organizations founded over the past 24 months instead of the past 18.
 2013 Process and Methodology
  As in the 2011 and 2012 processes, this year’s Index relied on an open nominations process, followed by Expert Panel reviews of the nominations. In addition, the 2013 Index features a number of new or modified categories. Further refinements have been made to the Asia category, which is now divided into three distinct categories: "Top Think Tanks in Central Asia," "Top Think Tanks in South Asia and the Pacific," and "Top Think Tanks in China, India, Japan, and the Republic of Korea." The former "Top Security and International Affairs Think Tanks" category has been divided into two separate categories: " Top Defense and National Security Think Tanks," and "Top Foreign Policy and International Affairs Think Tanks." New categories in this year’s Index include: "Think Tank to Watch," "Best Use of Social Networks," "Best Institutional Collaboration Involving Two or More Think Tanks," Best Think Tank Network," "Best Think Tank Conference," "Best Managed Think Tank," "Best New Idea or Paradigm Developed by a Think Tank," and " Best Transdisciplinary Research Program at a Think Tank."

Though this year’s process has enjoyed the improvements outlined above, we would be remiss if we were to fail to mention a few qualifications. Despite efforts to improve the Index’s inclusivity, especially within the "Top Think Tanks – Worldwide" category, certain regions continue to be underrepresented. Ongoing obstacles to increasing representation of developing regions in the Index are likely related to the relatively small number of think tanks in developing countries and the 10
 


manifold challenges these institutions face. The continued dominance of think tanks in Europe and North America in the rankings is a function of several factors, including: the reality that more than sixty percent of the world’s think tanks are based in Europe and North America; the funding and resources available to these organizations; the historically dominant role these regions have played in world politics, and the influence they traditionally exert over international political, economic, and social thinking.

That being said, we would like to direct your attention to the regional, functional, and special achievement categories, which together might provide a more thorough picture of the work of think tanks globally. We hope to better enable the inclusion of underrepresented regions in the Index through the following enhancements: dramatically increasing the number of listings in each category; dividing Asia into three distinct categories; creating a separate category for Mexico and Canada; and creating a category recognizing organizations with a budget of less than five million dollars. We would also like to highlight the exclusion of think tanks based in the United States from the principal global ranking. In so doing, the rankings are able to highlight lesser-known think tanks in regions outside of the United States. Given the extraordinary worldwide prominence and preeminence of U.S. think tanks, including them in the principal global rankings would likely distort the results excessively in their favor.

Each year our best efforts have gone into generating a rigorous, inclusive, and objective process. However, we recognize the impossibility of entirely ridding the Index from bias. Inevitably, personal, ideological, disciplinary, and regional biases of those consulted throughout the process may have influenced the rankings. While some have suggested that we move to a small group or panel of experts and journalists to make the selections, we are unwavering in our commitment to an open and democratic process. Given the safeguards in place – the open and transparent process, the provisions set by the detailed nomination and selection criteria, and the annually increasing participation of think tanks and experts from every region of the world – we are confident in the Index’s quality and integrity. Additionally, with the growing involvement of the expert panelists, the nomination and ranking process has also been dramatically improved. Together, we believe these measures insulate the nomination and selection process from any significant charges of bias and misrepresentation.

Finally, we would like to underscore that the GGTTI is but one measure of a think tank’s performance and impact, and has been designed for use in conjunction with other metrics to help identify and evaluate public policy research organizations around the world. An organization’s inclusion within the Index does not indicate a seal of approval or endorsement for the institution, its publications, or its programs by the TTCSP. Conversely, an organization’s exclusion from the rankings does not necessarily indicate poor quality, effectiveness, or performance. There are 6,826 think tanks around the world completing exceptional work to help bridge the gap between knowledge and policy. This report is no more than one effort to highlight some of the world’s leading think tanks. 11
 



Methodology and Timeline
  Before beginning the 2013 nomination and selection process, the team conducted extensive research in order to update and verify the Think Tank and Civil Societies Program’s (TTCSP) Global Think Tank Database. Through this process 223 additional think tanks were identified for possible inclusion in this year’s study. A month in advance of the 2013 nomination and selection process launch, a letter announcing the commencement of the 2013 Global Go To Think Tank Index (GGTTI) was sent to all catalogued organizations. Think tanks were asked to make recommendations for improving the nomination and selection process, in addition to potential Expert Panel nominees. A letter requesting evaluations of the efficacy and validity of the 2012 Rankings criteria, and nomination and selection process, was also sent to expert panelists from previous years.
 Timeline of the Nomination and Ranking Process
  The timeline of the 2013 nomination and selection process is summarized below.
 Round I: Nominations August – September 2013
  A call for nominations was sent to 6,826 think tanks and thousands of journalists, public and private donors, and policymakers from around the world. Following Round I nominations, organizations with five or more nominations were included in the 2013 selection process. Invitations to serve on the 2013 Expert Panels were extended to individuals who had previously served on the 2012 Expert Panels. Invitations were also extended to experts nominated this year by their peers.
 Round II: Peer and Expert Rankings October – November 2013
  A letter announcing the commencement of Round II was sent to organizations in the TTCSP’s Global Think Tank Database, in addition to thousands of journalists, policymakers, and public and private donors. Following their completion of the survey, the rankings were tabulated and a list of finalists generated for the Expert Panels’ approval.

The following is a snapshot of the more than 1,950 peer institutions and experts who participated in the 2013 nominations and selection process:

 793 expert panelists for all the regional and functional research categories

 150 journalists and scholars with expertise spanning politics, think tanks, and civil society

 55 current and former directors of think tank programs and networks

 40 public and private donors

 150 civil society representatives

 100s of think tanks

 25-30 intergovernmental organizations

 120 academic institutions

Furthermore, we are pleased to highlight the increasingly global reach of the rankings, as reflected in the following statistics from this year’s nomination process: 12
 
　

 6,826 think tanks from 182 countries were invited to participate in the process;



 1,947 individuals from 120 countries participated in the nominations and rankings process;

 Think tanks were nominated, and subsequently ranked, in 47 categories;

 2,265 ballots were cast over two voting rounds;

 52,000 votes were cast over two voting rounds; and,

 171 think tanks were nominated as the world’s top think tank.
 Round III: Expert Panel Selects 2013 Go To Think Tanks November – December 2013
  The list of nominated institutions was shared with expert panelists, who were asked to identify any serious errors, omissions, or irregularities in the slate of nominated institutions.

After taking their feedback into account, the rankings are finalized.
 Launch: 2013 Global Go To Think Tank Index Announced January 22, 2014
  The 2013 GGTTI was announced at the United Nations University in New York City and at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., as well as through selected organizations in every region of the world.
 2013 Global Go To Think Tank Index Nomination and Ranking Criteria
  The peers and experts who participated in the indexing process were encouraged to employ the following criteria when considering nominations and rankings. The 2013 GGTTI Nomination and Ranking Criteria include, but are not limited to the following criteria:

 The quality and commitment of the think tank’s leadership (chief executive and governing body): effectively managing the mission and programs of the think tank, mobilizing the financial and human resources necessary to fulfill the mission, and monitoring the quality, independence and impact of the think tank;

 The quality and reputation of the think tank’s staff: the ability to assemble a critical mass of highly skilled, experienced and productive scholars and analysts who are recognized as either emerging or established experts in their respective area of research;

 The quality and reputation of the research and analysis produced: the ability to produce high quality, rigorous, policy oriented research that is accessible to policymakers, media and the public;

 Ability to recruit and retain elite scholars and analysts;

 Academic performance and reputation: the academic rigor associated with the research conducted, the formal accreditation of a think tank’s scholars and analysts, the number and type of scholarly publications produced - books, journals and conference papers – the number of presentations delivered at scholarly and other professional meeting, the number and type of citations of the think tanks scholars’ research in scholarly publications;

13
 
　

 The quality, number, and reach of its publications;



 The impact of a think tanks research and programs on policymakers and other policy actors: policy recommendations considered or actually adopted by policymakers, civil society or policy actors;

 Reputation with policymakers: name recognition associated with specific issues or programs, number of briefings and official appointments, number of policy briefs and white papers produced, legislative testimony delivered;

 A demonstrated commitment to producing independent research and analysis: standards and policies for producing rigorous evidence based research and analysis that are posted and monitored by the organization, research teams and individual researchers, disclosure of conflict of interest (financial, institutional or personal), and a commitment to nonpartisanship and established professional standards for research in the social sciences;

 Access to key institutions: the ability to reach and connect with key audiences and personnel such as government officials (elected and appointed), civil society, traditional and new media, and academia;

 Ability to convene key policy actors and to develop effective networks and partnerships with other think tanks and policy actors;

 Overall output of the organization: policy proposals, web visits, briefings, publications, interviews, conferences, staff nominated to official posts;

 Utilization of research, policy proposal and other products: the effective transmission and utilization of policy briefs, reports, policy recommendations and other products by policymakers and the policy community, number of current and former staff serving in advisory roles to policymakers, advisory commissions, etc., awards given to scholars for scholarly achievement or public service;

 Usefulness of organization’s information in public engagement, advocacy work, preparing legislation or testimony, preparing academic papers or presentations, conducting research or teaching;

 Ability to use electronic, print and the new media to communicate research and reach key audiences;

 Media reputation: number of media appearances, interviews and citations;

 Ability to use the Internet, including social media tools, to engage with policymakers, journalists and the public;

 Web Site and Digital presence: the quality, accessibility, effective maintenance of the organization’s web presence, the quality and level Digital traffic and engagement (quality,

14
 
　



accessibility and navigability of web site, number of website visitors, page views, time spent on pages, "likes" or followers);

 Level, diversity and stability of funding: the ability to mobilize the necessary financial resources to support the think tank over time (endowment, membership fees, annual donations, government and private contracts, earned income);

 Effective management and allocation of financial and human resources: the ability to effectively manage money and people so as to produce high quality outputs that achieve maximum impact;

 Ability of the organization to effectively fulfill the terms of the gifts, grants and contracts from government(s), individuals, corporations and foundations who have provided the financial support to the think tank (financial stewardship);

 The organization’s ability to produce new knowledge, innovative policy proposals or alternative ideas on policy;

 Ability to bridge the gap between the academic and policymaking communities;

 Ability to bridge the gap between policymakers and the public;

 Ability to include new voices in the policymaking process;

 Ability of organization to be inscribed within issue and policy networks;

 Success in challenging the traditional wisdom of policymakers and in generating innovative policy ideas and programs; and,

 The impact on society: direct relationship between the organization’s efforts in a particular area to a positive change in societal values such as significant changes in the quality of life within respective country (amounts of goods and services available to citizens, state of physical and mental health, quality of environment, quality of political rights, access to institutions).
 Think Tank Impact Assessment Framework
  Clearly, assessing the impact of think tanks is not an easy endeavor given the various and conflicting actors, events, and politics involved in the policy making process. Despite significant challenges in establishing a causal relationship between knowledge and policy, it is necessary for think tanks to understand and effectively respond to the growing chorus of questions raised by donors, journalists, and the public, about the role and influence of think tanks in civil societies and governments around the world. 15
 


Think tanks can utilize various measures to assess their impact and account for their contributions to the policymaking environment and civil society. Much of the TTCSP’s recent research has focused on developing a comprehensive assessment tool for evaluating think tanks’ impact. The impetus for this research, in part, was the apparent confusion regarding the difference between output and impact. In various TTCSP studies and surveys, researchers and think tanks provided lists of research outputs (books, conferences, web hits, media appearances, etc.) when asked about impact on public policy and how they measure it. Outputs, however, are not the only way to measure impact.

The metric provided below is designed to serve as a catalyst for discussion on how to effectively measure the impact of think tanks. It is provided here as background for the think tank ranking process; we hope it clarifies the distinction between outputs and impacts and provide a useful tool as you prepare your rankings. We ask our peer and expert panel members to also consider the following indicators when contemplating the impact of think tanks:
  Resource indicators: Ability to recruit and retain leading scholars and analysts; the level, quality, and stability of financial support; proximity and access to decision-makers and other policy elites; a staff with the ability to conduct rigorous research and produce timely and incisive analysis; institutional currency; quality and reliability of networks; and key contacts in the policy academic communities, and the media.

 Utilization indicators: Reputation as a "go-to" organization by media and policy elites in the country; quantity and quality of media appearances and citations, web hits, testimony before legislative and executive bodies; briefings, official appointments, consultation by officials or departments/agencies; books sold; reports distributed; references made to research and analysis in scholarly and popular publications and attendees at conferences and seminars organized.

 Output indicators: Number and quality of: policy proposals and ideas generated; publications produced (books, journal articles, policy briefs, etc.); news interviews conducted; briefings, conferences, and seminars organized; and staff who are nominated to advisory and government posts.

 Impact indicators: Recommendations considered or adopted by policymakers and civil society organizations; issue network centrality; advisory role to political parties, candidates, transition teams; awards granted; publication in or citation of publications in academic journals, public testimony and the media that influences the policy debate and decision-making; listserv and web site dominance; and success in challenging the conventional wisdom and standard operating procedures of bureaucrats and elected officials in the country.



Beyond this quantitative assessment, an effective evaluation of impact should involve NGOs and members of the government and policymakers to ascertain the degree to which a think tanks’ output is used. This participation can be obtained through interviews, surveys, questionnaires, and focus group meetings. 16
 


Although this qualitative assessment is essential because it recognizes that policy impact can be successfully achieved even if policy prescriptions are not directly translated into actual policy, we recommend that this assessment should be translated into a think tank index, thereby allowing comparisons with baseline data for effective monitoring and evaluation in the future. 17
 



2013 Ranking Categories
 I. Top Think Tanks in the World
   Think Tank of the Year 2013 – Top Think Tank in the World



 Top Think Tanks Worldwide – (Non-U.S.)

 Top Think Tanks Worldwide – (U.S. and non-U.S.
 II. Top Think Tanks by Region
   Top Think Tanks in sub-Saharan Africa



 Top Think Tanks in Canada and Mexico

 Top Think Tanks in Central and South America

 Top Think Tanks in the United States

 Top Think Tanks in Central Asia

 Top Think Tanks in China, India, Japan, and the Republic of Korea

 Top Think Tanks in Southeast Asia and the Pacific

 Top Think Tanks in Central and Eastern Europe

 Top Think Tanks in Western Europe

 Top Think Tanks in the Middle East and North Africa
 III. Top Think Tanks by Area of Research
   Top Defense and National Security Think Tanks



 Top Domestic Economic Policy Think Tanks

 Top Education Policy Think Tanks (Unranked)

 Top Energy and Resource Policy Think Tanks

 Top Environment Think Tanks

 Top Foreign Policy and International Affairs Think Tanks

 Top Health Policy Think Tanks

 Top International Development Think Tanks

 Top International Economic Policy Think Tanks

 Top Science and Technology Think Tanks

 Top Social Policy Think Tanks

 Top Transparency and Good Governance Think Tanks
 IV. Top Think Tanks by Special Achievement
 Best Advocacy Campaign



 Best For-Profit Think Tanks (Unranked)

 Best Government Affiliated Think Tanks

 Best Institutional Collaboration Involving Two or More Think Tanks

 Best Managed Think Tank

 Best New Idea or Paradigm Developed by a Think Tank

 Best New Think Tanks

18
 
　

 Best Policy Study/Report Produced by a Think Tank 2012-2013



 Best Think Tank Conference

 Best Think Tank Network

 Best Think Tanks with Political Party Affiliation

 Best Transdisciplinary Research Program at a Think Tank

 Best University Affiliated Think Tanks

 Best Use of Social Networks

 Think Tank to Watch

 Think Tanks with the Best External Relations/Public Engagement Programs

 Think Tanks with the Best Use of the Internet

 Think Tanks with the Best Use of the Media (Print or Electronic)

 Think Tanks with the Most Innovative Policy Ideas/Proposals

 Think Tanks with the Most Significant Impact on Public Policy

 Think Tanks with Outstanding Policy-Oriented Public Programs

 Top Think Tanks with Annual Operating Budgets of Less Than $5 Million USD

19
 



2013 Think Tank Statistics
 Number of Think Tanks in the World in 2013
  This chart reflects the number of think tanks in 2013 based on data collected as of August, 2013. 20
 
Global Distribution of Think Tanks by Region 21




Countries with the Largest Number of Think Tanks1
   

1 We have not been able to identify any think tanks operation in the following countries: Brunei, Macao, Turkmenistan, Monaco, San Marino, Anguila, Aruba, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, French Guinea, Montserrat, the Turks and Caicos Islands, the Comoros, Sao Tome and Principe, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. Rank	Country	Number of Think Tanks
1	United States	1828
2	China	426
3	United Kingdom	287
4	India	268
5	Germany	194
6	France	177
7	Argentina	137
8	Russia	122
9	Japan	108
10	Canada	96
11	Italy	89
12	South Africa	88
13	Brazil	81
14	Sweden	77
15	Switzerland	71
16	Mexico	60
17	Kenya	57
18	Netherlands	57
19	Egypt	55
20	Israel	55
21	Spain	55
22	Romania	54
23	Belgium	52
24	Taiwan	52
25	Nigeria	51

Conference on Religious Freedom: Once you attack Christians... Muslims a...

India’s National ID: Entitlement to a Number

Combating Poverty With Technology?

Will a new national ID actually fix any of India’s problems?

Can tech-based solutions, like a new national identity card system, really fix India’s poverty challenges?   3728


India’s national identity card project has received a lot of favorable media attention internationally. This is largely due to the involvement of Nandan Nilekani, the former CEO of Infosys, the Indian IT company.

The goal of the effort he heads up is to issue an identity card to each of its over 1.2 billion residents. The card contains a unique 12-digit number that is linked to each person’s fingerprint and iris scans.

I have personally gone through the scanning and documentation process of both aadhaar and the national population register. I was disappointed by the sloppy manner in which they were conducted and was also confused about why I had to go through the same sloppy process twice.

When it was done, I was also shocked to see my aadhaar card, because it failed to meet the hype generated. It was just information printed on thick paper, which will crumple unless I get it laminated with plastic.

Outshone by Pakistan?

As if that weren’t bad enough, given all the media hype, what ought to really shock any fellow Indians is that neighboring Pakistan’s identity card looks smart — just like an ATM card printed on plastic. That is, of course, not how it is supposed to be. Whatever India’s problems, we are supposed to have the upper hand over Pakistan at least technologically.

That our long-time nemesis, Pakistan, would outdo us is almost unimaginable — and certainly comes as a surprise to all international observers.
It’s reality, though, and a tantalizing illustration of how long the road will be before we really have a “shining India.”

In India, the ID card project was launched with much fanfare in February 2009 and a year later the identity card was called aadhaar.

The meaning of the Hindi noun aadhaar is “basis.” The choice of a new Hindi word that conveys the emotion of “hope” was politically wise. It implied that the card is the basis of something that will be offered in the future– and that aadhaar will one day become adhikar meaning a “right.”

The majority of India’s population still lives in rural areas and does not speak English. Calling it an “identity card” would only have made it yet another card like the voter identity card, which proves citizenship. In contrast, the aadhaar card only indicates residency in India.

Last year I saw poor pilgrims from India wanting to travel to Nepal being turned down at the New Delhi airport because they only had the aadhaar card for proof of identity as opposed to voter identity cards or passports.

A card against the bureaucrats?

Western media decided that the ID card project was a testament to India’s information technology skills and showered praise on India’s technology gurus. They were expected to bypass India’s infamous bureaucracy and shepherd India successfully through one of the “most technologically and logistically complex” identity card projects in the world.

Rajiv Gandhi, India’s former Prime Minister, is often quoted as having said that out of each rupee allocated as welfare aid to the poor by the government, only 15% actually reaches them. The rest “leaks” into the administrative system — as payment to the bureaucracy that manages such schemes or as a bribe to the middlemen entrenched in the system.

Once aadhaar is in place, the hope was, and is, that all aid — whether in the form of food, fuel or fertilizer — would be delivered as direct cash transfers to the intended beneficiary.

Eventually, aadhaar is even expected to resolve India’s longstanding problems in basic education and health systems. The card could help check attendance of students and teachers in rural schools as well as the presence of doctors in rural health centers. It is also intended to serve as the basis for building a complete health information system.

Democratization of banking?

In addition, the ID card is said to be sufficient for opening a bank account. Thus, it should improve entrepreneurial activity through expanded access to banks and offering bank loans.

Currently, over 50% of India’s people currently do not have bank accounts. And 90% of the bank accounts that had been initiated about a decade ago under a policy of opening bank accounts for all Indians are now either closed or unused.

For all this tantalizing array of hoped-for or intended benefits and effects, one has to wonder. Could the mere entitlement to a number resolve most of India’s persistent development problems — as the government claims it will?

Will welfare benefits really arrive in the pockets of the deprived masses — rather than allow the benefits to leak away through the entrenched bureaucracy?

Can the scheme, if executed successfully, bring India’s 60-year long development effort to a happy end? In other words, is “technology” India’s new political invention for mediating social problems, a kind of yellow brick road to prosperity?

Redundant system?

Outside of India, few people realize that the country already has in place a system of assigning economic identity cards. That card helps, for instance, to classify a family as falling under the “poverty line.” These “below poverty line cards” (BPL cards) are issued to specific families in order to ensure access to monthly food and fuel rations.

Under this system, a designated distributor supplies wheat, rice and other essential food items, along with kerosene that is used as fuel for cooking, at a steep discount over market prices to people who are certified as living below the poverty line.

However, as is so often the case, no well-intentioned scheme comes without severe problems: Counterfeit BPL cards can be secured easily from a town or village official for a “price.” That means that genuine BPL families are often denied their rations.

The huge price arbitrage between subsidized and market priced food and fuel also creates an incentive for the distributor to divert subsidized items into the regular market. In addition, BPL cardholders are too poor and politically too weak even as a group (read: disorganized) to question the unavailability of supplies.
 
Despite these leakages and drawbacks, the BPL rations still provide a lifeline for many households and are often the only thing that stands between them and starvation.

A voluntary identifier

Many of India’s leading social scientists and development economists have expressed concern over the scale and scope of the aadhaar scheme. In particular, they have questioned its ability to replace the BPL scheme.

A crucial point in that regard is that the identity card system (or aadhaar) is voluntary as of now. In practice, that means that many people, whether or not they are below or above the poverty line, may not have an aadhaar card.

The government’s attempts to pass the National Identification Authority of India bill in the Parliament failed in 2010. Among the reasons for failure of passage were concerns over the project’s high cost, possible compromises on privacy as well as duplication of the work of the National Population Register of the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Without the legislation, the Unique Identification Authority of India is only an executive body under India’s Planning Commission.

The bill itself would not make aadhaar mandatory, but would keep it voluntary. It would not prevent any service provider from requiring aadhaar in order for eligible people to receive services. As if this weren’t complicated enough, there is an ongoing turf battle with the National Population Register, which is also collecting photographs, fingerprints and scans of all residents.

No new data generated

The card on its own does not capture any of the information that is needed to decide where a person is located with regard to the poverty line. This means that the system needs to extract this information from other, older databases of the government (such as the BPL database), even though it is probably outdated by now.

Therefore, the replacement of a BPL card with a unique number is not likely to be as straightforward as it is made out to be. The logic of converting food and fuel aid into cash aid is also in doubt.

That means that the mills of Indian politics and the bureaucracy are once again turning in a manner that create lots of steam and pseudo-action, but little effect.

Part II

All of the grinding bureaucratic wrangling over a new ID card for India matters a great deal, because amid growing prospects for some, many Indians are still desperately poor. The least that can be done to help them is to disintermediate corruption and the theft of benefits intended for them by “virtue” of a rapacious bureaucracy.

Take the issue of food rations. These are mostly procured by women and shared with family members. The rations are paid out in kind because cash could be easily misappropriated for non-essential purposes, such as the consumption of alcohol by “irresponsible” members of the family.
 
Despite all the current activities, the idea that the identity card will finally manage to “identify” the poor in India is a strange argument to make in a country where the majority are poor.

Why not just find the rich?

As pointed out by Dr. Kirit Parikh, a former member of India’s planning commission, all India needed to do was to eliminate the “easily identifiable” rich minority and extend welfare benefits to everybody else.

The “easily identifiable” rich make up less than 30% of the population. Better yet, they already carry identity numbers — in their passports, bank accounts and tax payment accounts.

The website of India’s aadhaar project reassuringly answers the question “why aadhaar?” by stating that it is “every resident’s entitlement to ‘the’ number’” (exact words). What the government intended to say is not clear, but the entitlement to a number is not the same as the entitlement to basic necessities of life.

Even the claim that “all one needs to bring with oneself to prove one’s identity are one’s eyes and hands” is questionable. aadhaar cannot establish a person’s identity, economic or otherwise.

National security motive

What it can do is merely validate the claim that the person is who he says he is. Was this the ulterior motive of the project?

To answer that crucial question, a quick trip into history is in order. The idea of issuing national identity cards is traced back to the national democratic alliance (NDA) headed by the BharatiyaJanata Party (BJP). It so happened that it was in power during India’s brief conflict with Pakistan in 1999.

This unexpected military conflict is said to have initiated the decision on issuing mandatory multi-purpose national identity cards for reasons of national security.
India’s present governing coalition, called the united progressive alliance (UPA) under the leadership of the Congress Party, is seen to be presenting the same idea, but in a better light in order to gain political and social acceptance.

After all, nobody can oppose ID cards at the national level if the project is presented as a means to distribute welfare benefits to the poor!

It is ironic that the idea of a national identity card for all Indians originated after a conflict with Pakistan. If the BJP or the Congress Party leaders had just taken the trouble to look across the border into Pakistan carefully, even if only to spy, instead of summoning India’s information technology gurus, they would have made an amazing discovery.

Pakistan beat India to the punch

Pakistan’s four-decade-old national identity card scheme was originally conceived as a surveillance and security tool, but now serves as a means of distributing welfare aid.
Pakistan implemented a national scheme of identity cards way back in 1975, also for reasons of national security. But when the scheme was rolled out, a national identity card with an 11-digit unique number was issued to over 95% of the population.

The first three digits in the number were linked to the district (province) where the person was born and the next two digits signified the year of birth. The last six digits linked the person’s identity to that of his family.

In 2000, all old identity card holders in Pakistan were asked to renew their cards, which captured historic information in the form of bar codes. In 2010, the bar-coded cards were replaced with cards with a magnetic chip of 10-year validity.

Apart from historic details such as place of birth and family history that were captured in the early rounds of the scheme, the latest identity cards of Pakistan are linked to the person’s driver’s license, bank accounts and so on.

Beyond national security

The “security” underpinnings of Pakistan’s identity card cannot be denied. A person without the card cannot enter a government building and the card is required for applying for jobs or passports.

However, the card is also linked to welfare programs such as Benazir Income Support Program. Through this program, over 3.8 million under-privileged families can purchase wheat, rice, sugar and cooking oil worth 1,000 Pakistani rupees in the desired proportion every month from 600 utility stores across the country.

While this card is linked to the national identity card, it is sensibly issued only to the female head of the family to avoid any leakage of the intended aid.

Regional governments formulate their own schemes and distribute welfare benefits to families targeted through the national identity card database.

Emergency management

During emergencies such as floods, temporary cards are issued to people in areas affected by the floods with 180-day validity. This card has been used to distribute food, blankets and fodder for animals within 24 hours of a natural calamity even in the most remote and difficult to access areas.

According to a senior official from Pakistan’s disaster management agency, flood relief was dispatched to victims in remote areas almost instantaneously during the 2010 and 2011 floods through the national identity card that was linked to cash dispensing machines.

For all these impressive successes, which ironically give Pakistan the upper hand over India technologically and administratively, one thing is for sure: While welfare benefits are being targeted and transferred efficiently through the national identity card in Pakistan, it has barely scratched the surface of Pakistan’s persistent development and social problems.

Technology is no silver bullet

That underscores the harsh reality that neither the well-executed plan providing entitlement to an identity card nor the delivery of welfare benefits transferred on the basis of the card has necessarily entitled millions in Pakistan to a better life.
The takeaway for India is probably that complex social, political and governance problems cannot be reduced to simple technical problems.

The focus on a number delivered by technology will not only provide the government a cover to hide its inefficiency, but also shift the blame for poverty onto the poor. India’s unique identity number is not the solution for dealing with poverty. Only ending poverty is!

Security gaps found in destruction of top-secret military data

Defence department overhauling policy on disposal of sensitive information after troubling audit

National Defence is overhauling its policy on how it sweeps, sanitizes and destroys Canada’s cache of top-secret and sensitive military information after an internal audit revealed major gaps that could jeopardize national security.

The comprehensive revamp comes after a chief review services audit found the procedures to cleanse information management and information technology assets are "outdated."
"Some departmental security orders are over five years old ... many of the department's security policies date back to 1998 and still reference technologies that haven't been commonly used in over a decade, such as 5-inch floppy discs," the report reads.

 

The Department of National Defence is drafting a department security plan after an audit found serious gaps in the way it handles the sanitization and destruction of top-secret information and data. (Mark Lennihan/Associated Press)

 

The heavily censored report — which was completed in December 2012 but only recently released publicly — looks at governance, internal controls and risk management associated with the military’s sanitization and destruction activities, including paper copies of personal files, classified reports, compact discs and video.

It also exposed gaps in training, flagged inaccurate and unreliable inventory listings and found non-standardized destruction practices across the country.

For example, some department locations use disintegrators and industrial shredders while others use explosion expert teams to destroy hard drives with explosives.

The audit also found there were no time restrictions on the destruction of assets — and that in some cases, hard drives had been stockpiled for up to two years awaiting destruction.

There were also sloppy practices when it comes to informing stakeholders of changes and updates. The audit included references to a bulk classified waste destruction process at an industrial paper destruction centre, though it is unclear why because most of that assessment was blacked out.

Warnings over sensitive information

The audit warns that information technology and information management assets must be properly sanitized or destroyed at the end of their life to prevent "unauthorized parties" from retrieving, creating and using classified information.

"Technology is available that allows information to be recovered from electronic storage devices if they are not correctly sanitized or destroyed," the report reads. "Software ranging from sophisticated programs to simple freeware can be used to recapture improperly sanitized or disposed data. Digital recognition software is also available to piece together IM material that has not been shredded finely enough."
The department's extensive review in response to the audit will develop ways to upgrade, integrate and align policy with government-wide practices.

"One of the end results will be the development of a robust and comprehensive departmental security plan. This is a significant undertaking, as DND has numerous security policies and procedures that are being revised and standardized across the department," DND spokeswoman Linda Vena said.
The results will lead to a new departmental security plan scheduled to be completed by March 2015.
Vena said the report was heavily redacted in order to protect national security.

"The department must be vigilant against potential threats to the department and when possible vulnerabilities are known, it is the department's due diligence to properly safeguard the information to ensure it cannot be exploited," she said.
"Divulging information on how IT assets are destroyed or sanitized — particularly those used to process secret and top secret material — could provide insight on how to recover information from those assets. That would be a clear danger to national security.”

It took one year for the report to be made public because of the comprehensive review process to ensure the "integrity" of the review and reporting process, as well as to ensure operational security concerns and to ensure that redactions to the document were in accordance with the Access to Information and Privacy Act, Vena said.

Andrew Bennett is Canada’s first ambassador to the office of religious freedom...

3680
 http://diplomatonline.com/mag/2014/01/canadas-religious-freedom-ambassador-human-rights-are-not-a-western-liberal-democracy-preserve/

Canada’s religious freedom ambassador: ‘Human rights are not a Western liberal democracy preserve.‘

Diplomat | January 5,

Andrew Bennett is Canada’s first ambassador to the office of religious freedom, a position he accepted in February 2013. A devout Catholic, he studied history at Dalhousie University and McGill University and completed a PhD in political science at the University of Edinburgh. He then worked for Natural Resources Canada, Export Development Canada, the Privy Council Office and was a professor at Augustine College in Ottawa. Today, he serves as subdeacon and cantor with the Holy Cross Eastern Catholic Chaplaincy and St. John the Baptist Ukrainian-Catholic Shrine. He’s vice-president and chairman of the Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute Foundation and is a godparent to five children. He sat down with Diplomat’s editor, Jennifer Campbell. This is an edited transcript of their conversation.

Diplomat Magazine: How do you define your job?

Andrew Bennett: I received a fairly broad mandate: to promote and defend religious freedom overseas as part of Canada’s foreign policy. We’ve done that by setting up the office and defining roles.

[We’ve defined it as] threefold. There’s the advocacy side, which is my role as the ambassador — to go overseas to countries where there are significant issues and violations of religious freedom and to gather information about what’s going on there and also to speak out and present the Canadian view of why it’s so important that freedom of religion is defended. And then, it also means engaging our allies, who are strong defenders of freedom of religion.

Egyptian Copts, those who’ve followed these monks, photographed at the beginning of the 20th Century, are on Andrew Bennett’s radar.

 

Then there’s the policy side, the other classic aspect of diplomacy, which is beginning to engage through different policy tools for, first, raising awareness about why it’s important that Canada is defending freedom of religion and then looking at how we can engage countries where there are significant challenges.

The third aspect of the mandate is what we are going to do on the ground in terms of concrete outcomes. What kinds of concrete actions can we take? What kinds of programs can we launch? We have an annual budget of $5 million, of which $4.25 million is to be dedicated to programming in these countries. The rest goes toward running the office. We have a team of five, including myself.

Tibetan activists demonstrate in Brussels for a free Tibet.

 

DM: Freedom of religion or conscience is in our Charter of Rights; freedom of religion is also in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You’ve called it a base freedom. So why is your position just being created now?

AB: That’s a perfectly valid question. I think the reason it was created at this juncture is because we’re seeing significant increases in violations of religious freedom around the world. Pew Research is a Washington-based, non-advocacy NGO that focuses on religion and public life and conducts quantitative and qualitative analysis that looks at the situation of freedom of religion in the world. They’ve developed two very useful indicators around two components that lead to violations of religious freedom. We see in their research, and that of the Hudson Institute, that the degree of religious persecution has been increasing over the last decade.

Nilson Tuwe Huni Kuı˜, an indigenous leader from the Western Amazon in Brazil, delivered an invocation at World Interfaith Harmony Week at the United Nations in February.

 

Pew’s latest research demonstrates that 75 percent of the world’s population live in countries that have high or very high restrictions on religious freedom. That’s one-third of the countries in the world, but a lot of them are very populous — China, Pakistan. And we’re also seeing increasing social hostilities against communities and so I think in looking at that, the Canadian government decided Canada’s been a long-time defender of human rights, here’s a right coming under increasing threat. There’s an insistence that Canada would want to take action. It’s what Canada does.

DM: Is atheism something you feel you need to protect?

AB: It’s in a unique position. When we speak of freedom of religion, implicit in that is the freedom not to have a religious belief. Some will talk about ‘freedom of religion or belief’ to encapsulate that but I believe freedom of religion suffices. Freedom of religion is your human free will in matters of faith and that includes the freedom not to have any particular religious faith. I will defend [that]. When you look in the world, you do find atheists — who are in certain countries where there is an official religion that is enforced by the state — who are open about it and face persecution for that. There’s a situation right now in Kazakhstan, where an atheist blogger is being targeted and I spoke out on that in a recent speech at the Ukrainian Canadian Congress in Toronto. We will speak out on it but I think it’s important to realize that the vast majority of people who are being persecuted because their freedom of religion is violated are people of faith, so that is where our principal focus will be.

DM: Your mandate is to speak to and about other countries in defending freedom of religion. What about the Charter of Quebec values?

AB: My mandate is to focus on freedom of religion being violated abroad and when we’re talking about that in other countries, we’re talking about people being killed by their governments or by communities within that society that are targeting them because they disagree with their religious beliefs. That’s not happening in Canada. We are able to promote freedom of religion as Canadian diplomats because in Canada we have robust institutions — parliament, legislatures, the courts, civil society — that have also stood up to defend freedom of religion. As citizens in Canada, we all have a responsibility to uphold all freedoms, regardless of what they may be. With regards to the situation in Quebec, there are other people within the government of Canada who have the mandate to speak out on that issue. I’ll leave it to them to do that work.

DM: How do you decide where your budgetary priorities should be?
AB: We rely heavily on the missions to advise of the situations in those countries and we ask if there are partners — NGOs, civil society groups — that are doing work to advance inter-religious dialogue, sponsoring projects that support education, to get people to see the others as fellow citizens. We work actively with our missions to engage those partners to see if they’d be willing to propose a project that would be funded by the religious freedom fund — the $425 million. They submit proposals [through a website] and we evaluate them. We also receive proposals from multilateral organizations.
Minister [John] Baird, at the end of August, announced a number of projects, one of which is with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). They’ll be working with countries in Central Asia and the South Caucasus to talk to governments about how you need to have a full understanding of what freedom of religion is. They can also submit proposals for us to assess. We also have different faith communities, civil society groups in Canada, who do work abroad. They can also submit proposals. The proposals go to an intra-departmental project selection committee made up of the different geographic desks at DFATD, people with programming expertise, and people from the finance and legal side. We decide which to recommend to the minister.

We’ve received a lot of proposals, upwards of 100, over the last number of months. We announced a bunch in August and we’ll be announcing more in the coming weeks and months. We have one announced for Nigeria, in Plateau State, which has been the scene of significant sectarian clashes between Christians and Muslims, where thousands have been killed over the last decade. This project was initially launched under CIDA. It brings these groups together for dialogue. We’re also working with an Indonesian group called Setara. They are going to be developing different mechanisms to monitor violations of freedom of religion in Indonesia.

We aren’t trying to cover the whole waterfront, but we’re focusing on certain countries where we can have a deep level of engagement, where we can speak with governments, civil society and faith communities. Nigeria would be one. We hope the same for Indonesia and Pakistan. There are other countries where we won’t be able to have that level of dialogue, such as Iran, where it will be very pointed and frank statements by myself and [John Baird] to condemn violations of religious freedom. Dialogue, I think, would be very difficult, although we’re always looking for ways to have dialogue with the Iranian people. China is obviously a very difficult country with regards to religious freedom. There’s a very high level of government restrictions on almost all religious groups. There we hope to have a dialogue and find work that will broaden the understanding of why it’s so important.

DM: How many countries have you been to, or reached?

AB: In terms of countries I’ve visited: Kazakhstan, Poland, Hungary, Turkey. I’ve also visited countries that are allies, such as the UK, France, the U.S. For the first half of 2014, we’re looking at Nigeria, Pakistan and then we’ll probably do a swing through southeast Asia. Again, [we’re] looking at countries where we can have a deeper impact. My policy and programming officers can also go and lay groundwork. We also reach out to foreign representatives here in Canada. I’ve met with representatives of all our allies: Germany, France, U.S., Holy See, the Netherlands, Norway. I’d say I’ve met a good few dozen [heads of mission] in total. I’ve got a good relationship with the Turkish ambassador, the Indonesian ambassador, the Ukrainian ambassador. The Russian ambassador [Georgiy Mamedov] reached out to me, and the [former] Israeli ambassador [Miriam Ziv] did, too.
So even though I don’t have a domestic mandate, there is reaching out to the diplomatic corps and also to the different faith communities here in Canada. You have faith communities that are in the diaspora from these countries where there’s a lot of persecution going on. I want to understand their concerns, what they’re hearing. They’re good sources for intelligence-gathering. When Minister Baird told me he wanted me to reach out to them, I told him that I wanted to do more than that — that I wanted to get to know them, and pray with them. So I’ve had a chance to meet with almost all the religious communities in Canada at least once. There are dozens — just Christians alone. I’ve met the major ones. We’ve had contacts with Catholics, the United Church, the Copts and other Middle Eastern Christian communities. I’ve had good meetings with the Sunni and Shiite clerics, with Tibetan Buddhists, the Baha’i community, the Sikhs.

I enjoy meeting these groups. I’m a devout Catholic and I think there’s some skepticism about how a devout Catholic will fit in when he has to protect and defend all these different communities. A lot of these groups didn’t know me from a hole in the wall and I think they thought ‘ambassador, civil servant’ but then when they find out I’m a man of faith and I’m very devout, any barriers that are there come down immediately. I’ve had very deep dialogues with these communities. We’ve talked about religious freedom but also what it means to have faith. It’s also important to engage a lot of the different faith communities well-established in Canada, whether the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Mennonites, the Jewish community, because they typically have organizations that can sponsor projects abroad. We want to work with them.

DM: When you’re travelling, can you describe the general conversation back and forth, especially if you’ve spoken with leaders from countries where religious persecution is a serious problem? Was Kazakhstan one?

AB: Yes. Turkey as well. That wasn’t the easiest conversation to have with government there. One thing that kind of guides me is that we talk a lot about having principled foreign policy and the principles that guide that are Canadian values, freedom, democracy and human rights. I would take that even further and say these are universal principles that speak to a particular truth. What we believe in Canada and what we champion in terms of human rights and freedoms, these are not simply the preserve of Western Liberal democracies. These rights have a universal character and we need to be able to speak confidently about those rights in countries where they are violated.
In Kazakhstan and Turkey, I was raising issues where freedom of religion was being violated, including very specific cases where different communities were facing significant government restrictions on their ability to fully live out their faith, publicly and privately. It’s not always very well received, but we shouldn’t shy away from our principles by saying ‘Well, that’s just how that country does things.’ If that country is violating fundamental freedoms, we need to be there to point to those truths.

Sometimes they’ll throw things back in your face — basically ‘How dare you come and preach to us?’ Often they get their backs up a bit, but again, I think it all has to be couched in saying ‘These are the issues we see, we’re raising them with you and we’d like to do that in an ongoing dialogue.’ In some countries that won’t be possible, but I think in most, we will be able to have that dialogue.

DM: Have you made any progress? If so, what?

AB: I’m not so naïve to think that things are going to change overnight but I think by having continuing dialogue, we can sort of move the yardstick a bit. One initial success we did have was in Sri Lanka. There’s a case where a prominent Muslim leader was arrested by the Sri Lankan authorities and was held and not being given full access to family. He was brought in on a prevention of terrorism-type act, on some fairly spurious charges. We protested immediately, issued a statement, had a conversation with the Sri Lankan high commissioner. A few weeks later, he was released and his first stop was at our high commission in Colombo to thank Canada for speaking out.
We also released a statement about the imprisonment of Grand Ayatollah Boroujerdi in Iran. He’s a moderate Shiite cleric who has challenged the Khamenei regime’s approach to fusing Shia Islam with the state. He’s been held in the notorious Evin prison for quite some time. Calling for his release, we received tremendous feedback from the ex-pat community here, thanking us for taking a stand. So it’s important that we do make statements.

We have to do things in addition to that. In diplomacy, we make these statements — for example, calling on the Egyptian government to make sure there’s sufficient security to protect Copts against violence. We need to continue to make those statements. We need to use all the tools at our disposal.

DM: How many other countries have such an office? Do you all meet?

 AB: So, it’s no great surprise that our closest allies in this regard are the U.S. and the United Kingdom. The U.S. has an Office of International Religious Freedom at the State Department. They also have a commission on international religious freedom, which is a congressionally appointed body. Those are two of my principal points of contact in the United States and unlike the Canadian model — this office exists through a decision of the machinery of government — in the U.S., those two bodies exist by virtue of a statute. There’s also the office of faith-based initiatives within the State Department, which I’ll be engaging as well. They work with faith communities in the U.S. with an eye to foreign policy. There’s also Ira Forman, who is the president’s special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism. The U.S. has many different points of contact. In the UK, they don’t have an officer per se, but they do have a minister of state, Baroness [Sayeeda Hussain] Warsi. She has a domestic focus and is within the foreign office so she also has responsibilities overseas. Other countries don’t have offices, but they have ambassadors for human rights with freedom of religion as their core component — that would include France and the Netherlands. I’ve had many meetings in France and many meetings in the U.S. I expect in the new year to be meeting with counterparts in Germany and the Netherlands as a pitstop on my way back from some other places.

DM: What countries make you most hopeful? Least hopeful?

AB: I think Nigeria represents a country where there’s a lot of progress taking place. The population is evenly divided between Christians and Muslims. The federal government doesn’t have any restrictions on freedom of religion per se, but you have all these social hostilities. The governments at the federal and state level are really trying to deal with the situation, not only the sectarian violence, but also the pernicious activities of Boko Haram. It’s a place where Canada has a long history of engagement. I think we can do things there. I’d say the same thing about Indonesia. There’s been tremendous work done, through former CIDA-funded projects, including one with McGill University, where they’re working with different Islamic universities in Indonesia. I think Turkey could also be one of those countries.

The major challenges would be countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, China. At the present time, Egypt is going through tremendous period of transition. I’ve got very good relations with Ambassador Wael Aboul-Magd in Ottawa, for whom I have tremendous respect, and certainly the Coptic Orthodox community here, in the UK and the U.S. I’ve reached out to them. Egypt is a country where it’s very challenging now, but I think there are opportunities over time, as the transition moves forward, for us to engage and we’d very much like to do so.

DM: Can you share any stories from the field?

AB: I’ve met so many wonderful people. I was just in Turkey and I got to meet with the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople. He’s the first among equals from all the Orthodox patriarchs in the world. He’s the 207th successor to Apostle Andrew, so the presence of Christianity in Turkey goes back to the first century.

DM: So it’s a bit like meeting the Pope?

AB: Yes. And I’m an Eastern Catholic, a Ukrainian Catholic and so our mother church is actually the Church of Constantinople. It was wonderful meeting him, to be able to talk to him about freedom of religion and to see how he, not only as the ecumenical patriarch, the Greek-Orthodox archbishop, but also as a citizen of Turkey, says: ‘We have every right to have freedom of religion and to be legally recognized in Turkey as a community, and to have fewer restrictions on our community.’ And then, to just engage with him as a very holy man and a man of great wisdom, that was a wonderful opportunity.

One of the most meaningful interactions I’ve had was actually in Toronto, through the work of [Rev.] Majed El Shafie of One Free World International. He is a convert to Christianity. He was an Egyptian Muslim who converted and had to flee Egypt. He’s now a tireless and fearless defender of people facing persecution in many parts of the world, particularly in the Middle East and Central Asia. He met with me in Toronto and brought with him a young man in his 20s, an Afghan Christian. He had converted from Islam and was part of a small house church in Kabul. He was arrested by the Afghan authorities on a charge of apostasy. He was given away by people who knew him and he was taken to the police station where he was brutally assaulted and tortured.

And there he was, sitting in front of me with his young wife and their first-born child and at that meeting, well, I heard his whole story and then [Rev.] El Shafie said: ‘Is there anything you’d like to ask him?’ I’m usually a pretty stoic, solid sort of guy. I just broke down because there I was, confronted face-to-face by someone who’d faced tremendous persecution. He’d been welcomed to Canada and is now making his life here. In the midst of all that we do as diplomats — the advocacy, the programming work, the policy — you can’t forget that you’re doing it for people like him who are suffering and have suffered. And that’s why Canada has to do what it does.

A Look Inside Facebook

About this company

Facebook

Facebook was founded in 2004. Our mission is to make the world more open and connected. People use Facebook to stay connected with friends and family, to discover what's going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them.

Job description

As Facebook has become part of the daily lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world, policy makers in many countries naturally wish to talk to us, and we wish to talk to them. The Policy team manages these conversations - sharing information about the company's products and activities, responding to queries from politicians and regulators, and providing input into the development of regulation of the internet sector. We are looking for superb policy professionals who can combine a passion for Internet services like Facebook with a deep knowledge of the political and regulatory dynamics in their country. Successful applicants will become part of a team that is dealing with some of the most interesting public policy challenges of our times including privacy, safety, freedom of expression, the impact of the Internet on established business models, and new opportunities for public service delivery. This position will be based in Ottawa, Canada.

Responsibilities

• Develop and execute a strategic approach to achieve company goals in public policy in Canada
• Monitor legislation and regulatory matters affecting Facebook and advise the company with respect to policy challenges
• Represent Facebook in meetings with government officials and elected members
• Develop public policy positions with other team members at Facebook
• Build coalitions with other organizations to advance Facebook's policy goals
• Create innovative programs for outreach to policy makers on the opportunities offered by Facebook
• Advise Facebook teams on public policy matters to guide development of products, services and policies

Requirements

• A degree or advanced degree in a related field.
• 5+ years proven successful track record of experience working on relevant policy issues – candidates with both government/politics and industry experience strongly preferred
• Familiarity with working with politicians and government officials

http://diplomatonline.com/mag/2014/01/seven-steps-to-fixing-the-un/
                                                                                                                                                                                                                3590

Seven steps to fixing the UN

Diplomat | January 5, 2014 | 0 Comments

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon stands in front of UN headquarters in New York.
 

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in his 2007 acceptance speech to the General Assembly, noted: “The true measure of the success for the United Nations is not how much we promise, but how much we deliver for those who need us most.”

Anyone’s hopes for the UN on key reform issues vary according to the roles they think the organization should play in the new century. In my view, the delivery of better lives for the poor, oppressed and voiceless in all corners of the world, including more effective peacekeeping and humanitarian initiatives, should be the system-wide priority.

 By 1965, with numerous states from Africa and Asia joining as members, development issues had become increasingly important, resulting in the creation that year of the UN Development Programme (UNDP). The 1980s, however, were characterized by financial crisis and the retreat of the United States, which triggered a reform of the budgetary process and downsizing. With the end of the Cold War in 1989, a renaissance of the UN was expected; the first half of the 1990s saw major expansion and reforms.

 In the late 1990s, secretary-general Kofi Annan energized the fight against the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Other initiatives included the revamping of peacekeeping operations. The World Summit in 2005 recognized an international Responsibility to Protect (R2P) populations from genocide within their own borders.

Security Council

 For many years, the most frequently discussed change to the UN structure has been with the permanent five nations (P5) with vetoes on the Security Council (SC). The SC reflects geopolitical realities of 1945, when the UN was founded. Most of the 192 member countries today no doubt do not feel adequately represented on the security council, especially since it’s the key body responsible for world peace under the UN charter.

 Europe, which holds barely five percent of the world’s population, still controls two of five permanent veto seats in any given year, not including Russia. China and Russia today abuse their vetoes, or threaten to use them, more than other P5 members, although many accuse the U.S. of doing so as well. The status quo is unfair to countries whose financial contributions to the UN outweigh those of four of the five permanent members.

 Japan and Germany for decades have been the second- and third-largest contributors to UN budgets, at roughly 19 percent and 12 percent respectively. The current council membership also denies opportunities to states that have contributed in kind (participation in peacekeeping operations, for example) or by size, or both, to peace and security in world affairs. India and Brazil are notable here.
For a decade, the Group of Four (Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan) have led efforts on security council reform, hoping to benefit from any expansion in the number of permanent members. Others oppose the Group of Four rising from their current second-tier status in the world body. Some of the objectors, including Canada and Spain, are motivated by principle — opposing permanent membership for anyone.

 Any amendment requires a two-thirds majority of the overall UN membership (128 of the 192 states in the General Assembly). The only “prescription” that has any chance of passing is one that will persuade two-thirds of the UN member states to support it and not attract the opposition of any of the existing “perm five.” This is probably impossible in the foreseeable future.

Secretariat

 There are many demands to make the UN administration more transparent, accountable and efficient. Mark Malloch Brown, former secretary general of the UNDP, advocates “reconnecting merit to make the UN again an international meritocracy.” He believes the UN must stop promoting on the basis of political correctness, and must start to make more use of Asia, Africa and other regions holding many highly motivated professionals. Ambassador Munir Akram of Pakistan, recent head of the G-77, claims: “The major countries, the major powers hold very high positions in the secretariat and support their national interests and refuse to allow the secretary general to cut departments.”


Human rights

 The UN Commission on Human Rights was criticized continuously for the positions it gave to member governments that systematically violated the rights of their own citizens, including China, Libya, Cuba, Sudan, Algeria, Azerbaijan and Vietnam. As a result, Kofi Annan, in the In Larger Freedom report, suggested setting up a new Human Rights Council. In 2006, the General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to establish the new Human Rights Council. Unfortunately, it seems to be making many of the same mistakes as the commission. The jury is still out. The council recently held elections for new member states and voted in several that violate their own citizens’ human rights. Among them are the Communist regimes of China, Cuba and Vietnam; the Islamic states of Saudi Arabia and Algeria; and finally, Russia. Unless the new human rights body changes its membership selection and a number of other practices, it will inevitably follow its predecessor into the trash heap of history.

Creation of an environment organization

 In 2007, a “Paris Call for Action” read by then-French president Jacques Chirac and supported by 46 countries, called for the UN Environment Programme to be replaced by a stronger Environment Organization (UNEO) modelled on the World Health Organization. The sponsors included the EU countries, but not the U.S., China, Russia and India, the top four emitters of greenhouse gases. I believe UNEO is still on the drawing board.

General Assembly

 The General Assembly (GA) includes representatives from all member states. It is the chief deliberative, policymaking and representative body; it oversees the general budget, appoints non-permanent members to the Security Council and makes recommendations in the form of non-binding resolutions.

 Delegates and other observers say debates in the GA are often tedious and sometimes result in the adoption of repetitive resolutions. Its universal membership, and one nation/one vote policy, allows it, in theory, to be possible for the 128 smallest countries to achieve a two-thirds majority while representing only eight percent of the world’s population.

 In 2005, Kofi Annan recognized the need for reform and laid out steps towards a more effective general assembly in his report, In Larger Freedom. An ad-hoc working group was established in 2008 with a mandate to “identify further ways to enhance the role, authority, effectiveness and efficiency of the assembly….” This remains a work in progress.

System-wide coherence

 The UN launched “Delivering as One” in 2007 to improve the delivery of all UN funds in eight pilot countries in development, humanitarian assistance and the environment. Agencies such as UNDP, the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Food Program (WFP) are to co-ordinate work in the field, reduce administrative costs and improve efficiency. The UN is replacing its information-management system with one that will streamline the management of operations, resources and staff; reduce business processes by more than 70 percent and save hundreds of millions of dollars. The new program is intended to ensure the UN meets International Public Sector Accounting Standards.

Management

 The UN Secretariat has about 30,000 staff, with about a third at headquarters in New York, Geneva, Vienna and Nairobi. They run the bureaucracy of the UN, responding to decisions by the GA and the Security Council. At the 2005 World Summit, leaders committed themselves to strengthening the UN through a series of management reforms. The categories include changing the secretariat’s management structure, reviewing UN mandates older than five years, restructuring the office for internal oversight (OIOS), and establishing an ethics office.

Conclusion

 Many of the above-indicated initiatives, in combination or by themselves, seem likely to make the United Nations Organization a better instrument to fulfil the world’s hopes and dreams. Among the numerous books of recent years on the UN, The Best Intentions: Kofi Annan and the UN in the Era of American Power, 2006, by James Traub, is the one I’d recommend first to understand what is most needed today to bring the UN up to its full potential.

David Kilgour is a former MP and was secretary of state for the Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Africa.