The Guardian’s lead headline today “2025: The End of US Dominance” sounded dramatic, reporting the US National Intelligence Council’s Global Trends Review and its conclusions:

• US intelligence: ‘We can no longer call shots alone’
• European Union will be ‘hobbled giant’ by 2025
• Triumph of western democracy not certain.

It is quite clear, however, that what it contains can be found in a document that has been quietly available from the UK’s own Ministry of Defence for the last year or so: “The DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme 2007-2036″.  It is interesting to know that the US intelligence world is so dependent on material produced by the UK!  The last time that happened was when Colin Powell reported on WMD in Iraq and as they say the rest is history. 

Actually, the MoD document is very good and a thought-provoking read, which I commend to anyone interested.  And, of course, it may be that the fact that both documents are so similar will suggest that the conclusions should be taken really seriously by the incoming Obama administration and our own government.

Today saw the latest in the series of meetings on the London – New York Dialogue, promoted by the Urban Land Institute.  Having been involved in many of the predecessor discussions, originally sponsored by Greater London Enterprise, over the last fifteen years or so, it was good to go along and hear how ideas are developing particularly in the light of the world economic crisis.

The opening keynote address was given by Dan Doctoroff, who was Mayor Bloomberg’s Deputy for Economic Development until the beginning of this year when he moved (interestingly) to be President of Bloomberg (his boss’s old firm).  He pointed out that this was the twelfth major economic crisis since New York became a major financial centre in the late 18th Century, and that New York (and London) had ultimately emerged strengthened from the previous eleven. 

The measure he used to assess the crisis was the number of Bloomberg Terminal installations in businesses around both cities: the total had risen by around 60% over the four years to the end of 2007, but the number had then flat-lined.  This flat-lining, however, does not imply stability – there is substantial churn in the figures with a fall-off in the large firms but plenty of new installations in smaller financial firms. As he put it: “Financial services are Darwinian” and this churn is a healthy sign for the future.

He emphasised the importance of London and New York not seeing each other as competitors but as collaborators – the word I would have used would have been symbiotic – and this led to a strong plea for stronger links between the two cities.

He characterised three factors as being required for the continued success of world financial centres like London and New York: firstly, that the cities are English-speaking (this may be something of a tautology); secondly, that they have a diverse population with “immigrant energy” (there has been a net inflow into London of around a million people from overseas in the last ten years); and thirdly, that being a forward-looking financial centre is “in the DNA”.

However, the position of London and New York is not necessarily assured.  It will be essential to maintain their infrastructure – in particular, transport, personal safety/security, and quality of life.  Neither city can afford to sacrifice any of these in the aftermath of the current crisis.  Moreover, because of the critical role both cities play in their national economies, both cities need to energise their national governments in their support (this is particularly true for London whose impact in supporting the rest of the UK economy is crucial).

I asked him how important he saw the need to maintain social cohesion and address economic inequalities in cities.  He answered that it was a vital part of maintaining a quality of life conducive to a stable future.

Two issues occurred to me.  First, Mayor Bloomberg’s vision for New York (PlaNYC), which Doctoroff had a key role in devising, with its 127 integrated initiatives affecting the environment, housing and transport is far more ambitious and cohesive than anything that has yet emerged from Mayor Johnson’s office in London. 

Second, much more needs to be done to put the case for London to have the resources necessary to maintain and improve its infrastructure.  Successive UK Governments have short-changed the capital, despite London’s key role as a driver of the UK economy.  A start could be made with the capital’s business rates.  At present, all business rates are levied  by local councils on the businesses in their area at a standard rate set by national government.  That money is not, however, for the local councils to use.  Instead, it is passed en bloc to the Treasury, who redistribute it back to local government pro rata in respect of population.  For the local authorities in London, this is a net loss each year of around £2 billion.  In essence, London’s businesses are subsidising those in the rest of the country by that amount.  Think how useful a £2 billion per annum contribution to a London Infrastructure Fund would be …..

Let nobody say that House of Lords Select Committee reports are without influence!  It seems that one of the recommendations of the House of Lords Committee inquiry into “Personal Internet Security” has been taken on board by Pakistani President, Asif Ali Zardari.  The Committee, of which I was a member, recommended stiffer penalties for those convicted of cyber-crimes.  However, Zardari’s response has probably gone just a bit further than we had in mind.  He has now issued a decree backdated to the end of September that sets the maximum penalties for internet crime as death or life imprisonment.

Those people who felt I had gone too far when I called for a Sarblanes-Oxley type approach to company directors who fail to take information security seriously enough might care to note what the Zardari solution might be!

I keep hearing that one of the first acts of President Obama when he takes office in January will be to announce the closure of the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay.  Symbolically this will have a significant impact on the world image of the United States.  Guantanamo Bay has become synonymous with human righs abuses and the role of the camp itself is, of course, extremely dubious in terms of international law.  It will remove one thread of the single narrative used to lure individuals down the path to violent extremism (not in itself enough to stop violent extremism, but helpful nonetheless).

The question now being posed is what will happen to the detainees.  Only a tiny number have ever been fed into a proper judicial process for trial.  Some of them if returned to their former countries of origin are likely to face torture or the death penalty.  Moreover, as one sage counter-terrorist expert pointed out to me the other evening, if a detainee wasn’t a terrorist or a violent extremist when he was sent to Guantanamo Bay, the experience there may well have turned him into one.  No easy challenge for the incoming Obama administration.

Another early decision of the Obama administration will also probably be to merge the Homeland Security Council with the National Security Council.  This too looks like a wise decision – having a dual leadership function for something like security, as has existed in the US since 2002, is a recipe for duplication, unclear accountability, and muddle.

Before we all get too carried away with how Barack Obama’s victory last week has changed the United States for ever, here are two facts to ponder.  The New York Times reports that sales of handguns, rifles and ammunition have surged in the last few days, according to gun store owners around the USA, and polling organisation, Rasmussen, says that 91% of Republicans have a favourable view of Sarah Palin and 64% say she would make the best choice for President next time round.

Perhaps I shouldn’t be too surprised:  I vividly remember being on holiday in the United States the summer before last and getting into conversation with people at the next table in a restaurant one evening.  We asked them who they were supporting as the next President (the election was still fifteen months away).  One opined that maybe they would support Rudy Giuliani, only to be shouted down by the others on the grounds that he was too left-wing.  Then one of the men announced that he was in the ABC Party – Anyone But Clinton.  Then a moment later added “And, of course, we can’t have a man of color.”  What was so striking was that he felt no reservations about making such a remark in public, to complete strangers and in – of all places – a restaurant in Martha’s Vineyard.

I have been sent a video message from the Obama campaign. 

This can only be described as viral campaigning at its best.

I hope it works next Tuesday.