UNDG Strategic Priorities for 2010-2012
A not-so-recent entry, the much less-mentioned United Nations Development Group (UNDG) lists its main priorities for the period of 2012. Interesting parts include maximising of United Nations Country Teams (UNCTs) impact, strengthening of the delivering of knowledge/know-how and results, to name a few.

Unruly Politics, Big Society, Small World
May I introduce Catherine Blampied, a Doctoral Researcher at Bristol, whom I met through her contributions at my pet project, Global Politics Magazine. Her blog/website centres on her research work and in this entry, she talks about how development events such as Occupy London Stock Exchange (OLSX) is seen through discourse/Foucauldian work.

Refounding Good Governance
In this article by Charles Kupchan (originally posted in the New York Times), the author argues against the prevailing idea (promoted time and time again by politicians) that globalisation benefits all. Quite obviously not. It can benefit people when the system is re-looked and re-structured. Doesn’t anyone want to listen to people like Joseph Stiglitz? A very good International Political Economy (IPE)-ish article.

Global governance behind closed doors: The IMF boardroom, the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility, and the intersection of material power and norm stabilisation in global politics
Another not-so recent article, My senior Liam Clegg has a fascinating journal article here on the IMF. Read it. IPE-related.

Is uncertainty the only certainty in 2012?
ODI‘s Alison Evans argues that 2012 will be a dark year. Mayan predictions aside (I definitely don’t believe the prophecy), Dr. Evans is right to highlight want needs to be addressed.

Opening Development Finance Data for Transparency and Increased Donor Collaboration
Aid Transparency was the key them harped upon again and again at the Busan High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness. USAID now has released its Development Credit Authority so as to enter the aid transparency world. Thoughts?

Rebeca Grynspan: Remarks at the Arab Regional Launch of the Human Development Report 2011
The Arab Spring certainly brought much attention to the social-economic-political sections of Arab nations last year. Now the United Arab Emirates (UAE) joins many other Arab nations in having a country-based Human Development Report (HDR). All wonderful, but will that imposed external standards on the UAE and the same mistake in development repeated again?

Financing for Development: Trends and Opportunities in a Changing Landscape
Another not-so-recent paper, this one from the World Bank’s Concessional Finance and Global Partnerships(CFP) Vice-Presidency, all about the financing of development, especially for the Bank’s International Development Association (IDA) which I’m interested in. Extremely useful.

Transparency in South-South Cooperation: Why Does it Matter?
AidData 2.0 is not just chucked full of almost all the aid projects in the world, but also has blog posts. Here, the article talks about a rising topic in developmental aid/Official Development Assistance: The rise of Southern powers.

Development policy as a policy for the future
A press release from last year. Germany’s Ministry for International Development, the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development or auf Deutsch Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ) celebrated its 50th Anniversary last year.

STAR in UK terminology (it maybe global) stands for “Student Action for Refugees” and this is a university and UK-based campaigns group campaigning for (no awards for this) the rights of refugees (in the UK as well as pushing it for refugees right s globally). Refugees, let alone their human rights, is actually way out of my forte, even as one interested in international development (and I don’t think it’s related to IPE).

Even so, I accepted the invitation from Celine to head to Urban Village last Thursday to join in a STAR fundraising event–”Comedy and music night” it was titled. Celine, by the way, was a fellow participant at the “A future for Aid Data” workshop I wrote about here and a part time Masters student in Aid Management. What struck me of course was her level of experience and enthusiasm in campaigning and volunteer work–she helped out in a educational NGO in Indonesia and as an assistant teacher in China (thus acquiring more languages than me!) and now participating in several student campaign groups at university.

I also had another reason for heading for this event: Back in 2007, while running the Birmingham University UN Society campaigns section, my campaign to focus on refugees (UN-focused) also had a work with STAR down in London. More than that, I planned an awareness event on refugees but that failed miserably and never took place (mainly due to administrative hurdles). Back then, there was no STAR group at the university. So I wanted to see how successful it was compared to my piece of “floop”.

Two pounds for entry and there were balloons (orange and blue) emphasising the word STAR on them, plus posters on the wall. A music stage was set up but no sign of any comedy act present. Most eye-catching was a table full of cupcakes, cakes and other titbits, evidently the fundraising part. I soon however met up with Celine, her close friend and friends and clutching our drinks, we tried to find seats. “That chair will raise you quite a bit,” she remarked, noting that I found one with tall legs. Eventually, I was sitting on a normal chair.

The night basically was spent attempting to be audible to the people next to you—my new found friend was a German Erasmus (Exchange) student and then donating money in exchange for cakes, cupcakes etc etc. I probably dumped quite a bit of cash for pretty good cupcakes and brownies. Hey, it’s for a good cause. The noise of the night were students singing a couple of songs such as “These boots are made for walkin’” and some others I can’t name. Also, spent some time with Celine getting to know more about her campaigning activities, her work and catching up on various stuff.

All in all, the campaign was a success—an enormous turnout especially since it was near the end of “have to pass up essays and study for tests” term. I again as usual doubt that most people there were educated about the plight of refugees or supported the STAR cause. Yet, it probably raised enough money to make a difference in development.

Thanks again Celine. Good luck!

Anti-capitalist? Too simple. Occupy can be the catalyst for a radical rethink
Ha-Joon Chang once again informs us about the history of capitalism and the deficiencies of capitalism, especially with the almost global spread of the “Occupy Wall Street” protests. His long standing argument (mentioned not just here but in his books and journal articles) was that capitalism in the 19th to 20th Century in “the West” was not that of a “free” or “free-market” system but everything that today’s neoliberal pundits would scream at. Chang also talks about different systems of capitalism: America’s quite neoliberal capitalism system versus Europe’s partial regulatory system. Would there have been “Occupy Wall Street” (OWS) if America adopted the European model? Then again, would America ever turn to the European model?

The Globalization of Protest
The Nobel-prizing winning and ex-”rebel within the World Bank” economist Joseph Stiglitz also weighs in on the “OWS”, highlighting the common causes of such protests–”rent-seeking”, “anti-competitive practices”, “bailed out bankers”, “bonuses”, “underutilised resources”, “the failed Doha Development Round”, “unfettered markets”. Is anyone listening?

Developing Countries: Politics and Government

Congratulations to Tony Cunningham on tabling his first written question relating to his shadow position–that of shadowing the esteemed Department for International Development (DFID). He ask about “the Humanitarian Leadership Development Programme” and gets a reply from Minister of State Alan Duncan who quotes the recent “Saving Lives, Preventing Suffering and Building Resilience” paper. Good job Tony Cunningham, may you live up to or even exceed Mark Lazarowicz’s standards.

Critical International Political Economy
Dr. Stuart Shields, former chair of the International Political Economy Group (IPEG), has a co-edited book(him, Ian Bruff and Huw Macartney) coming out titled, “Critical Political Economy”. Too bad you can’t read excerpts.

International Political Economy
Another IPE book, edited by famous IPE scholars–Donna Lee, Jill Steans, Colin Hay, David Hudson, Adam Morton and Matthew Watson simply titled, “International Political Economy”. The table of contents certainly looks promising, detailing the roots of IPE and covering parts of Global Governance. Shame that IPE books like this still don’t cover much on foreign aid/Official Development Assistance (ODA) though.

More Dollars than sense: Redefining our Knowledge of Development Finance using AidData
Michael Tierney, one of the leading scholars on principal-agent (PA) theory, is also a former manager (but still member) of AidData. Here, he co-writes a journal article with AidData colleagues on how to use the website. Personally, AidData is really extensive–you can find almost every aid project under the sun there, however, it’s not exactly what I’m looking for in my PhD work. Sorry, Mike.

Italy’s new government forms cabinet-level aid ministry
Devex says there something good out out Italy’s new appointed (not elected) cabinet. They’ve formed a cabinet-level aid (foreign aid) ministry, something that is characteristic of cabinet-level aid agencies like the UK’s DFID. Headed by Andrea Riccardi, someone with some experience in international development, it may put Italian aid right. Maybe not, especially since when the country is riddled with fiscal problems and debt, aid will not be on the main agenda (unlike in the UK).

Perry’s Call to Zero Out Foreign Aid Wins Few Accolades
Another article on foreign aid, albeit on more negative note. With the US 2012 Election coming, Republican candidates are supposedly up in swing, trying to present an alternative to President Barack Obama. one of their common “alternatives”: reduce foreign aid, or as the article states, many of them like Rick Perry will start the aid budget at zero. As much as US aid is plagued with non-development ideas, even a high school kid will tell you how illogical it is to provide “no foreign aid”.

Busan and the United Nations – Is it time to strengthen the ties?
Thanksgiving around the corner? Nope, in Busan, South Korea, its the Fourth High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, something I wrote about in a previous post. Here, Arthur Muhlen-Schulte and Silke Weinlich argue (or rather lament) that the UN is not the central actor in the HLF and how this would adversely the global aid agenda. Poor UN, but then again, it has always been shunned.

2012 Country Scorebook
Last but not least, America’s latest aid agency, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, has released its country score cards. These detail how its “recipients” (they aren’t exactly) perform according to its “straitjacket” of rules. Neoliberal rules or effective aid rules?

This week, being reading week at POLSIS I had the time to attend a non POLSIS but rather and IDD organised talk titled, “A Future for Aid Data”. Specifically organised by Dr. Michael Hubbard and Pranay Sinha, it looks at the rise of non Organisation for Economic Co-Operation-Donor Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC) donors such as Brazil, India and China and others and how they should and could be incorporated into the present aid transparency discourse. I know some stuff about the Paris Declaration, but this conference was much more focus on a itty-gritty term: the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) (pronounced by some as I-Ah-Ti.) And I thought “Dee-fid” was weird enough….

I knew some aid big shots would be there such as Owen Barder, but I didn’t expect that many big shots. The first main speaker was some one I knew, Stephen Klingebiel as I used his doctoral thesis on the UNDP in my Masters Dissertation. At my table, I would later find out that the former, Director of the OECD Development Cooperation Directorate, Richard Carey was one of the members. Fast forward to lunch time, I caught up with a certain Michael Tierney, who was a former manager in charge of a website I came across: AidData. Where have I heard that name before I wondered, as I chatted with him and two others over topic such as the Eurozone Crisis and each of our countries’ politics.

It was only later that night that I looked back at my key book, Delegation and Agency in International Organizations that I realised that he was Associate Professor Michael J. Tierney, one of the leading scholars of Principal-Agent (PA) theory. If you read some of my posts a while back (and if you know me personally), PA theory is the central concept (well along with constructivism) for my theoretical approach in my thesis. It was a God-send indeed, to actually meet a scholar in PA theory. So, the next day, I mentioned how I heard of him and took every opportunity I needed to not just talk about aid transparency, but also testing my ideas and views on the PA model with him during every single break. It’s amazing how he got involved with aid data stuff really; he explained at the start of his presentation that “in his other life, he’s a Professor of International Relations” and definitely not an academic on development data. Still, that’s exactly where I want to be: a Scholar of International Political Economy (IPE) and yet with International Development as one of my main interests.

This is a rather short entry–I’ll do a full summary of the whole conference by expanding it later. It was just amazing to meet a scholar of PA theory under the backdrop of an aid or Official Development Assistance (ODA) conference.

That email address is rarely checked. Fortunately or unfortunately, for me, I check it last Tuesday, the 18th of October 2011 and saw an email from a certain editor (or so) of a certain magazine called “The Broker”. Basically, he was inviting me to write an article on the upcomingFourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness at Busan. He, a Mr. Denis Burke, specifically said the question would be, “How can the development agenda be expanded to include broader international concerns including, for instance, security, migration and climate policies? And is Busan the right place to do it?” but what struck me was that the email was dated 12th October 2011 and he specified the dateline as the next day, 19th October 2011.

Let me state her that while my interests rest deeply in foreign aid/Official Development Assistance (ODA), my knowledge of aid effectiveness is very superficial,; most of it stems from reading news and web sites, articles and talking to my friends from Cambridge and elsewhere who have worked in those areas. However, Mr. Burke said the article need not be too long (about 500 to 1000 words). After much contemplating on whether I should write an article that was not really my forte, this was the end result, submitted 2 hours before midnight on the 18th/19th of October.

Yes, it’s a tongue-in-cheek article and can definitely be improved upon. That is your tasks dear readers. Please feel free to add comments and suggestions and criticisms on the article itself–not on this post but on “The Broker” website itself.

After that I taught in a comprehensive school for four years. before moving to do VSO in East Africa. I spent two years in Zanzibar. When I was there I played two seasons of first division football for Malindi FC.

We finished second in our league in one season, and I played in front of crowds of 5,000 or 6,000.

My time in Africa politicised me. Seeing poverty at first hand changed the way I looked at things

(source: http://www.tonycunningham.org.uk/my-story)

Further evidence of his interest in development can be see by another paragraph further down:

In 1995 I wrote a report on landmines – the Cunningham Report was the very first to call for an outright ban on landmines – and in 1999 I wrote the development committee budget. It was a £2.8bn budget, and it included increased funding for Aids projects in Africa.

(source: http://www.tonycunningham.org.uk/my-story)

So Mr. Cunningham does care about International Development, as Mr. Lazarowicz did. But CVs and personal claims are just one thing–will he and Ivan Lewis inject real development-centred work into the Shadow Team as Andrew Mitchell & Co. did when the Tories were in opposition? Or, given the Mr. Cunningham was a Labour Whip for many years, will he only turn out to be a Harriet Harman type clone and drone about Labour’s “achievements” in development?

Welcome Tony Cunningham. Farewell Mark Lazarowicz. You were a great Shadow Minister.

Update: Mark Lazarowicz gave his reason here why he left the Shadow team. He wanted to spend more time with his constituents.

Anyway, breaking news: Yesterday, Labour leader Ed Miliband reshuffled most of his Shadow Cabinet. Harriet Harman unfortunately or fortunately is out of the Shadow DFID role and is now given four official (and long winded) titles: Shadow Deputy Prime Minister, Party Chair and Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Replacing her in shadowing the esteemed DFID is *Drum Roll* Ivan Lewis! (see also the Labour Party’s website).

I said “unfortunately or fortunately” for Harman as unlike Harman, who never had a official post in DFID, Ivan Lewis “knows” DFID as he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (PUSS) (crude acronym I know) of DFID from 2008 to 2009). So he knows DFID work and won’t be so politically-laden in his Commons debates with Andrew Mitchell, Alan Duncan and Stephen O’Brien. I hope.

Ivan Lewis year in DFID perhaps displayed actual development-focused, however, he had many politically-charged debates such as this one where he was slightly arrogant in defending Labour’s record on aid transparency. Then again, as i said, he knows DFID and has had focus on development issues. He may not be one who says silly things like women should be in DFID’s Ministerial Team in order to place female issues first. However, he could return to the same strutting, Labour-is-the-only-one-who knows-International-Development speak.

A further crucial issue is that the team members for Lewis have not yet been appointed by Miliband. So goodbye to Mark Lazarowicz and Rushanara Ali? I liked the latter especially, given that he did show a commitment in shadowing DFID. Who will replace both of them? Will the shadow team be an team full of Labour political speak or one committed to knowledge? As I’ve previously written, the shadow team should look at:

1) Not just focus on 0.7 as I’ve said. It’s economically proven as outdated. But what do you want to do with 0.7% of spending.

2) Visit International Development Think Tanks. Mitchell’s results-based and Cash-On-Delivery approach stems from his time at the Center for Global Development, a rather neoliberal think tank. But Mitchell also spoke at the Overseas Development Institute in London.

3) Get a favourite economist. From what I gather, Mitchell’s favourite economist is Paul Collier and therefore the fixation on sending aid to conflict affected countries. (I don’t know much about Collier to criticise him). So get a favourite economist.

4) Extensively visit developing countries.

5) Most importantly, get an alternative development-centred policy.

Will Lewis and his two yet-unknown helpers turn the shadow team around? Definitely the politically-charged LCID will echo every word Lewis & Co. says, no matter how development-centred it is. Oh well, time will tell. I eagerly await the first House of Commons Debate with Lewis in his new role.

This week, I attended the International Political Economy Group (IPEG, pronounced as I-PEG) annual meeting at Warwick University which was extremely special given that this year marked 40 years since the discipline of International Political Economy was founded by Susan Strange (see What is IPE? for an introduction to IPE and a short background to Strange). It only attended Day 2 of the workshop (the whole schedule is here) mostly because of the theme. Yes, Susan Strange is the mother of IPE but I wasn’t really trained with Strange’s stuff on markets, states, casino capitalism that sort of thing.

Anyway, Day 2 was a good pick as the First speaker was none other than Geoffrey Underhill. A renown IPE academic, he’s most well known for his book, Political Economy and the Changing Global Order (with many new editions) and now a Professor at the university of Amsterdam. He brought up a very engaging history of IPE and his journey and challenges in IPE. Some highlights include: IPE should not be a subset of IR (which I fully agree with), IPE looking back at Classical Political Economy (that was how I was I enter IPE, a la Matthew Watson), IPE encompasses many disciplines but should be an independent field, IPE scholars should have a broader coverage than IR scholars and also, the classic trans-Atlantic IPE divide: the classic debate started by Benjamin Cohen, counter by Richard Higgot and Matthew Watson and John Ravenhill and re-joined again by Cohen–all of this cna be found in the Review of International Political Economy. Professor Underhill also mentioned some four majro points but I failed to take down all the details.

Next came a panel titled, “Reflections on the knowledge structure”. This was entirely new subject area to me but it was educational covering areas that I didn’t expect to be part of IPE such as energy security. Following that was another presenter looking the history of IPE and her journey through the discipline–Professor Nicola Philips. She mentioned several arguments that were close to what Professor Underhill made but she also argued that IPE scholars should also deconstruct the debates within the sub-topics of IPE. She also mentioned stuff such as critical IPE and “Rising Powers” (middle-income countries.

After lunch was a panel titled, “Reflections on the production structure”. This was still something new to me but the speakers less so. I knew Phoebe Moore, who presented her books on labour institutions, through the British International Studies Association (BISA) Manchester conference. Simon Glaze, who argued about digging back into Adam Smith and William James to find the roots of IPE was a former PhD Researcher at Birmingham and one of the seminar tutors during my first year, although he didn’t teach me. Matthew Watson was in fact Glaze’s supervisor and it was he who brought me up with Classical Political Economists such as Smith but not William James, who is new to me.

The final panel (correction: Matthew Watson didn’t present, it was someone else) was on the same theme, entering into IPE fields that were more familiar to me such as migration. Matthew Bishop from the University of the West Indies gave a unique argument about Caribbean IPE, indicating that there are wider perspectives than the “mainstream” IPE–British and American or Western IPE. That also means that no one has bothered to forge Asian/Pacific IPE. Incidentally, during the IPE module taught by Colin Thain last year, he also brought up the proposal of drafting a non-Western IPE. Hmmm…

The last part was a roundtable discussion by four (not three as in the web link) major IPE academics who are also editors of IPE publications. Nicola Philips edits the New Political Economy journal, Ronen Palan is one of the editors of the Review of International Political Economy (RIPE), Rorden Wilkinson who published many books on trade and edits the Global Institutions series by Routledge and Leonard Seabrooke who also is a co-editor of the RIPE journal. By this time I was quite lethargic to note down what was mentioned by this fantastic quartet but their input was amazing.

Heading home, I had several thoughts. One, IPE is indeed a young discipline but one of a very unique and relevant stature and definitely covering a wider depth than typical political economy and definitely International Relations. Two, while I’m part of IPEG and IPEG in the UK has been well established, IPE itself is still not a widely taught field–definitely not taught at undergraduate level in some of the world’s top universities/colleges. For this, I’m thankful I studied at Brum and was brought up with academics like Matthew Watson and Andre Broome. Third, IPE can cover many disciplines–as I found out through this IPEG conference. And that is what I’m trying to do in my thesis…

One of the leading donors is, without guess the United Kingdom, which is the only (and I think so) OECD donor and G8 nation to hold its aid budget (see page 22) (at 0.56% of GDP/GNI) while other donors see aid primary target for cuts.DFID has provided much to the famine crisis since it broke–see for example this, this, this and this (I know all are DFID news releases and biased but I’m rushing this entry).

All of this is nice and good but this is against the recent survey by The Chatham House where the people placed development assistance as the least important part of the UK’s foreign policy and see it as quote-unquote, “wasted and does little or nothing to promote British interests; it should be radically reduced”. Specifically, 57% (see various sections of the detailed report) of those Britons polled believe so. While the UK is facing a high debt of £ 1105.8 billion (in December 2010) and running a tremendous deficit and a high borrowing from outside debtors. Andrew Mitchell has called the UK a “Development Superpower“. Well it is a “superpower” forged by the will of the parliament and the government, not the views of an increasing disillusioned electorate. In an IPE view, this goes against the secondary argument made by Milner (2006) that the electorate wishes to see aid used for development humanitarian means and that for the government it is always for security interests.

That’s a debate for another time. What have other countries added to the FAO’s call? Skipping away from the usual OECD and non-OECD big donors, I highlight two contrasting examples. Mexico has provided/pledged US$ 1 million in assistance to the crisis ((English translation). In sharp contrast, the Small Island Developing State (SIDS) (not city-state) country of Singapore pledged only US$ 50,000. It is of simple knowledge that Singapore is a high growth country that while classified as “developing”, is “developed” and surpasses many OECD members in terms of living standards and GDP. Mexico in contrast is still a very much low-income developing country. Data from the World Bank Group shows that Mexico’s GNI per capita at current US$ is US$ 9330 in 2010 while Singapore’s is US$ 40920.

The discussion is naturally a political and or political economy one. Should rich countries, especially those not facing a debt crisis or deficit provide more than those who are developing status? Why do some donors still contribute substantial amounts when their own economic situation (and Mexico has regions of high poverty according to my colleague Iván) is terrible? Shouldn’t there be a more equal sharing on the burden, even though some countries are not constant donors or OECD-DAC members (not all members of the FAO and other UN agencies involved are members of the OECD).

I’ll leave the debate as such for now (I may come back to this entry to improve it or follow-up with another).

PS: In no way did I imply I was unhappy with the actual amounts Mexico or Singapore (or the UK) gave. I’m quite glad that countries have answered the call of the FAO.

Milner, H.V., 2006, “Why Multilateralism? Foreign aid and domestic principal-agent problems” in Hawkins, D.G. et al (eds.) Delegation and Agency in International Organizations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.77-106

The average American would cheer. However, you do expect some Americans to be rationale over development expenditure admist this period of austerity (well not many unlike the UK). These people are those who are in the Center (American spelling; British would be Centre) for Global Development (CGD or CGDev), the so-called counterpart to London’s renown Overseas Development Institute (ODI) (a future entry will explain the vast differences between the two). These “development experts” have been arguing against cutting US aid/ODA/foreign assistance–see for example this, and now crying against the Republicans/Tea Partiers for creating an implausible “foreign assistance” bill (see this). They’ve also pleaded with Congress not to cut funding to the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) (see this). All wee nice and great but…

CGD itself has always been an anti aid supporter. The first clear indication is that of people like Todd Moss who co-author the Ghost of 0.7 article with Micheal Clemens, disagreeing with the need for a target for ODA. Then in a huge string of articles, such as this, this and this (and dozens of others, mostly by Clemens), CGD paints a negative view of the MDGs, stating that they cannot be implemented/measured, are unsuitable for Africa (a la Easterly, who is a friend of CGD) and simply not the right way for development. In doing so, CGD feeds into the exact rhetoric that the right-wingers and Tea Partiers and some Republicans (and even Democrats) are saying: foreign aid/foreign assistance is bad. By promoting a “no to 0.7%” view, CGD is saying, America can lower its aid budget, don’t increase it, don’t give out money. It says that there shouldn’t be an aid target, so in a legislators mind, there’s nothing  from reducing the budget from around 0.21% of GDP to 0.07%of GDP (I’m taking a figure one tenth of the UN target). By attacking the MDGs, CGD creates the very anti-development sentiment that extreme politicians or political figures like: Charity begins at home.

Of course there are flaws in the 0.7% argument I have mentioned it here (read the Global Politics Magazine Article). In the same article and others however, I still support the need for a aid target and not go down the line with the Moss and Clemens argument. Similarly, for the MDGs, I have shown that they are flawed in areas but flawed mostly due to people’s misinterpretation of it. However, what CGD has constantly been saying is that: aid and the MDGs are terrible. And thus this matches the logic of those who see that the US aid budget is the main area to cut. Now CGD laments and cries, “please don’t do it”.

CGD has only themselves to blame. You said it, they will do it.

(Short entry. May be expanded.)