Today's global governance increasingly runs on contracts rather than treaties. Public indicators — commonly mapped to the UN's SDGs — are translated into Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), written into clauses, verified by third parties, and executed by rules that release or withhold money or change pricing. Miss a milestone and disbursements pause; miss a target and coupons step up.
This ‘conversion layer’ substitutes diplomacy with rule-triggered execution in public loans/grants and contractual automaticity in capital market instruments.
Prophetically, Alfred Zimmern wrote about economic coordination organised around international social justice as a mode of governance back in 19261. Nearly a century later, his vision has materialised as governance by spreadsheet, empire by algorithm, and control through the interconnected networks of international finance.
A vision strongly aligned with Eduard Bernstein’s revisionist Marxism (1899), later developed by Leonard S. Woolf in International Government (1916), and carried into League-of-Nations blueprints by… yes, Alfred Zimmern.
It’s a small world, after all.
Executive Summary
Global governance has quietly undergone a revolution. Instead of relying on treaties and diplomatic pressure, international organisations now embed automatic financial enforcement directly into contracts and loans. Public indicators — commonly mapped to UN Sustainable Development Goals — are converted into Key Performance Indicators, verified by third parties, and executed through rules that automatically release or withhold money. Miss conservation targets, and debt relief stops. Fail health indicators, and loan tranches suspend. Under-perform on sustainability metrics, and bond rates automatically increase.
This ‘conversion layer’ operates through five enforcement channels: cash-flow gating, pricing penalties, eligibility gates, allocation formulas, and collateral channels. When verification occurs, financial consequences follow automatically without human discretion.
The system traces to Robert McNamara's 1961 Pentagon planning methods, which migrated to the World Bank and evolved into today's Results-Based Management framework underpinning SDG monitoring.
Environmental finance represents the most sophisticated application. Debt-for-nature swaps pledge territories as collateral — when targets are missed, asset management clauses activate, transferring control from communities to international actors. Environmental claims become enforceable collateral with creditor rights modelled on — of all things — obscure aircraft financing conventions, appropriately out of Cecil Rhodes’ home town; Cape Town.
This shifts governance from political negotiation to contractual automaticity. Countries retain formal sovereignty while submitting to external monitoring. Metrics triggering financial consequences are determined by technical committees, not democratic deliberation.
Alfred Zimmern's 1926 prediction about economic coordination as imperial governance has been realised. Today's empire operates through Verification Agencies and Disbursement-Linked Indicators rather than colonial administrators. The conversion layer extends from budgetary discipline to territorial control, with environmental stewardship justifying systematic dispossession through performance measurement.
The stakes: replacing democratic politics with administered performance metrics — governance by spreadsheet rather than public deliberation.
Key Terms and Mechanisms
Before examining this system's operation, it is essential to distinguish between its various instruments and enforcement channels:
Disbursement-Linked Indicators (DLIs)2 in Program-for-Results (PforR)3 and Results-Based Lending (RBL)4 are administrative mechanisms where multilateral development banks release tranches of public financing only upon verified achievement of specified results. Verification is typically conducted by government audit bodies or Independent Verification Agencies according to predetermined protocols.
Variable tranches5 in EU budget support operate similarly but through European Commission delegations, which verify performance against agreed indicators and apply formulaic calculations to determine partial payments for partial achievement.
Sustainability Performance Targets (SPTs)6 in Sustainability-Linked Bonds (SLBs)7 and Loans (SLLs) are contractual mechanisms where private market instruments automatically adjust coupon rates or margins based on performance. Verification is conducted by external assurance providers — typically major accounting firms — according to international auditing standards.
Performance-Based Conditions (PBCs)8 in Investment Project Financing represent a hybrid approach, embedding results-based triggers within traditional project loans.
The crucial distinction lies in who verifies performance and how consequences are applied: development banks use administrative discretion within predetermined rules, while capital markets rely on contractual automaticity with limited discretion.
The Conversion Layer: From Ideals to Contractual Reality
The machinery of this new governance begins with what might be called the 'conversion layer' — a repeatable pipeline that transforms the lofty aspirations of international development into the cold precision of financial enforcement. The process follows a predictable sequence: a Sustainable Development Goal indicator9 becomes a programme Key Performance Indicator10 or Sustainability Performance Target, which is then written into a contract clause, subjected to a verification protocol, and finally executed through automatic disbursement or pricing logic.
Consider how this works in practice. The World Bank's Program-for-Results financing doesn't simply hope that borrowing countries will achieve their stated objectives. Instead, it specifies Disbursement-Linked Indicators11 with 'credible verification protocols' built directly into the legal agreements12. No verified result, no disbursement — with the mathematical precision of a Swiss timepiece. The Asian Development Bank's Results-Based Lending13 operates on the same principle: 'disbursements are linked to the achievement of results', as their official documentation states with admirable clarity14.
This represents a fundamental shift in how power operates in the international system. Where previous generations of policymakers had to rely on the messy business of diplomatic pressure and moral suasion, today's technocrats have constructed a system where compliance is purchased rather than negotiated. Verification typically relies on Independent Verification Agents (IVAs)15, supreme audit institutions, or external assurance providers; their reports (plus agreed verification protocol tables) are the legal triggers for disbursement or pricing changes.
The European Union has perfected this approach with characteristic efficiency. The Recovery and Resilience Facility16, established to distribute Covid-19 recovery funds, embeds automatic suspension mechanisms directly into Article 24 of the governing regulation17. Miss your milestones, and the taps are turned off — no committee deliberations required. The EU's budget support programmes go further still, using 'variable tranche computation' that pays out partial amounts for partial performance, calculated by formula rather than political judgement18.
The Five Channels of Financial Control
This new architecture of governance operates through five distinct but interlocking channels, each designed to shape behaviour through economic incentives rather than traditional diplomacy:
Cash-flow gating → Funds disbursed/withheld on verified results. Examples: World Bank Program-for-Results/ADB Results-Based Lending DLIs; Global Fund tranche releases; Green Climate Fund REDD+ results-based payments.
Pricing penalties → Automatic coupon/margin step-ups on missed SPTs/KPIs. Example: Enel Sustainability-Linked Bonds19 (+25 bps on failure).
Eligibility gates → Access to facilities contingent on milestone assessments. Example: EU Recovery and Resilience Facility (Reg. (EU) 2021/241, Art. 24) disbursement blocks20.
Allocation formulas → Country/programme envelopes scaled by scores. Examples: IDA Sustainable Development Finance Policy set-asides/discounts21; IFC Anticipated Impact Measurement and Monitoring22 in approvals.
Collateral/risk channels → Central-bank haircuts/eligibility that raise funding costs. Example: ECB climate factor (announced 29 July 2025, applies H2 2026) reducing collateral value for high-risk bonds23.
Environmental Finance: The Conversion Layer in Nature's Ledger
Debt-for-nature swaps24 represent perhaps the most sophisticated application of the conversion layer to environmental governance, demonstrating how ecological indicators become financial triggers with mathematical precision. These instruments exemplify all five enforcement channels operating simultaneously within a single financial structure.
Belize's 2021 'blue bond' debt swap25 illustrates cash-flow gating in environmental finance: debt service reductions flow in tranches contingent on verified marine conservation results. Miss the marine protected area coverage targets, and debt relief stops. Ecuador's 2023 debt-for-nature swap26 — the largest ever at $1.6 billion — embeds pricing penalties that adjust interest rates based on Galápagos conservation milestones. The Seychelles27 and Barbados28 swaps demonstrate allocation formulas where the scale of debt relief is calculated using quantified conservation outcomes, while eligibility gates control access to subsequent tranches based on environmental performance.
The verification apparatus has become remarkably sophisticated: satellite monitoring tracks deforestation and land use changes in real-time, marine sensor networks monitor ocean protected areas, and third-party environmental auditors — typically major conservation organisations like Conservation International or WWF — conduct independent assessments according to international standards. The automaticity rivals anything in traditional development finance: algorithmic analysis of satellite data can trigger immediate suspension of debt relief payments.
This environmental conversion layer builds on measurement infrastructure created by multilateral environmental agreements that have evolved far beyond their original treaty functions. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)29 now operates as a vast KPI30 generation system: Nationally Determined Contributions31 become performance targets in climate finance agreements, REDD+ Measurement, Reporting, and Verification systems32 provide the verification protocols for forestry bonds, and Article 6 carbon market mechanisms33 create automatic pricing adjustments based on emissions performance.
Similarly, the Convention on Biological Diversity's Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework34 has transformed the CBD from a conservation treaty into a measurement infrastructure. The framework's 23 targets35 are being systematically converted into KPIs for biodiversity finance, while National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans36 become programme-level indicators that trigger financial consequences. The framework's monitoring indicators feed directly into debt-for-nature swap conditions and conservation bond structures.
The result is that multilateral environmental agreements increasingly function less as traditional treaties requiring diplomatic implementation and more as standardised measurement systems that generate the indicators for automatic financial enforcement. The UNFCCC's Enhanced Transparency Framework37 and the CBD's monitoring framework have become the verification protocols for a rapidly expanding universe of environmental finance instruments.
From Conservation to Capture: The Territorial Endpoint
The quiet revolution is that environmental claims are becoming collateral. Registries and contracts are being designed to recognise security interests in credits and performance-linked cash flows, allowing them to be pledged, perfected, and enforced across borders. Toolkits borrowed from international secured-transactions law — priority rules, step-in rights, expedited remedies — are now the template market lawyers cite for de-risking nature-linked finance. In effect, we are moving from governance by indicator to governance by lien: when verification fails or payments stop, the remedy isn’t just reputational pressure; it’s creditor rights with real bite.
The legal architecture now taking shape borrows from the Cape Town Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment (and its Mining, Agricultural and Construction (MAC) Protocol)38: create an ‘international interest’, register it, and give creditors expedited, insolvency-resistant remedies (the Aircraft Protocol’s widely used ‘Alternative A’). That playbook — priority rules, step-in rights, rapid enforcement — has standardised collateral across borders for aircraft, rail and space assets, and the MAC Protocol extends the model to heavy equipment. As carbon-market infrastructure (like the Paris Agreement Article 6.4 registry) is designed, market lawyers are already arguing for recordable security interests in credits/cash-flows — importing Cape-Town-style creditor rights into nature-linked finance.
The conversion layer's most significant implications emerge when environmental finance progresses beyond financial enforcement to territorial control. Debt-for-nature swaps represent merely the first stage in a systematic progression that can culminate in the transfer of sovereignty over land and natural resources from communities to international financial actors. The mechanics unfold with methodical precision: initial debt-for-nature agreements pledge specific landscapes as collateral for debt relief, establishing conservation obligations tied to defined territories. These lands then become assets in landscape approach ecosystem service blended finance deals, where Natural Asset Companies39 (NACs) or similar vehicles securitise carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, and other ecosystem services into tradeable financial instruments that generate revenue streams for private investors.
The critical transformation occurs when conservation performance falters or payment obligations are missed. Asset management transfer clauses — embedded in the original (typically proprietary) financing agreements — activate automatically, transferring operational control from national or community management to external entities. What begins as ‘temporary technical assistance’ during a performance shortfall often becomes permanent management as the financial logic makes restoration of local control economically irrational for the creditor institutions. This represents collateral capture on a territorial scale, where the five enforcement channels transform from budgetary discipline mechanisms into land grab enablers: cash-flow gating becomes payment stoppage triggering management rights transfer; collateral channels make the land itself seizable; eligibility gates remove access to conservation finance and thereby management rights; allocation formulas translate poor performance scores into reduced sovereignty over natural assets. The system achieves what traditional colonialism required military force to accomplish — the systematic transfer of territorial control from local communities to international actors, but now under the moral authority of environmental protection rather than civilising missions.
The Infrastructure of Standardisation
What makes this system truly formidable is not just its comprehensiveness, but its standardisation. International organisations have constructed a sophisticated infrastructure that makes the conversion of development indicators into financial triggers routine and repeatable.
The architecture operates through distinct but interlocking layers. ICMA provides instrument guidance40 (Sustainability-Linked Bond principles/SPT calibration) and impact reporting frameworks41 that link indicators to SDGs. GIIN IRIS+42 offers a taxonomy of metrics and KPI 'building blocks' aligned to SDGs that investors use for due diligence. MSCI SDG alignment43 provides issuer-level methodologies that investors use to select and weight KPIs in sustainability-linked instruments.
The result is a comprehensive ecosystem where UN development priorities are processed through international market standards, converted into standardised impact metrics, and embedded in financial contracts with automatic enforcement mechanisms44. What was once the domain of bespoke political negotiation has become industrialised, with off-the-shelf solutions for converting any conceivable development objective into measurable, verifiable, and financially enforceable targets.
This standardisation serves a dual purpose. It reduces transaction costs for the architects of the system, making it economically viable to embed performance triggers in an ever-expanding range of financial instruments. But it also creates a form of intellectual hegemony, where the metrics that matter are determined not by democratic deliberation but by the technical committees of international financial organisations.
The McNamara Lineage: From Pentagon to Planet
The intellectual genealogy of this system traces directly from the Pentagon to planetary governance via Robert McNamara. In 1961, as Secretary of Defence, McNamara implemented the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS)45, importing Ford Motor Company's quantitative methods into military planning. PPBS reduced all activities to measurable outputs — military effectiveness became kill ratios, sortie rates, cost-effectiveness analyses.
When McNamara moved to the World Bank presidency in 196846, he imported this quantitative gospel. PPBS's core move — reducing activity to comparable, optimisable outputs — migrated with McNamara to the World Bank and, via Results-Based Management, into today's SDG-indexed KPIs that now carry financial teeth through the conversion layer.
The UN system's Results-Based Management framework47 represents PPBS's direct descendant. The Sustainable Development Goals48, with their 169 targets and 234 indicators49, constitute the most ambitious attempt to subject human progress to comprehensive measurement. The alignment between SDG indicators and RBM Key Performance Indicators culminates a tradition from the military-industrial complex—the same analytical mindset that optimised nuclear weapons deployment now shapes how the international community measures progress toward eliminating poverty.
Rule-Based Execution: The Death of Discretion
Perhaps the most revolutionary aspect of this system is its rule-based execution. Once verification occurs, the financial consequences follow with mechanical precision. Coupons and margins step up automatically on KPI observation dates. Tranches are released or withheld upon receipt of Independent Verification Agency reports. The European Central Bank's climate factor will be applied through rule-based haircut overlays50, removing human discretion from the process entirely.
This rule-based execution represents a profound shift from the traditional mode of international relations, where outcomes depended on the vagaries of political will and diplomatic skill. The new system eliminates the friction of human judgement, replacing it with the cold efficiency of contractual enforcement.
Consider the implications. When Enel's sustainability-linked bonds specify that interest rates will increase by 25 basis points if renewable energy targets are missed, there is no room for appeals, no consideration of extenuating circumstances, no possibility of political intervention. The rule is embedded in the bond's Final Terms, and it fires automatically upon verification. The company's executives may plead their case in the financial press, but the money has already moved.
This automaticity is presented as a virtue — a triumph of accountability over the supposedly corrupt realm of political negotiation. But it also represents the triumph of technocracy over democracy, of financial engineering over public deliberation. The rules are set not by elected representatives but by task teams at multilateral development banks, by working groups at industry associations, and by committees of financial technicians.
Flexibility: The Illusion of Escape
The architects of this system are not naive. They understand that rigid enforcement without escape valves would eventually provoke rebellion. Accordingly, they have constructed elaborate mechanisms for managing flexibility while preserving the system's essential logic.
Recalibration procedures allow for the adjustment of targets when circumstances change. The International Capital Market Association's Guidance Handbook51 details when and how Sustainability Performance Targets may be modified, typically in cases of mergers, acquisitions, or methodology changes. The World Bank's directives contemplate restructuring processes that can amend Disbursement-Linked Indicators and re-phase disbursements when programmes encounter difficulties52.
The European Union's budget support programmes incorporate 'partials' that pay reduced amounts for partial performance53, creating a graduated system of consequences rather than binary success or failure. Even the European Central Bank has indicated that its climate factor will be subject to periodic recalibration54.
But these flexibility mechanisms should not be mistaken for genuine escape hatches. They operate within the system's logic rather than outside it, providing relief valves that prevent systemic breakdown without fundamentally challenging the architecture of control. The borrower who successfully negotiates a recalibration of their performance targets has not escaped the system — they have simply agreed to be measured by a different ruler.
Moreover, the procedures for accessing flexibility are themselves bureaucratised and technocratic. Restructuring requires elaborate justifications, often including updated Verification Protocol Tables and revised monitoring frameworks55. The process becomes a form of performative submission, where relief is granted only to those who demonstrate their continued acceptance of the system's fundamental premises.
Flexibility in Practice: When the System Bends
Despite its mechanical precision, the system does accommodate change through established recalibration procedures, though these exceptions illuminate the broader rule. When the World Bank's Nigeria State Health Programme faced implementation delays due to Covid-19, the 2021 restructuring carried forward Disbursement-Linked Indicators while adjusting verification protocols to account for disrupted health services56. The programme's Verification Protocol Table was updated to include alternative data sources, but the underlying logic — no verified results, no disbursement—remained unchanged.
Similarly, when sustainability-linked bond issuers face corporate restructuring, ICMA's Guidance Handbook provides for KPI recalibration following mergers or acquisitions. These adjustments require elaborate justification, independent verification of new baselines, and often investor consent. These examples reveal flexibility as system maintenance rather than genuine escape. Recalibrations adjust targets and timelines, but not the fact of rule-based execution: once verification lands, pricing/disbursement logic still executes.
The Governance Revolution Nobody Voted For
The cumulative effect of these developments is nothing less than a revolution in global governance — one that has occurred largely beneath the radar of public attention and democratic debate. Traditional mechanisms of international cooperation required extensive negotiation, formal treaty ratification, and ongoing political commitment. The new system simply requires access to capital markets and a willingness to accept the metrics of international financial institutions.
This transformation preserves the fiction of sovereignty while systematically undermining its substance. Countries retain the formal right to reject conditional financing, but the alternative is often financial isolation in an interconnected world. The choice becomes not whether to participate, but on what terms — and those terms are increasingly dictated by the logic of the conversion layer.
The system's advocates present this as a triumph of evidence-based policymaking57 over the supposedly irrational realm of politics. Performance is measured objectively, verification is conducted by independent agencies, and consequences flow automatically from predetermined rules. What could be more rational, more fair, more efficient than governance by spreadsheet?
But this technocratic vision obscures fundamental questions about power and accountability. Who decides which indicators matter? Who determines the verification protocols? Who sets the performance thresholds that trigger financial consequences? These decisions are profoundly political, yet they are made in the technical committees of international organisations, far from the scrutiny of democratic institutions.
The result is a form of governance that is simultaneously more intrusive and less accountable than traditional diplomacy. More intrusive because it operates through the intimate machinery of public finance, shaping not just what governments do but how they think about what they should do. Less accountable because the key decisions are made by international technocrats who answer to no electorate and face no meaningful oversight.
The Democratic Deficit
The democratic implications are particularly troubling. National parliaments find themselves voting on budgets that are increasingly constrained by the performance requirements embedded in international financing agreements. The space for genuine political choice contracts as more and more policy areas become subject to the mechanical logic of disbursement-linked indicators and sustainability performance targets.
This represents a form of depoliticisation that serves the interests of international capital while diminishing the scope for domestic democratic participation. Complex questions about development priorities, environmental trade-offs, and social policies are reduced to technical metrics that can be plugged into automated enforcement systems.
The apparent irony is that this occurs precisely at a time when international organisations speak increasingly about 'country ownership'58 and 'locally-led development'59. The rhetoric of participation masks a reality of diminishing autonomy, as the conversion layer transforms political questions into technical problems with predetermined solutions.
The verification protocols that underpin the system create their own form of surveillance apparatus. Independent Verification Agencies become the eyes and ears of the international financial system, monitoring compliance with metrics that were developed in the conference rooms of Washington, Brussels, and London. Countries submit to this scrutiny not because they believe in its wisdom, but because they need the money.
The Market as Enforcer
Perhaps most remarkably, the system has succeeded in enlisting market forces as enforcers of international development objectives. Sustainability-linked bonds and loans have transformed private investors into, perhaps, unwitting agents of global governance, creating financial incentives that operate independently of political processes.
When a company issues a sustainability-linked bond with targets related to carbon emissions or renewable energy deployment, it creates a direct financial stake in achieving objectives that align with international climate goals. The market becomes a disciplinary mechanism, with credit rating agencies and bond investors scrutinising performance against metrics60 that ultimately derive from the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals.
This represents a remarkable achievement in institutional design: the creation of a system where private profit motives align with public policy objectives, at least as defined by international organisations. But it also represents the further colonisation of democratic space by financial logic, as policy objectives become matters of contractual obligation rather than political choice.
The system's advocates argue that this creates more credible commitments than traditional political promises. Politicians may change their minds, but bond contracts endure. The automaticity of financial enforcement provides the kind of predictable consequences that both investors and development organisations claim to want.
But this credibility comes at the cost of adaptability and responsiveness to changing circumstances. When performance targets are embedded in financial contracts with automatic enforcement mechanisms, there is little room for the kind of course corrections that democratic politics typically provides. The system becomes a form of governance by contract, where future options are constrained by past financial commitments.
The Colonial Echo
There is something unsettlingly familiar about this new architecture of control. The conversion of local political questions into technical metrics determined by international organisations echoes the colonial practice of indirect rule, where traditional authorities were maintained in form while being systematically subordinated to imperial objectives.
Like the colonial administrators who governed through local intermediaries while maintaining ultimate control over policy, today's international financial institutions govern through national governments while maintaining ultimate control over the metrics that matter. The borrowing country retains the formal trappings of sovereignty while submitting to an increasingly comprehensive system of external monitoring and automatic enforcement.
Zimmern's prescient observation about economic coordination as imperial governance61 finds its vindication in this contemporary system. The empire of the 21st century operates not through colonial administrators and gunboat diplomacy, but through International Verification Agencies and Disbursement-Linked Indicators. It is more subtle than its predecessor, but arguably more comprehensive in its reach.
The system's genius lies in its ability to present constraint as choice, subordination as partnership, and surveillance as technical assistance. Countries choose to participate in sustainability-linked financing not because they are compelled by force, but because they need access to capital markets. They submit to verification protocols not because they are occupied territories, but because they are responsible borrowers.
Yet the effect is remarkably similar to traditional forms of imperial control: the systematic subordination of local political processes to external priorities, the reduction of complex social questions to manageable technical metrics, and the creation of automatic enforcement mechanisms that operate independently of democratic accountability.
The Path Forward
This system is not a natural evolution of international cooperation — it is a conscious construction by specific actors with particular interests. Understanding its architecture is the first step toward democratising its operation or, if necessary, constructing alternatives that serve public rather than institutional purposes.
The challenge is not to reject the goal of measurable results or accountable governance, but to ensure that the definition of what counts as progress remains subject to democratic deliberation rather than technocratic determination. The metrics that trigger financial consequences should be chosen through transparent processes that include the voices of those who will be affected by them.
Verification protocols should be designed to serve learning and adaptation rather than merely surveillance and enforcement. The automaticity that is presented as a virtue of the current system could be reconsidered in favour of approaches that preserve space for human judgement and political response.
Most fundamentally, the conversion layer itself — the process by which development aspirations become financial triggers — should be recognised as a profoundly political rather than technical exercise. The current system succeeds in obscuring these political choices behind a veneer of objective measurement and neutral enforcement.
The new empire of numbers represents a remarkable achievement in institutional design, creating a system of global governance that operates through economic incentives rather than traditional diplomatic mechanisms. But its very efficiency in achieving the objectives of international organisations should prompt serious questions about its implications for democratic governance and political autonomy.
The choice is not between this system and chaos, as its advocates sometimes suggest, but between governance by contract and governance by politics — between the mechanical logic of financial enforcement and the messy vitality of democratic deliberation. The stakes could not be higher, for the system's ultimate success would mean the replacement of politics itself with the administered world of performance metrics and automatic consequences.
In the end, Zimmern's vision of economic coordination as imperial governance has been realised with a comprehensiveness that would have impressed the most ambitious colonial administrator.
The question now is whether democratic societies will recognise what has been constructed in their name, and whether they will choose to reclaim political space from the empire of numbers that increasingly governs their lives.
Yes that is THE question 'whether democratic societies will recognise what has been constructed in their name, and whether they will choose to reclaim political space from the empire of numbers that increasingly governs their lives' - everyone can help the latter outcome by sharing your work as far and wide as possible. That said, your work is very dense and detailed and I guess most people would not/could not be bothered to read any of it especially if they are starting from zero. Maybe you could produce some short articles for the 'unawake' with just the skeleton rather than all the details. (I do know you have written a more concise version 'Colonialism 2' but I meant 1 or 2 page summary) In the meantime I am sharing away cos you never know.