Moscow redraws the map of Georgia, recognising Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as the dust settles and it becomes clearer where power lies on Europe's borderlands, Ben Judah writes for ISN Security Watch.
Hours before the Russians pulled their forces out of the strategic Georgian town of Gori, self-declared commandant General Vlachyslav Borisov stopped his vehicle and gruffly threw open the door to speak to journalists. Sweating and smelling faintly of cognac, he barked: "I'm out of here. I'm withdrawing my combat forces form the area. But peacekeepers are staying." Then he slammed the door.
Russian officials accidentally dropped another hint to their intentions. ISN Security Watch managed to see a roughly drawn ink diagram left behind after a meeting of Russian and Georgian officials on 21 August. This is the new map of Georgia.
The map showed two circles emanating from the center of both the Ossetian and Abkhaz enclaves that reached out to touch the Georgian cities of Gori and Senaki. These are the buffer zones where Borisov plans to leave his troops. However, the future of these territories is still uncertain.
Just outside the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali, the peacekeeping barracks that once hosted a 500-strong Russian contingent is a burned-out wreck. The Kremlin's spokesman and one of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's chief aides, Alexander Machevsky, accompanies a tightly controlled press tour through the enclave to inspect the damage.
Standing in front of the rubble, pointing through the smashed walls of the base to the dozens of scorched bare metal bed frames, Machevsky makes his point clear. "There can be no return to the status quo ante."
He trudges over a floor littered with bullet casings from AK-74s, pieces of burned clothing and the shredded personal belongings of the soldiers, stressing the brutality of the Georgian attack. Unnoticed by their superiors, a few troops are sitting around drinking heavily in the evening gloom. None look happy.
In Tskhinvali, the de facto South Ossetian president bellows to the crowds from a podium on Stalin Street: "The Caucasus is a Russian region. It has always been that way. We are not going to let adventurers like [Georgian President Mikheil] Saakashvili or [US Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice change that. We are going to be an independent state within Russia. It's logical."
The poorly dressed and glum looking huddle drifts away, perhaps contemplating the implications of that speech. The Kremlin's flag flies from government buildings and paramilitaries wear little ribbons of Russian and Ossetian colors.
Russia is clearly in control - but for the moment this is nothing like a permanent settlement.
On 26 August, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced he had recognized Georgia's breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent nations. It is highly unlikely they will return to Georgian control.
In Tbilisi, Keti Tsikhelashvili of the think tank European Stability Initiative (ESI) advances a more nuanced view of how the situation might play itself out.
"There are several possible outcomes considering these territories. The first is that the Europeans have been dropping hints about the possible internationalization of the conflict. This would involve the stationing of observers and maybe peacekeepers in Ossetia and Abkhazia and their futures being brought under intense discussion," she tells ISN Security Watch.
However, the ESI believes such an outcome to be unlikely.
"The EU and the US remain committed to Georgian sovereignty and territorial integrity. The most likely outcome I can imagine will be the North Cyprus situation. The world will recognize Georgia's territorial integrity, while Russia and maybe a few of its satellite states will acknowledge South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent," Tsikhelashvili says.
She continues: "The South Ossetians already can see what an example of Russian rule in the Caucasus is like if they look to North Ossetia. How many schools there teach in Ossetian? The answer is none. In a few years the concern of cultural autonomy will mount and they will begin to realize the trap they are in."
Crushed rose
This is not how Georgians hoped the "Rose Revolution" would turn out.
In 2003, a wave of nationalism and a desire for western living standards and true democracy swept Saakashvili to power. Young and intensely charismatic, he led his country on an adventure that has turned sour.
"The president turned this country from a sort of post-Soviet ruin into a modern country," a senior western Europe diplomat tells ISN Security Watch, gesturing at perhaps the rather unrepresentative setting of the ornate restaurant in the Tbilisi Marriott hotel to prove his point.
"However, Saakashvili's definitely in until September. Then I can't say. There will be serious questions asked about what has happened and those questions will have consequences."
The Russian invasion has put a stop to those "rose" aspirations for now, and Georgia is reckoning with defeat. Tbilisi may not look miserable on the surface, but you only have to venture into one of the public buildings being used to house over 60,000 displaced people, or drive for under an hour to some of the burned-out villages to find misery waiting for you.
Reconstruction will take years. Georgia's transport infrastructure has been badly damaged, communities in the conflict zone have been hit hard, national parks have reportedly been set alight, commercial shipping has taken a massive blow, the economy has been shaken, but above all, Georgia's diplomatic and military position has been smashed. The armed forces that Saakashvili painstakingly built up though clever arms deals with Israel, the US and former communist states simply no longer exists.
Diplomatically, Georgia is in a disastrous position. Seen as unreliable and even a liability by many EU member-states and now most likely shorn of Abkhazia and South Ossetia for good, Georgia is reaping the consequences of its failed attempt to join the West.
Nona Varanadze, a retired professor and opposition supporter, blames Saakashvili for what has happened.
"Under Shevernadze, we practiced a political balancing act between Russia and the West. Just look at where we are on a map. When the balance got upset, we angered a neighbor and it destroyed so much of the good development that was going on. We could have avoided this and just got rich."
The ESI's Tsikhelashvili stresses that "though my political and cultural values are completely western. I am starting to think that Georgia put all of its eggs in one basket."
In many ways the EU and the US should hold themselves responsible for Georgia's current predicament. Having ostensibly supported a country's bid to remove itself from what Russia considers its exclusive sphere of influence, they failed to give Georgia the necessary security guarantees to make such a transition possible. With Russian forces stationed inside their territory, where EU flags still fly hopelessly from most major buildings, the promise of the West is starting to sound like a deadly siren to many Georgians.
The new order
The recent conflict has achieved a primary Russian objective, in proving that American power cannot be solidified along borderlands. This leaves only two powers that can actually integrate or control these territories - the EU or Russia.
The post-Soviet space can either seek to emulate the Baltic republics and find security inside the Union or embrace and hope to benefit from Russian dominance, as have Armenia and Belarus. Both are asymmetrical in how they wield influence.
Russia's strength lies in the areas of hard power such as its military capacities, energy power, cyberwarriors, pro-Russian parties and ethnic minorities or former KGB networks. However, it lacks the powers of persuasion.
Bulgarian expert Ivan Krastev argues in a recent article that "Russia is a born-again 19th-century power that acts in the post-20th-century world where arguments of force and capacity cannot any longer be the only way to define the status or conduct of great powers. The absence of 'soft power' is particularly dangerous for a would-be revisionist state. For if a state wants today to remake the world order, it must be able both to rely on the existing and emerging constellation of powers and be able to capture the international public's imagination."
The EU has the opposite strengths. Its power is soft and lies in the promise of membership, cultural appeal, diplomatic influence and financial clout. However, just as the Kremlin's failure to convince the world its actions are legitimate should force a re-think in its inner circles about a return to great-power status, the EU needs to learn that it does not exist in a vacuum.
Russia's strategy may be 19th century - but Europe is stuck in the future.
The great source of instability for the borderlands is that neither the EU nor Russia have reached their final destinations. Both are lost in transition.
The EU is caught between a disunited vague confederacy and a near-federation capable of speaking with a single voice in foreign policy and acting purposefully in a single direction. Its foreign policy mechanisms may slip into irrelevance and its own stability is far from assured. The news from Brussels is still frustration and malaise following on the heels of the French and Dutch "No" votes in 2005. The Irish "No" vote earlier this year does not bode well.
Russia itself is in a similar unsettled position. Its own territory is too large to be run in a conventional democratic manner and the state is still too weak to dominate its neighbors successfully. In the long run, further disintegration cannot be ruled out and the Kremlin is well aware of this.
Hovering between a post-modern empire and joining the club of post-imperial European great powers alongside the UK, France and Germany, Russia will continue its struggle to find institutional stability at home and a place in the state system - to the great detriment of both its citizens and surrounding countries.
Trapped between two uncertain creatures the post-Soviet states need to learn from the Georgian experience and tread carefully to avoid its fate.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
Wooing Pakistan’s Moderate Center
To a certain degree, Pakistan’s return to democratic rule was expected to slow its already tepid cooperation with the United States on the global war on terror. The two major democratically elected parties have to take into consideration the popular pulse in ways Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s regime did not.
Moreover, the Pakistan People’s Party and the Pakistan Muslim League both were chagrined by Washington’s long unstinted support for Musharraf. A belated American conversion to democratic rule was bound to leave residual discontent.
The Pakistani military, too, has become disenchanted, and not only because of Washington’s public moves to distance itself from the Musharraf regime. The region along the Afghan border where the Taleban and Al Qaeda enjoy safe haven has never been under Islamabad’s control. Over the last two years, hundreds of Pakistani soldiers have died trying to tame the tribes, something Washington has not acknowledged sufficiently.
Deploying US troops inside Pakistan to try to flush out Taleban and Al Qaeda forces would spark deadlier anti-American protests across the country. Washington is thus left with implorations to Pakistan’s good judgment.
And Congress seems to have risen to the task. Senators Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) plan to introduce legislation this month that would provide up to $15 billion in aid to Pakistan over the next 10 years for economic development, health and education. The underlying objective of winning over Pakistan’s moderate center is laudable. A democratic government in Islamabad is best placed to wean tribal leaders away from the Taleban and Al Qaeda. Sustained political and economic support from Washington would be central to that strategy. Lingering doubts about Washington’s commitment to Pakistan’s stability and progress would only encourage the PPP and PML to woo Islamic radicals to fortify their respective flanks, a course they adopted during much of the 1990s to the region’s and the world’s disadvantage.
Moreover, the Pakistan People’s Party and the Pakistan Muslim League both were chagrined by Washington’s long unstinted support for Musharraf. A belated American conversion to democratic rule was bound to leave residual discontent.
The Pakistani military, too, has become disenchanted, and not only because of Washington’s public moves to distance itself from the Musharraf regime. The region along the Afghan border where the Taleban and Al Qaeda enjoy safe haven has never been under Islamabad’s control. Over the last two years, hundreds of Pakistani soldiers have died trying to tame the tribes, something Washington has not acknowledged sufficiently.
Deploying US troops inside Pakistan to try to flush out Taleban and Al Qaeda forces would spark deadlier anti-American protests across the country. Washington is thus left with implorations to Pakistan’s good judgment.
And Congress seems to have risen to the task. Senators Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) plan to introduce legislation this month that would provide up to $15 billion in aid to Pakistan over the next 10 years for economic development, health and education. The underlying objective of winning over Pakistan’s moderate center is laudable. A democratic government in Islamabad is best placed to wean tribal leaders away from the Taleban and Al Qaeda. Sustained political and economic support from Washington would be central to that strategy. Lingering doubts about Washington’s commitment to Pakistan’s stability and progress would only encourage the PPP and PML to woo Islamic radicals to fortify their respective flanks, a course they adopted during much of the 1990s to the region’s and the world’s disadvantage.
Friday, June 06, 2008
EU-China Ties: Tibet, Taiwan And Trade
Beneath the tumult of the unrest in Tibet and the resultant rancor over the Beijing Olympics, a once-vaunted partnership has been cooling. Since 2003, the European Union and China have developed deep institutional links. Having put much political, diplomatic and financial capital into this relationship, Brussels has referred to China as a “strategic partner.”
At the practical level, there are over two dozen sectoral dialogues going on between the two sides. These encompass such diverse areas as energy, environmental protection, civil aviation, competition policy, intellectual property rights, consumer product safety, and maritime transport. To be sure, there has not been the same level of progress everywhere. Yet the breadth of engagement underscores the commitment of the parties to a long-term partnership.
The atmosphere, however, has shifted significantly since 2006. These Chinese government and people have become somewhat disenchanted by the EU’s attitude, especially in the context of the organization’s October 2006 China trade and policy papers.
In those papers, Brussels presented Beijing with a long list of requested changes in areas ranging from human rights and freedom of speech to intellectual property rights and economic and financial deregulation. Predictably, these demands deeply offended Chinese officials and scholars.
Undaunted, Brussels believes the EU-China Partnership and Cooperation Agreement will take relations to the next level. Others, however, see the new deal as little more than a codification of existing institutional ties. China, moreover, seems in no urgency to sign the agreement.
Disruptions in the Olympic torch in parts of Europe have raised Chinese distrust. Furthermore, the EU Parliament adopted a non-binding resolution condemning China’s crackdown in Tibet, even raising the possibility of an EU boycott of the Olympics.
The EU Parliament, which has a strong “Taiwan lobby,” has confronted Beijing several times over human rights. China complains the pan-European legislature has rarely passed any constructive resolutions.
The 25th EU-China human rights dialogue, which took place in Slovenia on May 15, sparked much dissatisfaction in Beijing. Yet the EU does not have the instruments to influence the human rights situation in China.
On Taiwan, a thorn in China’s ties with the western world, the EC does not have a position. All it has said is that it is in favor of a peaceful solution. From the EU’s standpoint, the lack of an outspoken position may be behind Beijing refusal to consider Europe as a serious global security player.
Europe became China’s biggest trading partner in 2004. Yet the reality remains that EU still exports more to Switzerland. The EC points to market access obstacles. The EU’s trade deficit with China is growing by €15 million per hour having reached € 160 billion in 2007, with total bilateral trade amounting to more than € 300 billion. There are 120 European anti-dumping cases against China at the World Trade Organization. Settling some of them remains an option for the EU.
An EU delegation traveled to Beijing on April 25 to launch the “EU-China High Level Economic and Trade Dialogue Mechanism.” The initiative was hobbled by complaints by European businesses operating in China. If the EU is running out of patience, then European protectionism and additional tariffs on goods made in China is rising up the agenda of Beijing.
Surely, Beijing does not want any more human rights resolutions from the EU. Moreover, it seeks advice on global and regional foreign and security policy behavior and conduct. Additionally, it expects substantive technology transfers and technical and financial assistance to promote a more sustainable, geographically more balanced and environmentally less damaging Chinese economic growth.
Those are hardly difficult demands, and Brussels will be investing €224 million by 2013 in economic, financial and technical assistance. Beijing wants more, such as the lifting of the EU weapons embargo imposed after the Tiananmen massacre in 1989 and the granting of market economy status.
Amid these divergences, the language governing the relationship has changed. “Common values,” the dominant theme of the partnership, has been replaced by “converging interests.”
At the practical level, there are over two dozen sectoral dialogues going on between the two sides. These encompass such diverse areas as energy, environmental protection, civil aviation, competition policy, intellectual property rights, consumer product safety, and maritime transport. To be sure, there has not been the same level of progress everywhere. Yet the breadth of engagement underscores the commitment of the parties to a long-term partnership.
The atmosphere, however, has shifted significantly since 2006. These Chinese government and people have become somewhat disenchanted by the EU’s attitude, especially in the context of the organization’s October 2006 China trade and policy papers.
In those papers, Brussels presented Beijing with a long list of requested changes in areas ranging from human rights and freedom of speech to intellectual property rights and economic and financial deregulation. Predictably, these demands deeply offended Chinese officials and scholars.
Undaunted, Brussels believes the EU-China Partnership and Cooperation Agreement will take relations to the next level. Others, however, see the new deal as little more than a codification of existing institutional ties. China, moreover, seems in no urgency to sign the agreement.
Disruptions in the Olympic torch in parts of Europe have raised Chinese distrust. Furthermore, the EU Parliament adopted a non-binding resolution condemning China’s crackdown in Tibet, even raising the possibility of an EU boycott of the Olympics.
The EU Parliament, which has a strong “Taiwan lobby,” has confronted Beijing several times over human rights. China complains the pan-European legislature has rarely passed any constructive resolutions.
The 25th EU-China human rights dialogue, which took place in Slovenia on May 15, sparked much dissatisfaction in Beijing. Yet the EU does not have the instruments to influence the human rights situation in China.
On Taiwan, a thorn in China’s ties with the western world, the EC does not have a position. All it has said is that it is in favor of a peaceful solution. From the EU’s standpoint, the lack of an outspoken position may be behind Beijing refusal to consider Europe as a serious global security player.
Europe became China’s biggest trading partner in 2004. Yet the reality remains that EU still exports more to Switzerland. The EC points to market access obstacles. The EU’s trade deficit with China is growing by €15 million per hour having reached € 160 billion in 2007, with total bilateral trade amounting to more than € 300 billion. There are 120 European anti-dumping cases against China at the World Trade Organization. Settling some of them remains an option for the EU.
An EU delegation traveled to Beijing on April 25 to launch the “EU-China High Level Economic and Trade Dialogue Mechanism.” The initiative was hobbled by complaints by European businesses operating in China. If the EU is running out of patience, then European protectionism and additional tariffs on goods made in China is rising up the agenda of Beijing.
Surely, Beijing does not want any more human rights resolutions from the EU. Moreover, it seeks advice on global and regional foreign and security policy behavior and conduct. Additionally, it expects substantive technology transfers and technical and financial assistance to promote a more sustainable, geographically more balanced and environmentally less damaging Chinese economic growth.
Those are hardly difficult demands, and Brussels will be investing €224 million by 2013 in economic, financial and technical assistance. Beijing wants more, such as the lifting of the EU weapons embargo imposed after the Tiananmen massacre in 1989 and the granting of market economy status.
Amid these divergences, the language governing the relationship has changed. “Common values,” the dominant theme of the partnership, has been replaced by “converging interests.”
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Tories’ Hope – And Fear
Does Boris Johnson’s election as London’s mayor mean that Britain may be ready to bring back the Conservative Party from over a decade in opposition?
Undaunted by the mockery of politicians and pundits alike, the Tory MP and former journalist ran an impressive campaign. The Conservative Party, which won the largest share of the vote and the most councilors, topped off its winning streak by gaining control of the capital.
The mayoral contest may have had little resonance outside London. Yet political parties and the media bestowed on it a national significance. Conservative leader David Cameron, for his part, took some risk in backing a maverick candidate. He must be relishing this moment of triumph.
The Labour party’s worst local election results in at least 40 years was not simply a mid-term protest, as some ministers in Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s cabinet have suggested. Nor can it be attributed to economic uncertainty alone.
Labour’s loss stemmed from a variety of reasons, not least its decision to axe the 10p income tax rate, which hit its core supporters. At a wider level, the results reflect a fundamental shift in public opinion. Voters who abandoned the Tories and flocked to Labour in 1997 today see a government wearied by incumbency. A Conservative comeback is now firmly within the realm of possibility.
Yet the Tories’ fortune would depend on much more. Mayor Johnson could help by delivering on his campaign promises, especially those on transport and crime. No less important will be the question of personality. The Boris Johnson Britain knew was not in evidence in the polls. The gaffes and gaudiness many expected were conspicuous by their absence. Yet these traits could return once Johnson settles into his job.
Johnson has now become the international face of London. As such, he will invite intense media and political scrutiny. Much will depend on how he handles the examination. The Conservatives certainly wouldn’t want to be tied to the mayor – irrespective of success or failure – in the run-up to the next general election, expected in two years’ time.
Undaunted by the mockery of politicians and pundits alike, the Tory MP and former journalist ran an impressive campaign. The Conservative Party, which won the largest share of the vote and the most councilors, topped off its winning streak by gaining control of the capital.
The mayoral contest may have had little resonance outside London. Yet political parties and the media bestowed on it a national significance. Conservative leader David Cameron, for his part, took some risk in backing a maverick candidate. He must be relishing this moment of triumph.
The Labour party’s worst local election results in at least 40 years was not simply a mid-term protest, as some ministers in Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s cabinet have suggested. Nor can it be attributed to economic uncertainty alone.
Labour’s loss stemmed from a variety of reasons, not least its decision to axe the 10p income tax rate, which hit its core supporters. At a wider level, the results reflect a fundamental shift in public opinion. Voters who abandoned the Tories and flocked to Labour in 1997 today see a government wearied by incumbency. A Conservative comeback is now firmly within the realm of possibility.
Yet the Tories’ fortune would depend on much more. Mayor Johnson could help by delivering on his campaign promises, especially those on transport and crime. No less important will be the question of personality. The Boris Johnson Britain knew was not in evidence in the polls. The gaffes and gaudiness many expected were conspicuous by their absence. Yet these traits could return once Johnson settles into his job.
Johnson has now become the international face of London. As such, he will invite intense media and political scrutiny. Much will depend on how he handles the examination. The Conservatives certainly wouldn’t want to be tied to the mayor – irrespective of success or failure – in the run-up to the next general election, expected in two years’ time.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Clinton Must Shed Her Sense Of Entitlement
The string of bad news for Barack Obama hasn’t brightened the prospects of a Hillary Clinton presidency. The junior senator from Illinois continues to lead his legislative colleague in the delegate count as well as in the popular vote.
The best hope for the former first lady is the working-class white voter. Obama’s speech on race relations has failed to mollify their concerns triggered by the hate mongering of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Obama’s readiness to throw his white grandmother under the bus in an effort to defend his spiritual adviser went a bit too far.
Sure, Granny must have had her moments of exasperation in private. But she went along with her daughter’s marriage to a black student from Kenya, didn’t she. Moreover, she dutifully raised her half-black grandson without much complaint. How can her “racism” be equated with the venom spewed by the Rev. Wright?
Clinton can’t afford to play the race card. Her husband left a disastrous impression by linking Obama’s victory in South Carolina to his color. Clinton’s assertion that states she has won have more electoral votes in the November poll than the states won by Obama is not unreasonable. But in the general bitterness of the campaign, it has prompted howls of derision. Obama, after all, could insist that he has greater backing from independent voters.
Ultimately, Clinton must fight the regular way. With Florida and Michigan increasingly unlikely to have their delegates seated at the convention, she must score big wins in Pennsylvania, which votes on April 22, and beyond.
Specifically, Clinton must reach out to working class white voters with a message of patriotism rooted in her experience in the Senate Armed Services Committee. That may not help her win the delegate count in Denver. But she could at least hope to persuade “superdelegates” that she is better placed to defeat the presumptive Republican candidate, John McCain.
Admittedly, the Clinton campaign suffered a major blow when Bill Richardson, the Hispanic governor of New Mexico who served in Bill Clinton’s cabinet, endorsed Obama. But the damage may not be as severe as originally thought. The support of a great many superdelegates is still up for grabs. If Clinton is to keep them from emulating Richardson’s conversion, she must stop viewing the presidency with a sense of entitlement.
The best hope for the former first lady is the working-class white voter. Obama’s speech on race relations has failed to mollify their concerns triggered by the hate mongering of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Obama’s readiness to throw his white grandmother under the bus in an effort to defend his spiritual adviser went a bit too far.
Sure, Granny must have had her moments of exasperation in private. But she went along with her daughter’s marriage to a black student from Kenya, didn’t she. Moreover, she dutifully raised her half-black grandson without much complaint. How can her “racism” be equated with the venom spewed by the Rev. Wright?
Clinton can’t afford to play the race card. Her husband left a disastrous impression by linking Obama’s victory in South Carolina to his color. Clinton’s assertion that states she has won have more electoral votes in the November poll than the states won by Obama is not unreasonable. But in the general bitterness of the campaign, it has prompted howls of derision. Obama, after all, could insist that he has greater backing from independent voters.
Ultimately, Clinton must fight the regular way. With Florida and Michigan increasingly unlikely to have their delegates seated at the convention, she must score big wins in Pennsylvania, which votes on April 22, and beyond.
Specifically, Clinton must reach out to working class white voters with a message of patriotism rooted in her experience in the Senate Armed Services Committee. That may not help her win the delegate count in Denver. But she could at least hope to persuade “superdelegates” that she is better placed to defeat the presumptive Republican candidate, John McCain.
Admittedly, the Clinton campaign suffered a major blow when Bill Richardson, the Hispanic governor of New Mexico who served in Bill Clinton’s cabinet, endorsed Obama. But the damage may not be as severe as originally thought. The support of a great many superdelegates is still up for grabs. If Clinton is to keep them from emulating Richardson’s conversion, she must stop viewing the presidency with a sense of entitlement.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
A Sordid Battle Of Wills In Turkey
Imagine any European country where the judiciary suddenly calls for the disbandment of the ruling party, as well as a ban on the prime minister and the president – only months after the elected government, under political siege from factional interests, takes its case to the people and wins a landslide. Welcome to Turkey.
Turkey is in the throes of difficult membership negotiations with the European Union, much to the chagrin of the current governments in France and Germany. But its accession prospects are also clouded by the battle of wills between the neo-Islamist – and pro European – government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and a secularist establishment that regards itself as European but seems determined to unseat the ruling Justice and Development party (AKP) by fair means or foul.
However much they are covered with a figleaf of constitutional legitimacy, these efforts amount to a naked coup d’etat by forces unable to win power at the polls. If they come even close to success, Turkey really can forget about Europe.
It had looked as though this struggle was resolved. Turkey was last summer engulfed in a constitutional crisis after the army issued an elliptical ultimatum – on its website – saying Abdullah Gul, foreign minister, could not be trusted as president, and therefore guardian of the secular heritage of the republic created by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, because his wife wears the Muslim headscarf. Mr Erdogan called elections and hugely increased the AKP’s share of the vote to 47 per cent. Turks stood four-square with democracy as the generals tripped over their clumsy digital démarche – and Mr Gul is now their president.
Now the chief prosecutor has called on the constitutional court to upturn the political order, alleging the AKP is pursuing an anti-secular agenda. His case is without merit.
There is a strong whiff of class resentment about the establishment case that the AKP – the voice of the socially conservative, religiously observant, but dynamic and entrepreneurial middle classes of central Anatolia – is pursuing theocracy by stealth. The real case against the government is its lassitude in pursuing reform and EU accession – especially after Mr Gul’s elevation.
That is a shame. Triumphantly re-elected, and with new hope for a deal to resolve the Cyprus dispute, Mr Erdogan has a strong platform. But he is using it to swagger around the country giving populist speeches and to change the law to allow girls to wear headscarves at universities. There is an issue of equity here – if the Kemalist dress-code is denying women further education. But it is not more important than, for instance, repealing Article 301 of the penal code, under which writers are being prosecuted for the crime of insulting “Turkishness”.
Mr Erdogan should stop stalling and resume the constitutional revolution over which he has presided. – Financial Times
Turkey is in the throes of difficult membership negotiations with the European Union, much to the chagrin of the current governments in France and Germany. But its accession prospects are also clouded by the battle of wills between the neo-Islamist – and pro European – government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and a secularist establishment that regards itself as European but seems determined to unseat the ruling Justice and Development party (AKP) by fair means or foul.
However much they are covered with a figleaf of constitutional legitimacy, these efforts amount to a naked coup d’etat by forces unable to win power at the polls. If they come even close to success, Turkey really can forget about Europe.
It had looked as though this struggle was resolved. Turkey was last summer engulfed in a constitutional crisis after the army issued an elliptical ultimatum – on its website – saying Abdullah Gul, foreign minister, could not be trusted as president, and therefore guardian of the secular heritage of the republic created by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, because his wife wears the Muslim headscarf. Mr Erdogan called elections and hugely increased the AKP’s share of the vote to 47 per cent. Turks stood four-square with democracy as the generals tripped over their clumsy digital démarche – and Mr Gul is now their president.
Now the chief prosecutor has called on the constitutional court to upturn the political order, alleging the AKP is pursuing an anti-secular agenda. His case is without merit.
There is a strong whiff of class resentment about the establishment case that the AKP – the voice of the socially conservative, religiously observant, but dynamic and entrepreneurial middle classes of central Anatolia – is pursuing theocracy by stealth. The real case against the government is its lassitude in pursuing reform and EU accession – especially after Mr Gul’s elevation.
That is a shame. Triumphantly re-elected, and with new hope for a deal to resolve the Cyprus dispute, Mr Erdogan has a strong platform. But he is using it to swagger around the country giving populist speeches and to change the law to allow girls to wear headscarves at universities. There is an issue of equity here – if the Kemalist dress-code is denying women further education. But it is not more important than, for instance, repealing Article 301 of the penal code, under which writers are being prosecuted for the crime of insulting “Turkishness”.
Mr Erdogan should stop stalling and resume the constitutional revolution over which he has presided. – Financial Times
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Changing China In Its People’s Name
CHINA’S National People’s Congress now under way is not a forum where anything reflecting the government’s drawbacks are debated, but it should increasingly serve as a time for soul searching for the government as times change and it becomes difficult to hold on to the strict one party control over everything inside the borders.
Beijing is no doubt not too far from becoming the centre of the world’s attention as China’s ascent to superpower status draws nearer every time it posts theory defying high growth, but certain mechanisms of the country’s ruling ethics are in crying need of transformation if the rise is to be facilitated, not retarded.
It goes without saying that
They way Chinese authorities attempt to control dissent or even mild difference of opinion is not fitting for a rising power like
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Costly Franco-German Chilliness
The European Union has not been shivering from the chilliness that has set into relations between two of its most powerful members. Yet the rifts between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have assumed greater seriousness in view of the ratification of the revised European constitution.
Over the weeks, Sarkozy has chastised the European Central Bank for not focusing on stimulating economic growth. His interventions prompted the German chancellor to publicly defend the bank’s independence.
Germany, for its part, was infuriated last year when Sarkozy postponed France’s commitment to balance its budget by 2010, and instead announced tax cuts worth 15 billion euros a year.
Sarkozy’s proposal for a union of Mediterranean countries, too, took Germany by surprise. Indeed Berlin was wary of a framework that would have operated outside the Barcelona process – the EU’s program for closer relations with non-member Mediterranean countries. In this particular case, Sarkozy subsequently agreed to revitalize the Barcelona process.
The EU, to be sure, is much more than a French-German enterprise. Yet it is hard to contemplate progress in the institution without Paris and Berlin being focused on the same page.
Admittedly, Sarkozy’s comfortable parliamentary majority offers him greater leeway in articulating his policy preferences. Merkel, on the other hand, leads a testy coalition that stymies ambitious initiatives. Yet much seems to be riding on Sarkozy’s personality. Sometimes he just seems unwilling to acknowledge the operating principles that have served the EU well. An important one, of course, is a strong French-German relationship.
Over the weeks, Sarkozy has chastised the European Central Bank for not focusing on stimulating economic growth. His interventions prompted the German chancellor to publicly defend the bank’s independence.
Germany, for its part, was infuriated last year when Sarkozy postponed France’s commitment to balance its budget by 2010, and instead announced tax cuts worth 15 billion euros a year.
Sarkozy’s proposal for a union of Mediterranean countries, too, took Germany by surprise. Indeed Berlin was wary of a framework that would have operated outside the Barcelona process – the EU’s program for closer relations with non-member Mediterranean countries. In this particular case, Sarkozy subsequently agreed to revitalize the Barcelona process.
The EU, to be sure, is much more than a French-German enterprise. Yet it is hard to contemplate progress in the institution without Paris and Berlin being focused on the same page.
Admittedly, Sarkozy’s comfortable parliamentary majority offers him greater leeway in articulating his policy preferences. Merkel, on the other hand, leads a testy coalition that stymies ambitious initiatives. Yet much seems to be riding on Sarkozy’s personality. Sometimes he just seems unwilling to acknowledge the operating principles that have served the EU well. An important one, of course, is a strong French-German relationship.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
British Apology Or Cop-out?
Does Britain’s apology over American “extraordinary rendition” flights through its territory imply London’s deepening shift from Washington’s approach to the war on terror?
Tony Blair’s departure as prime minister was precipitated by perceptions that he had become the Bush administration’s appendage. For Britons – and the rest of the world –Gordon Brown’s elevation to the premiership was expected to bring definite signs of a policy departure.
The latest shift – if that is what it is – is hardly credible. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s assertion that London did not really know what Washington was really up to is incredulous.
For Washington, the rendition operation was so crucial to the war on terror that it considered justified to fly detainees to places where American law would not apply, specifically vis-Ã -vis torture. There was an obvious imperative of secrecy on the part of an administration that perfected it to an art.
Yet it is preposterous to suggest that Washington did not seek London’s permission before embarking on such a sweeping move. From the outset, statements from Blair claiming “no evidence that rendition flights had stopped on UK territory” were considered misleading. He paid the price.
London seems intent on holding the Bush administration responsible for “lying.” Prime Minister Gordon Brown cannot expect to be left off the hook. He was a key member of the Blair cabinet. If he and/or other ministers counseled Blair against toeing Washington’s line so diligently, then he would do well to explain that in public.
If, on the other hand, he did not really know what was going on, then that would raise questions about his competence.
Tony Blair’s departure as prime minister was precipitated by perceptions that he had become the Bush administration’s appendage. For Britons – and the rest of the world –Gordon Brown’s elevation to the premiership was expected to bring definite signs of a policy departure.
The latest shift – if that is what it is – is hardly credible. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s assertion that London did not really know what Washington was really up to is incredulous.
For Washington, the rendition operation was so crucial to the war on terror that it considered justified to fly detainees to places where American law would not apply, specifically vis-Ã -vis torture. There was an obvious imperative of secrecy on the part of an administration that perfected it to an art.
Yet it is preposterous to suggest that Washington did not seek London’s permission before embarking on such a sweeping move. From the outset, statements from Blair claiming “no evidence that rendition flights had stopped on UK territory” were considered misleading. He paid the price.
London seems intent on holding the Bush administration responsible for “lying.” Prime Minister Gordon Brown cannot expect to be left off the hook. He was a key member of the Blair cabinet. If he and/or other ministers counseled Blair against toeing Washington’s line so diligently, then he would do well to explain that in public.
If, on the other hand, he did not really know what was going on, then that would raise questions about his competence.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Putin Ratchets Up Cold War Rhetoric
Days after claiming that a new phase of the arms race was unfolding, Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that his country may target its missiles at Ukraine if its neighbor joins the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and accepts the deployment of the US missile defense shield.
What was striking was that Putin made the comments in Moscow alongside Ukraine’s President Viktor Yushchenko after talks to patch up bilateral differences.
Putin has regularly condemned American plans to include Poland and the Czech Republic in its missile defense shield. Still, his latest threat marks a dangerous escalation. He simply shrugged off Yushchenko’s pleas that Ukraine’s move was not aimed against Russia.
Speaking at a news conference at the Kremlin, Putin said he had advised Ukraine not to join NATO. However, he admitted that he would be unable to interfere in any such move.
Putin has come a long way since his famous bonhomie with George W. Bush. A man whom the newly elected American president said he could do business with in all sincerity has ostensibly been embittered by Washington.
Essentially, Washington wants to build the shield to destroy incoming ballistic missiles potentially coming from North Korea and Iran. When Bush pulled his country out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the former Soviet Union to facilitate the construction of the shield, Putin went along.
The missile shield project has evolved over the years. Current plans envisage some interceptor missiles based in Poland and an associated radar built in the Czech Republic, both former Soviet satellite countries. Ukraine’s moves toward NATO have ostensibly raised Moscow’s sensitivities.
The sight of Putin and Yushchenko together was, at one level, quite remarkable. Moscow had campaigned heavily against Yushchenko during the presidential elections over three years ago. Putin’s overt support for Viktor Yanukovych did much to fuel the Orange Revolution of winter 2004-2005. Once the euphoria over the triumph of people power subsided, Moscow’s candidate Yanukovych trudged back to power.
Still, several sensitive issues continue to dog the bilateral partnership between Russia and its second largest partner in what used to be the Soviet Union. Yushchenko hopes to resolve outstanding issues with Russia with through dialogue, openness and trust. The two leaders had been meeting in urgent talks over one such issue, a gas dispute. In fact, they announced a deal to avoid disrupting supplies.
The missile threat has revived fears of another escalation in international tensions. In a televised speech to the Russian State Council last week, Putin said other countries were spending far more than Russia on new weapons. The content and tone was eerily reminiscent of the Cold War. Putin’s assertion that Russia would respond to the challenges by developing high-tech weaponry has only deepened growing anxieties. Russia and China, for their part, have proposed a new treaty to ban the use of weapons in space and the use or threat of force against satellites or other craft.
Putin has accepted an invitation to attend the forthcoming NATO summit in the Romanian capital, Bucharest, in April. That is strange considering that Putin will cease to be president then. Elections to choose his successor are scheduled for next month. Does this amount to an acceptance by the Atlantic alliance that Putin will continue to call the shots?
What was striking was that Putin made the comments in Moscow alongside Ukraine’s President Viktor Yushchenko after talks to patch up bilateral differences.
Putin has regularly condemned American plans to include Poland and the Czech Republic in its missile defense shield. Still, his latest threat marks a dangerous escalation. He simply shrugged off Yushchenko’s pleas that Ukraine’s move was not aimed against Russia.
Speaking at a news conference at the Kremlin, Putin said he had advised Ukraine not to join NATO. However, he admitted that he would be unable to interfere in any such move.
Putin has come a long way since his famous bonhomie with George W. Bush. A man whom the newly elected American president said he could do business with in all sincerity has ostensibly been embittered by Washington.
Essentially, Washington wants to build the shield to destroy incoming ballistic missiles potentially coming from North Korea and Iran. When Bush pulled his country out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the former Soviet Union to facilitate the construction of the shield, Putin went along.
The missile shield project has evolved over the years. Current plans envisage some interceptor missiles based in Poland and an associated radar built in the Czech Republic, both former Soviet satellite countries. Ukraine’s moves toward NATO have ostensibly raised Moscow’s sensitivities.
The sight of Putin and Yushchenko together was, at one level, quite remarkable. Moscow had campaigned heavily against Yushchenko during the presidential elections over three years ago. Putin’s overt support for Viktor Yanukovych did much to fuel the Orange Revolution of winter 2004-2005. Once the euphoria over the triumph of people power subsided, Moscow’s candidate Yanukovych trudged back to power.
Still, several sensitive issues continue to dog the bilateral partnership between Russia and its second largest partner in what used to be the Soviet Union. Yushchenko hopes to resolve outstanding issues with Russia with through dialogue, openness and trust. The two leaders had been meeting in urgent talks over one such issue, a gas dispute. In fact, they announced a deal to avoid disrupting supplies.
The missile threat has revived fears of another escalation in international tensions. In a televised speech to the Russian State Council last week, Putin said other countries were spending far more than Russia on new weapons. The content and tone was eerily reminiscent of the Cold War. Putin’s assertion that Russia would respond to the challenges by developing high-tech weaponry has only deepened growing anxieties. Russia and China, for their part, have proposed a new treaty to ban the use of weapons in space and the use or threat of force against satellites or other craft.
Putin has accepted an invitation to attend the forthcoming NATO summit in the Romanian capital, Bucharest, in April. That is strange considering that Putin will cease to be president then. Elections to choose his successor are scheduled for next month. Does this amount to an acceptance by the Atlantic alliance that Putin will continue to call the shots?
Monday, February 11, 2008
Tanzania’s Tough War On Graft
Is Tanzania stepping up its fight against corruption? Or is President Jakaya Kikwete losing control over the ruling party?
Prime Minister Edward Lowassa and two members of his cabinet resigned last week after parliament issued a report criticizing their role in the “Richmond affair.” This is the second high-profile anti-corruption scandal to hit the country in two months.
Amid a drought-induced severe decline in hydroelectric power generation in 2006, the government awarded US-based Richmond Development Company a contract to supply 100 megawatts of emergency power.
The $172 million deal sparked a controversy, with concerns swirling around alleged violations of official tendering procedures and the failure to insist on a performance bond.
A parliamentary committee was set up in November 2007 to investigate the contract. It, too, criticized the arrangement. The panel said Richmond, which failed to deliver the 100 MW of power, lacked experience, expertise, and was financially incapacitated.
The committee criticized the role of senior government officials, including Prime Minister Lowassa. He denies wrongdoing, claiming the committee has misled parliament.
The parliamentary report and resignations comes at a time when President Kikwete is attempting to burnish his government’s reputation on the anti-corruption front. Donors, who fund up to 40 percent of Tanzania’s budget, have become more critical over the misuse of aid in the past year.
Pressing for political accountability, they are paying close attention to the Richmond case. Moreover, Tanzania is one of the main recipients of rising aid flows to Africa.
In December, the president dismissed the central bank governor, Daudi Ballali, after an investigation uncovered fraud in the repayment of external debts.
The latest resignations will bolster Kikwete’s argument that he is committed to tackling graft. But at what price? The loss of the three ministers – known as close associates of the president – could represent a waning of Kikwete’s position in the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) party.
A recent contest for positions in the CCM secretariat exposed deep fissures in the ruling party. Some of President Kikwete’s important allies lost their positions.
A scheduled cabinet reshuffle can be expected to provide further evidence of the balance of power within the CCM – as well as the fate of the anti-corruption campaign.
Prime Minister Edward Lowassa and two members of his cabinet resigned last week after parliament issued a report criticizing their role in the “Richmond affair.” This is the second high-profile anti-corruption scandal to hit the country in two months.
Amid a drought-induced severe decline in hydroelectric power generation in 2006, the government awarded US-based Richmond Development Company a contract to supply 100 megawatts of emergency power.
The $172 million deal sparked a controversy, with concerns swirling around alleged violations of official tendering procedures and the failure to insist on a performance bond.
A parliamentary committee was set up in November 2007 to investigate the contract. It, too, criticized the arrangement. The panel said Richmond, which failed to deliver the 100 MW of power, lacked experience, expertise, and was financially incapacitated.
The committee criticized the role of senior government officials, including Prime Minister Lowassa. He denies wrongdoing, claiming the committee has misled parliament.
The parliamentary report and resignations comes at a time when President Kikwete is attempting to burnish his government’s reputation on the anti-corruption front. Donors, who fund up to 40 percent of Tanzania’s budget, have become more critical over the misuse of aid in the past year.
Pressing for political accountability, they are paying close attention to the Richmond case. Moreover, Tanzania is one of the main recipients of rising aid flows to Africa.
In December, the president dismissed the central bank governor, Daudi Ballali, after an investigation uncovered fraud in the repayment of external debts.
The latest resignations will bolster Kikwete’s argument that he is committed to tackling graft. But at what price? The loss of the three ministers – known as close associates of the president – could represent a waning of Kikwete’s position in the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) party.
A recent contest for positions in the CCM secretariat exposed deep fissures in the ruling party. Some of President Kikwete’s important allies lost their positions.
A scheduled cabinet reshuffle can be expected to provide further evidence of the balance of power within the CCM – as well as the fate of the anti-corruption campaign.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
What Would Reagan Have Done Without Carter?
Is John McCain’s win in Florida tantamount to the defeat of conservatism?
The two men who led the charge against the Arizona senator sound flustered.
Rush Limbaugh offered a non-concession speech, effectively rubbishing the idea that his flock abandoned him in droves. (McCain’s invocation of Ronald Reagan suggests the senator has in fact come to the Maha Rushie.)
Sean Hannity conceded that McCain may have been Reaganism’s torch-bearer all along. Their sarcasm couldn’t conceal their inability to grasp the moment.
Among social, fiscal and national security conservatives, McCain probably drew support rather preponderantly from the last. Even there, the “Senator Amnesty” tag must have siphoned away some votes. Don’t waste time doing the math.
If McCain is unstoppable, so be it. Let the liberal media promote McCain until he becomes the Republican nominee they would love to destroy in November.
A McCain defeat would serve the conservatives in two ways. Reagan needed Jimmy Carter. Without the national malaise of the late 1970s, Reaganism wouldn’t have acquired the moral resilience to confront and overcome the challenges it did.
Secondly, a McCain defeat would teach Republicans to proffer the genuine article the next time.
Should McCain defeat his Democratic rival, well, he could at least have a chance to prove the conservative credentials he now seems to be so religiously invoking.
The two men who led the charge against the Arizona senator sound flustered.
Rush Limbaugh offered a non-concession speech, effectively rubbishing the idea that his flock abandoned him in droves. (McCain’s invocation of Ronald Reagan suggests the senator has in fact come to the Maha Rushie.)
Sean Hannity conceded that McCain may have been Reaganism’s torch-bearer all along. Their sarcasm couldn’t conceal their inability to grasp the moment.
Among social, fiscal and national security conservatives, McCain probably drew support rather preponderantly from the last. Even there, the “Senator Amnesty” tag must have siphoned away some votes. Don’t waste time doing the math.
If McCain is unstoppable, so be it. Let the liberal media promote McCain until he becomes the Republican nominee they would love to destroy in November.
A McCain defeat would serve the conservatives in two ways. Reagan needed Jimmy Carter. Without the national malaise of the late 1970s, Reaganism wouldn’t have acquired the moral resilience to confront and overcome the challenges it did.
Secondly, a McCain defeat would teach Republicans to proffer the genuine article the next time.
Should McCain defeat his Democratic rival, well, he could at least have a chance to prove the conservative credentials he now seems to be so religiously invoking.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The Future Will Be Kinder To Suharto
For most people, former Indonesian president Suharto will be remembered for his regime’s hugely autocratic rule and large-scale corruption. But many others cannot avoid recalling him as someone who brought stability to an ethnically fractured nation and then fired it off on a trajectory of economic progress.
The man must be measured in accordance with his times. In October 1965, Gen. Suharto led the army against an abortive communist coup. Some 500,000 communist sympathizers were reportedly killed in the subsequent mopping-up operations.
The following year he took control from the nation’s founder, Sukarno, becoming president in March 1968. The policy implications were striking. Gen. Suharto revoked Sukarno’s anti-American policy and switched to an anticommunist posture that found favor in Washington.
Suharto’s free-market policies pushed Indonesia’s industrialization and the country became a principal member of Southeast Asia. He also ordered his army to invade East Timor, although the full story of how that event fit into the wider Cold War geopolitics remains to emerge.
Under his regime, many anti-government activists were killed. Countless opposition politicians disappeared. It’s hard to believe Suharto ever considered his regime democratic. The man must be judged from that standpoint. And in an important way, he was.
The Asian financial crisis of 1997 put the Indonesian economy on the brink of collapse. Once prosperity seemed to vanish, public anxiety morphed into a pro-democracy movement. After Suharto stepped down, Indonesia held democratic elections to the legislature and the presidency. It is a democracy in the full conventional sense of the term.
How about the kleptomania? Last year, the World Bank reported that Suharto’s government had stolen up to $35 billion from state coffers. Suharto consistently denied involvement in corruption and a court declared him too ill to stand a corruption trial in 2000. While he was never officially charged with stealing state funds, Suharto could never clear his name either.
Corruption and gross human rights violations will remain an inextricable part of Suharto’s legacy. Future historians would certainly be kinder while appraising his wider record.
The man must be measured in accordance with his times. In October 1965, Gen. Suharto led the army against an abortive communist coup. Some 500,000 communist sympathizers were reportedly killed in the subsequent mopping-up operations.
The following year he took control from the nation’s founder, Sukarno, becoming president in March 1968. The policy implications were striking. Gen. Suharto revoked Sukarno’s anti-American policy and switched to an anticommunist posture that found favor in Washington.
Suharto’s free-market policies pushed Indonesia’s industrialization and the country became a principal member of Southeast Asia. He also ordered his army to invade East Timor, although the full story of how that event fit into the wider Cold War geopolitics remains to emerge.
Under his regime, many anti-government activists were killed. Countless opposition politicians disappeared. It’s hard to believe Suharto ever considered his regime democratic. The man must be judged from that standpoint. And in an important way, he was.
The Asian financial crisis of 1997 put the Indonesian economy on the brink of collapse. Once prosperity seemed to vanish, public anxiety morphed into a pro-democracy movement. After Suharto stepped down, Indonesia held democratic elections to the legislature and the presidency. It is a democracy in the full conventional sense of the term.
How about the kleptomania? Last year, the World Bank reported that Suharto’s government had stolen up to $35 billion from state coffers. Suharto consistently denied involvement in corruption and a court declared him too ill to stand a corruption trial in 2000. While he was never officially charged with stealing state funds, Suharto could never clear his name either.
Corruption and gross human rights violations will remain an inextricable part of Suharto’s legacy. Future historians would certainly be kinder while appraising his wider record.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
It Needs More Than The Fed
US Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke zeroed in on the volatility of the global market. By slashing its key interest rate, the Fed helped to calm international markets. The purpose of easing liquidity is to head off panic and a global capital crunch.
The markets demand much more. Investors want transparency in financial institutions so that the system can find its own level.
Skepticism of the independence of market forces has not receded in the aftermath of the Enron, WorldCom and all the other scandals left in their wake. The inflation of the US real estate markets was originally played down as limited. The way experts and analysts kept the subject alive suggested a dangerous nationwide spread.
The subprime mortgages held throughout international financial markets thus became intrinsically combustible. They are estimated to have lost more than $6 trillion in value this month alone.
US consumers, who have long used rising real estate values to finance their spending, have had a nasty shock. That is bad news for the world. The US remains the market of final demand for much of the world’s production. The bipartisanship exhibited in crafting a stimulus package is laudable.
The Fed’s intervention must be seen for what it is: an initiative to restore confidence and provide a baseline to the markets. With enough spur, the economy may be able to stem its hemorrhage.
Much more will depend on how far financial institutions – banks, investment houses and bond insurers – go in playing their part. They must come clean on the scale of their losses and become aggressive in cleaning up their books. The long-term perils of avoiding transparency today are too high.
The markets demand much more. Investors want transparency in financial institutions so that the system can find its own level.
Skepticism of the independence of market forces has not receded in the aftermath of the Enron, WorldCom and all the other scandals left in their wake. The inflation of the US real estate markets was originally played down as limited. The way experts and analysts kept the subject alive suggested a dangerous nationwide spread.
The subprime mortgages held throughout international financial markets thus became intrinsically combustible. They are estimated to have lost more than $6 trillion in value this month alone.
US consumers, who have long used rising real estate values to finance their spending, have had a nasty shock. That is bad news for the world. The US remains the market of final demand for much of the world’s production. The bipartisanship exhibited in crafting a stimulus package is laudable.
The Fed’s intervention must be seen for what it is: an initiative to restore confidence and provide a baseline to the markets. With enough spur, the economy may be able to stem its hemorrhage.
Much more will depend on how far financial institutions – banks, investment houses and bond insurers – go in playing their part. They must come clean on the scale of their losses and become aggressive in cleaning up their books. The long-term perils of avoiding transparency today are too high.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
The Cuban Enigma Deepens
We have it on the good authority of Brazil’s leftist president that Cuban leader Fidel Castro is healthy enough to return to politics. A day after Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva made that revelation, following a two-hour meeting with Castro, the grand old man himself spoke. Er… make that wrote.
In an essay published by Cuban state media Wednesday, the 81-year-old ailing leader said he is not yet healthy enough to speak to Cuba’s masses in person. Therefore, he can’t campaign for Sunday’s parliamentary elections.
There is a nagging question here. Why the discrepancy? Although a Castro confidant, da Silva is nowhere near his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez when it come to breathing the kind of fire the Cuban leader is known for. Does this explain the urgency on the part of Castro to contradict da Silva.
Admittedly, there may be a benign explanation here. Castro’s essay was probably in the final stages of publication when the Brazilian president spoke. Moreover, da Silva probably implied a future far beyond the upcoming parliamentary elections.
Castro, moreover, may have sounded lucid and fit in a one-on-one setting. The Brazilian visitor was in no position to speak on extrapolating Castro’s abilities to a public setting.
Castro has not been seen in public for a year and a half. Emergency intestinal surgery in July 2006 forced him to cede power to a government headed by his younger brother Raul. Ordinarily, this should have been a perfect time for Castro to retire. Raul, five years his junior, wouldn’t have raised too many eyebrows by officially succeeding his brother.
Evidently, the succession doesn’t seem to have been completed. Has it even started? Why? Do other influential elements in Cuba’s communist hierarchy view Raul as an unworthy successor? Is there a power struggle going on which Castro feels he has to camouflage by his incessant allusions to returning to work?
In an essay published by Cuban state media Wednesday, the 81-year-old ailing leader said he is not yet healthy enough to speak to Cuba’s masses in person. Therefore, he can’t campaign for Sunday’s parliamentary elections.
There is a nagging question here. Why the discrepancy? Although a Castro confidant, da Silva is nowhere near his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez when it come to breathing the kind of fire the Cuban leader is known for. Does this explain the urgency on the part of Castro to contradict da Silva.
Admittedly, there may be a benign explanation here. Castro’s essay was probably in the final stages of publication when the Brazilian president spoke. Moreover, da Silva probably implied a future far beyond the upcoming parliamentary elections.
Castro, moreover, may have sounded lucid and fit in a one-on-one setting. The Brazilian visitor was in no position to speak on extrapolating Castro’s abilities to a public setting.
Castro has not been seen in public for a year and a half. Emergency intestinal surgery in July 2006 forced him to cede power to a government headed by his younger brother Raul. Ordinarily, this should have been a perfect time for Castro to retire. Raul, five years his junior, wouldn’t have raised too many eyebrows by officially succeeding his brother.
Evidently, the succession doesn’t seem to have been completed. Has it even started? Why? Do other influential elements in Cuba’s communist hierarchy view Raul as an unworthy successor? Is there a power struggle going on which Castro feels he has to camouflage by his incessant allusions to returning to work?
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Sri Lanka’s Larger Tragedy
A resumption of fighting between Sri Lankan government forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) rebels since the beginning of the new year has claimed over a hundred lives. Most of those killed are Tamil insurgents, according to government officials in Colombo. There is little doubt that innocent civilians on both sides of Sinhala-Tamil divide are paying a heavy price.
The ceasefire the Norwegians had brokered in 2002 raised much hope in the country and the wider South Asian region. The Sri Lankan conflict was one of the most brutal in the region, driven by the fault lines of geography, ethnicity and religion.
A quarter century of relentless fighting claimed some 70,000 lives. Hundreds of thousands lose their homes and livelihoods. Those fortunate enough to have a home lack essential infrastructure such as clean water, electricity, and roads.
The human rights situation across the island nation has worsened. Unlawful killings by government agents and unknown perpetrators continue. Paramilitary forces with ties to the government as well as the rebels continue politically motivated killings. The Tamil Tigers carry out political murders and suicide attacks and subject Sri Lankan citizens to such abuses as torture and the forcible recruitment of child soldiers. This has hardened sentiments on both sides. These realities do not always make international headlines because the narrative does not lend itself to an easy nut graph.
The truce was all but dead a couple of years ago, as both sides traded accusations and questioned the neutrality of the Norwegians. Thousands, mostly civilians, continued to die as the fiction of the peace process persisted.
Frustrated, the Sri Lankan government announced earlier this month that it was pulling out of the ceasefire. In such a scenario, it would be futile to single out to blame one party. All parties to the conflict have the onus of protecting the rights of all of Sri Lanka’s people. They must work toward the goal of a just political solution that ensures the rights of minority communities and benefits all Sri Lankans.
But they must be allowed to determine their future without outside interference. Decades of unwarranted interference from India has nudged influential sections in Colombo closer to China. With regional heavyweights vying for influence, the conflict is likely to grow worse in the near term.
The ceasefire the Norwegians had brokered in 2002 raised much hope in the country and the wider South Asian region. The Sri Lankan conflict was one of the most brutal in the region, driven by the fault lines of geography, ethnicity and religion.
A quarter century of relentless fighting claimed some 70,000 lives. Hundreds of thousands lose their homes and livelihoods. Those fortunate enough to have a home lack essential infrastructure such as clean water, electricity, and roads.
The human rights situation across the island nation has worsened. Unlawful killings by government agents and unknown perpetrators continue. Paramilitary forces with ties to the government as well as the rebels continue politically motivated killings. The Tamil Tigers carry out political murders and suicide attacks and subject Sri Lankan citizens to such abuses as torture and the forcible recruitment of child soldiers. This has hardened sentiments on both sides. These realities do not always make international headlines because the narrative does not lend itself to an easy nut graph.
The truce was all but dead a couple of years ago, as both sides traded accusations and questioned the neutrality of the Norwegians. Thousands, mostly civilians, continued to die as the fiction of the peace process persisted.
Frustrated, the Sri Lankan government announced earlier this month that it was pulling out of the ceasefire. In such a scenario, it would be futile to single out to blame one party. All parties to the conflict have the onus of protecting the rights of all of Sri Lanka’s people. They must work toward the goal of a just political solution that ensures the rights of minority communities and benefits all Sri Lankans.
But they must be allowed to determine their future without outside interference. Decades of unwarranted interference from India has nudged influential sections in Colombo closer to China. With regional heavyweights vying for influence, the conflict is likely to grow worse in the near term.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
A Victory That Could Haunt Hucksters
Mike Huckabee’s victory in Iowa’s Republican caucus may end up disappointing all those supporters who have been robotically comparing the candidate with Ronald Reagan.
Huckabee’s success can be largely attributed to his overwhelming support among evangelical voters and women. Evangelicals constituted the majority of Republican caucus goers, some 60 percent. CNN’s entrance polling showed Huckabee won 45 percent of that group. Mitt Romney, who has feverishly wooed social conservatives, only drew 19 percent of those voters.
Huckabee also seems to have overwhelmingly won the female vote. He picked up close to 45 percent of women, to only 23 percent for Romney, according to CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider.
Coupled with the surge of that other “non-conservative” John McCain’s in New Hampshire, Huckabee’s win will keep pundits on the right busy dis-equating the ideology with Republicanism.
Rush Limbaugh grappled with several calls Thursday afternoon from Huckabee enthusiasts who compared the former Arkansas governor to The Gipper. Reagan, too, had raised taxes as governor of California and signed off on amnesty for illegal aliens as president, they claimed.
After the first call, Limbaugh struggled to maintain his composure. In the process, he launched into a brilliant tour de horizon of Reagan’s conservative credentials as both a thinker and practitioner. (Reagan’s 1964 exposition on the conservative movement remains one of most brilliant tracts.)
If anything, Huckabee’s record, Limbaugh concluded, made him another version of Slick Willie. Like Bill Clinton, Huckabee is making himself malleable enough to everyone just to be elected.
The Reagan comparison is where Hucksters, no doubt egged on by their man’s campaign, have gone terribly wrong – and may live to regret.
Huckabee’s success can be largely attributed to his overwhelming support among evangelical voters and women. Evangelicals constituted the majority of Republican caucus goers, some 60 percent. CNN’s entrance polling showed Huckabee won 45 percent of that group. Mitt Romney, who has feverishly wooed social conservatives, only drew 19 percent of those voters.
Huckabee also seems to have overwhelmingly won the female vote. He picked up close to 45 percent of women, to only 23 percent for Romney, according to CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider.
Coupled with the surge of that other “non-conservative” John McCain’s in New Hampshire, Huckabee’s win will keep pundits on the right busy dis-equating the ideology with Republicanism.
Rush Limbaugh grappled with several calls Thursday afternoon from Huckabee enthusiasts who compared the former Arkansas governor to The Gipper. Reagan, too, had raised taxes as governor of California and signed off on amnesty for illegal aliens as president, they claimed.
After the first call, Limbaugh struggled to maintain his composure. In the process, he launched into a brilliant tour de horizon of Reagan’s conservative credentials as both a thinker and practitioner. (Reagan’s 1964 exposition on the conservative movement remains one of most brilliant tracts.)
If anything, Huckabee’s record, Limbaugh concluded, made him another version of Slick Willie. Like Bill Clinton, Huckabee is making himself malleable enough to everyone just to be elected.
The Reagan comparison is where Hucksters, no doubt egged on by their man’s campaign, have gone terribly wrong – and may live to regret.
CIA And Cover-up: Big Deal!
After weeks of Democratic hollering, Attorney General Michael Mukasey announced Wednesday that the Justice Department is opening a criminal investigation into the destruction of CIA videotapes of the interrogations of terrorist suspects. Federal prosecutor John Durham is to conduct the investigation, which promises to surface prominently as the presidential election campaign progresses.
CIA director General Michael Hayden touched off a maelstrom last month by acknowledging that some videotapes of Al Qaida suspect interrogations, made in 2002, had been destroyed three years later. The purpose, according to Hayden, was to protect the identities of the prosecutors. As someone sent in by President Bush to fix the much-maligned agency, Hayden must have espoused candor as a cleanser.
Critics of that move – mostly political partisans – accuse the CIA of destroying evidence of torture – a line certain to resonate in the national debate. Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton, who jointly headed the commission that investigated the September 11, 2001 attacks, jumped onto the debate.
In an op-ed published in the New York Times this week, they said CIA officials unlawfully obstructed their investigation by failing to notify them that the videotapes existed. No complaints there. But something still doesn’t sound right. Isn’t it the CIA’s job to cover its tracks as much as it is to mount covert operations?
CIA director General Michael Hayden touched off a maelstrom last month by acknowledging that some videotapes of Al Qaida suspect interrogations, made in 2002, had been destroyed three years later. The purpose, according to Hayden, was to protect the identities of the prosecutors. As someone sent in by President Bush to fix the much-maligned agency, Hayden must have espoused candor as a cleanser.
Critics of that move – mostly political partisans – accuse the CIA of destroying evidence of torture – a line certain to resonate in the national debate. Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton, who jointly headed the commission that investigated the September 11, 2001 attacks, jumped onto the debate.
In an op-ed published in the New York Times this week, they said CIA officials unlawfully obstructed their investigation by failing to notify them that the videotapes existed. No complaints there. But something still doesn’t sound right. Isn’t it the CIA’s job to cover its tracks as much as it is to mount covert operations?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)