Q&A:
Recent Political Developments
بسم
الله الرحمن الرحيم
1.
The G7
The Group of
Seven or G7 was formed in 1976. It is a forum where the finance ministers from
seven industrialized nations meet to discuss economic issues and policies. The
G7 membership consists of France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, Canada
and United States of America. The European Union is represented by the
President of the European Commission and the leader of the country that holds
the Presidency of the Council of the European Union. Russia formally joined the
group in 1997, resulting in the 'Group of Eight' - the G8. G7 should not be
confused with the G8, which is the annual meeting of the heads of government of
the above nations, including Russia.
The latest G7
meeting was convened on February 14 2009 in Rome. The policy makers met after
economic reports this week showed Germany's economy contracted the most in 22
years, in the fourth quarter, and U.S. consumer confidence neared its lowest
since 1981. Moreover, both the World Bank and the IMF have officially announced
that the world economy is in depression. But despite the gravity of the
situation and like previous G7 meetings, the agenda was dominated by the global
economic crisis and internal schisms between Europe and the US. Furthermore,
the participants of the G7 failed to discuss specifics and were once again
happy to pledge support for vague general ideas, such as:
"We
reaffirm our commitment to act together using the full range of policy tools to
support growth and employment and strengthen the financial sector. The
stabilization of the global economy and financial markets remains our highest
priority."
"The
G7 remains committed to avoiding protectionist measures, which would only
exacerbate the downturn, to refrain from raising new barriers and to working
towards a quick and ambitious conclusion of the Doha Round."
It was obvious
that G7's commitment to such ideas was not taken seriously by many experts,
particularly the Europeans. Simon Johnson, former chief economist at the
International Monetary Fund, now a professor at MIT, said the G7 was "asleep
at the wheel", adding, "[The meeting] was a great opportunity
for this group of leading industrial countries to reassert its leadership in
the global economy. Instead, all we received officially is a communiqué that
blandly restates what these documents always say."
Marco Annunziata,
chief economist at Unicredit MIB in London said, "The statement ticks
all the right boxes, but as expected does not go beyond generic statements of
principle and commitments that we have heard before. The commitment to act in a
coordinated way flies in the face of the rather uncoordinated approach that followed
similar commitments last October."
French Finance
Minister Christine Lagarde said, "On paper it looks great and the
principles are certainly very good. The essential thing is now to implement
it." Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney told reporters in Rome: "It
is a comprehensive plan, the intent is there, the will is there...The question
is implementation and execution."
At the heart of
the issue is that the Europeans do not trust America's notion of the free
market. America proclaims that it wants free trade, but the recent stimulus
bill passed by US lawmakers promotes protectionism, and contradicts the G7
statement on protectionism, as well as the US treasury secretary's own
statement at the meeting. Geithner said, "All countries need to sustain
a commitment to open trade and investment policies which are essential to
economic growth and prosperity."
Europeans are
extremely worried that America will close its markets to European goods and
lobbied hard for the Obama administration to dilute the "Buy American"
reference in its $787 billion dollar stimulus package. Speaking at the G7,
Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling said, "We must
be vigilant on creeping protectionism whether it is intentional or
unintentional."
However, the
Europeans are also guilty of protectionism. For instance, Britain's recent
moves to protect its work force from European migrant workers or government
rescue packages for French and Italian carmakers. In all practical terms, the
idea of an unfettered, free market is dead!
The way the West
is behaving is as if they have run out of solutions to treat the complete
breakdown of the global financial system. All they can do is throw more money
at the problem or ask other countries most notably the G20 to share their burden.
For instance, the G7 applauded China's decision to look into its
exchange-rates. The statement said, "We welcome China's fiscal measures
and continued commitment to move to a more flexible exchange rate, which should
lead to continued appreciation of the Renminbi (Yuan) in effective terms."
The statement was
meant to placate China after the new US treasury secretary attacked the high
value of the Yuan. (America for quite some time has pressed China to devalue
its currency thereby creating a situation which will aid the US economy in
boosting exports and helping the payment of its external debt). "The
G-7 has realised that China needs to be brought into the fold of the global
financial system rather than be treated as a pariah just because of yuan inflexibility,"
said Geoffrey Yu, a London-based foreign-exchange strategist at UBS AG in
London. "This statement will be welcomed in Beijing and help defuse the
recent tension between China and the U.S." Additionally, the G7
countries are not co-coordinating their efforts. Rather each country is
addressing its own problems with its own remedies-again in violation of the
pledge.
This conference
is a prelude to the next one which is to be held on 22 April in London. It will
highlight the impact on China. China is least affected by the crisis, it did
not enter recession and the recession, and growth is still occurring though
more slowly than in previous years. China is now the focus of the seven heads
of capitalism. It appears that the expression in the final statement "the
use of all policy instruments to support growth and employment and strengthen
the financial sector" is not intended internally, but externally, so
as to force other nations, particularly China, to accept their demands or their
blackmail, such as: raising the exchange rate of its currency, the Yuan, to
continue to buy U.S. Treasury bonds, such that since the emergence of the
crisis China has bought more than a trillion dollars worth.
This is asides
from China buying shares of mortgage companies "Fanny Mae and Freddie
Mac" of about half a trillion dollars, tens of billions of shares of
Morgan Stanley, the giant, so as to protect them from collapse, as well as Bank
of America amongst others. China is still demanding the application of the terms
of the World Trade Organization, which she joined in 2001, including the
liberalization of markets and opening of them to China.
Despite all of
this, America is still working to present itself as the leader of the world,
sparing no efforts to do so. The new, US Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner,
said that, "the world faces the worst economic and financial crisis in
decades, and that governments should act decisively, but with a commitment to
the principles of free trade" (Reuters 14/2/2009)
In conclusion,
America has worked in this conference to prove that she is still the leader of
the world. America is being forced to do so due to the weakening of confidence
in her after following the recent financial crisis. It is expected to do so
again in the next G20 conferences too- perhaps more forcefully- and to dictate
its desires to the other countries. Moreover, the major powers in the European
Union have not been able to take advantage of the rare opportunity that arose
in the wake of the economic crisis, so as to replace the United States as the
leading nation or even use become a close rival, particularly when America took
the brunt of the recent financial crisis, with a loss of confidence in her and
the ideology of Capitalism which is the cause of the crisis. All that is left
to say is that the policy of arrogance and conceit in the Bush era has gone and
has been proved a failure, bringing a scourge upon all of the Western nations.
2.
The Western Sahara Desert
The al-Quds al-
Arabi in its issue dated 6th February, 2009 announced the intention of the
international envoy for the Western Sahara region to visit the countries of
this region: Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania and the city of Tindouf. On 17thth
February, 2009, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon had announced appointment
of an American named Christopher Ross as the Special Envoy to the Western
Sahara region succeeding Miguel Moratinos of Spain.
Meanwhile Ross
last week decided to visit the region including Algeria, Morocco and the city
of Tindouf which is the headquarter of the Polisario Movement. The Special
Envoy has included Spain in his schedule, though it has major stakes in the
Western Sahara and previous envoys to the region used to visit Spain for
consultations. But Ross cited his meeting in Washington with the Spanish
minister for not going to Spain in his current tour. This implies that that the
Western Sahara problem is an African issue for a long time and it does not
constitute vital and strategic interest for Washington and which are imperative
to be dealt with in the current scenario.
The US is
currently preoccupied with the miserable economic crisis. This is despite the
fact that the new US administration has stressed that it would involve the
Europeans in finding solutions to the global issues! Ross had announced that
after the negotiations in the region, he would call for a fifth meeting in
Manhattan near Washington. Four earlier meetings had failed to resolve the
crisis in the period between July, 2006 and March, 2008 because each party was
adamant about its stand and the previous US administration did not work to
bring about proximity between the negotiating parties.
It is only
expected that the new American Special Envoy will work to manage the conflict
and not to solve it as such. This will allow US to keep the conflict within its
control which is Henry Kissinger's strategy in handling conflicts without
resolving. Meanwhile the UNSC has announced that it will take a new decision on
the Western Sahara issue after the 5th negotiations meeting expected between
the warring parties, Morocco and the Polisario, at the end of which Ross will
submit his report to the Council.
3.
Munich Conference On Global Peace and Security
US Vice President
Joe Biden addressed the Munich Security Conference this year and the US
administration sent a message to the Western Countries and Russia who were
expecting changes in the US foreign policy by the new US administration. His
address however focused on the generalities and did not touch upon vital global
strategies. Joe Biden led US delegation this year instead of the usual Defence
Secretary which implied a break with the past when William Gates would head the
US delegation. This is in accordance with the US President's promise and
reassures that his foreign policy is in control in the current US
administration.
The US delegation
also included the National Security Advisor James Jones which is meant to
signal that in the new US foreign policy, there is no rivalry between the
Defence and State departments, though the delegation also included former US
forces commander and currently the commander of the US Central command General
David Petreus, Richard Holbrooke from the State department. However the
presence of these men in the US delegation signifies the importance that the
current administration attaches to Pakistan & Afghanistan; one is a man
under whose command US forces are headed for Afghanistan, while the other is
the president's envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan.
In this context,
the New York Times wrote on 7th February, 2009: "America has convinced
Germany to strengthen its forces in eastern Afghanistan to 4500 men and France
will submit a bill to its parliament asking it to keep its 3300 soldiers in
Afghanistan." This is like a clarification of what the NATO commander
had earlier said which suggested that Germany and France have refused to
increase the number of their troops in Afghanistan, while also reassuring that
they will not abandon the United States' forces fighting global conflicts all
alone. This was mentioned in New York Times on 9th February, 2009.
Joe Biden, on the
other hand said: "I come to Europe on behalf of a new administration
determined to set a new tone in Washington, and in America's relations around
the world. America will do more, but America will ask for more from our
partners."
On Afghanistan,
he added: "The United States is trying to lay clear targets that are
achievable, both Washington and its allies must bear the responsibility."
On the Middle
East issue, he did not elaborate on his support for building two nations. On
Russia, he said: "We can and should cooperate to secure loose nuclear
weapons and materials and prevent their spread, to renew the verification
procedures in the START treaty and then go beyond existing treaties to
negotiate deeper cuts in our arsenals. The United States and Russia have a
special obligation to lead the international effort to reduce the number of
nuclear weapons in the world." He also stressed that US policies in
the Eastern Europe, which frustrate the Russians, are firm.
However, the US
desires to cooperate with the Europeans and the Russians, he said that he saw
no change in US's strategic foreign policy. Although he stated this, his tone
was different from that used by Donald Rumsfeld who would be abrasive even with
the allies, Rumsfeld once told Fischer: "Do you understand, Mr.
Minister?!"
4.
Israeli Elections and Expected Impact
It was observed
that the current US administration did not interfere in the Israeli elections
which against the precedents set by earlier US administrations. The same US
that once dethroned Netanyahu did nothing this time to prevent his return to
head the government.
It was America
that brought Ariel Sharon and his Kadima party which followed the US line in
the negotiations based on the two-nation theory in a way that served both, the
US interests as well as those of the Jewish entity as envisioned by America.
The US backed the
Kadima party against the Likud and the Labour parties, but in the recent
elections, it did not try to weaken Netanyahu despite the fact that he declared
his intention to proceed along the self rule rather than pursue the two-nation
policy favoured by the US. This is in spite of the fact that the US was in a
position to weaken him and prop up the Kadima party by increasing their
vote-share as it used to do in the past.
However, the two
approaches, i.e., the self-rule and the two nation policy, do not differ much
except in their appearance. The maximum that can be harnessed from the
two-nation policy is self-rule any way! It is only that entering the
negotiations for the two-nations policy, will give the impression that the
American agenda is at works, while the declaration of the self-rule amounts to
just that, and make a mockery of the US.
It is well-known
and America knows it well too, that the Jewish entity's life & death lies
in America's hands. Then what compelled the US to keep away from the elections
without interfering in it to weaken the Likud and strengthen the Kadima party?
It appears that
the US refrained from interference to achieve the following objectives:
1. It intends to
focus on the twin subjects: Economy and Afghanistan in the initial stages of
Obama's term in office because they occupy a position of priority for America
and its ruling party. Therefore it was inevitable that America refrains from
direct interference in the Middle East mess to allow the administration to
remain focused on subjects that require immediate attention.
2. The US wants
the region to calm down, for which it is merely issuing statements from the
backstage so that the regions returns to a relative stability in the next one
or one and half years which will give enough time to the involved parties to
crystallise their positions and plans and the US would meanwhile be free from its
more pressing issues.
3. Reorganizing
what it calls, the Palestinian house in order through compromises and
rebuilding the Palestinian Authority based on new principles by integrating the
Hamas and the Islamic Jihad.
4. Allowing time
for the Jews' public opinion that supported Netanyahu to settle down and
witness any failure of his Self-rule policy and also then rally around the
-Two-nation project and see it in their interest.
5. After this
initial period which may stretch between one-and-half to two years, America
will be free from its current priorities of Economy and Afghanistan, or so it
thinks, and then take up the issue of Palestine. Then it will not be opposed
either by Netanyahu or any other Jew. This is because such is the tendency of
the Jewish entity, it can not sustain on its own without support of the US.
or,
see this link
No comments:
Post a Comment