current and historic international relations

Al-Qaeda has made terrorism truly global

marialuisa82 — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:13:11 +0000

In a recent poll of 16,000 people in 17 countries, only in nine did a majority of respondents say al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden, its leader, were behind the attacks. Overall some 46% said the group was to blame, with Kenyans and Nigerians most convinced. Alarmingly, 23% of Germans subscribe to the conspiracy theory that the American government plotted the attack. In the Middle East, many point to Israel.

Osama bin Laden, the world’s most wanted man vanished into smoke, leaving a burning trail of militancy stretching from Indonesia to Afghanistan, Iraq, north Africa and Europe. And despite the reward offered for his capture, now $25m, nobody has yet betrayed the whereabouts of “the Sheikh”, who periodically emerges on the internet to deliver some warning to the West.

Al-Qaeda lost a safe haven in Afghanistan, but is rebuilding another one in Pakistan.

On the contrary, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who masterminded September 11th, has gone on trial in Guantánamo Bay and many other leaders have been captured or killed, but others have taken their place. Even if America has not been struck since 2001, European capitals have been bombed.

Western intelligence agencies are convinced al-Qaeda still wants to develop non-conventional weapons, whether chemical or biological agents or “dirty bombs” that create a cloud of radioactivity. Al-Qaeda has built on decades of Middle Eastern terrorism. Palestinian groups internationalised their violence in the 1970s; Hizbullah used suicide-bombers against the Americans in Lebanon back in 1983; Palestinian suicide-bombers sought to inflict maximum civilian casualties in Israel from 1994; and Algerians who hijacked a French airliner the same year tried to fly it into the Eiffel Tower but were foiled.

In those days attacking Western targets was part of a local nationalist or sectarian fight.

Al-Qaeda’s genius was to weave these strands together with globalisation to create a networked movement with a single worldwide cause: jihad against America. Conventional terrorist groups, such as the Basque ETA movement or even Lebanon’s Hizbullah, often keep their violence in bounds to avoid alienating their political supporters. But global jihadists seek to maximise civilian casualties for spectacular effect. Disparate Arab fighters who helped Afghan ones evict Soviet forces from Afghanistan in 1989 were initially elated, but became dejected by the ensuing civil war and the failure of violent campaigns in Egypt, Algeria and elsewhere. A cadre of wandering jihadists gathered in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban and decided to redirect their ire from the “near” enemy to the “far” one.

Seen in this light, one of the objectives of the September 11th attacks was to provoke the Americans into invading Muslim lands. But if al-Qaeda intended to trap America in Afghanistan, its plan went badly, at least initially. The Taliban fell quickly in 2001 and al-Qaeda’s followers were forced into hiding. A hubristic America, however, then walked into a trap of its own making by invading Iraq in 2003. It gave the jihadists a popular cause against American occupiers in the Muslim heartland..

So terrorism experts are now debating whether al-Qaeda is starting to burn itself out. Many thought he was being overly optimistic. The bigger danger now comes from loose groups of Muslims in the West who radicalise each other and carry out autonomous, self-financed attacks. Part of the problem lies in al-Qaeda’s diffuse nature, its members number only hundreds. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organisation, a militant network and a subculture of rebellion all at the same time.

The rise of al-Qaeda’s stateless terrorism does not mean that the old state-sponsored variety has disappeared.

Libya, which once supported the IRA and other violent causes, may now be co-operating with the West, but

Iran, among others, supports both Palestinian militants and Lebanon’s Hizbullah movement. Should Iran redirect Hizbullah towards a global terrorist campaign against the West—for instance, if the country’s nuclear sites were bombed—the effect might be more devastating than any of al-Qaeda’s works.

For the moment the most immediate global threat comes from the ungoverned and ungovernable areas of the Muslim world. (the Afghan-Pakistani border, the parts of Iraq still in turmoil, the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, and swathes of Yemen, Somalia, the western Sahara desert and the chain of islands between Indonesia and the Philippines)

The internet binds together the cloud of jihadist groups, spreads the ideology, weaves together the idea that Islam is under attack, popularises militant acts and distributes terrorist know-how. Because al-Qaeda is so dispersed, the fight against it has strained an international order still based on sovereign states.

Redefining recession

marialuisa82 — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:01:05 +0000

Which of the big economies will be first to dip into recession as a result of the credit crunch?

The answer depends largely on what you mean by “recession”…

Most economists assume that it implies a fall in real GDP. Since it has created confusion, the standard definition of recession needs rethinking.

In the second quarter of this year, America’s GDP rose at a surprisingly robust rate of 3.3%,
while output in the euro area and Japan fell,
and Britain’s was flat.

Many economists reckon that both Japan and the euro area could see a second quarter of decline in the three months. This would put them in recession, a fate which America has avoided.But for measures other than GDP, America has been in trouble over the past year.Since the start of the credit crunch in August 2007 on GDP growth, America has outperformed Europe and Japan.

Unemployment, however, is worst. America’s jobless rate hit 6.1% in August, up from 4.7% a year earlier. Japan’s has risen by only 0.2%, the euro area’s has fallen slightly (though in absolute terms it is still a bit higher than America’s). Another yardstick, GDP per head, takes account of the fact that America’s population is rising rapidly, whereas Japan’s has started to shrink. Since the third quarter of 2007 America’s average income per person has barely increased; Japan’s has enjoyed the biggest gain.

To the average person, a large rise in unemployment means a recession.

By contrast, the economists’ rule that a recession is defined by two consecutive quarters of falling GDP is silly.

If an economy grows by 2% in one quarter and then contracts by 0.5% in each of the next two quarters, it is deemed to be in recession. But if GDP contracts by 2% in one quarter, rises by 0.5% in the next, then falls by 2% in the third, it escapes, even though the economy is obviously weaker.

In fact, America’s GDP did not decline for two consecutive quarters during the 2001 recession.

However, it is not just the “two-quarter” rule that is flawed; GDP figures themselves can be misleading.

They should be subject to large revisions. Since 1999, America’s quarterly GDP growth has on average been revised down by an annualised 0.4 percentage points between the first and final estimates.In contrast, figures in the euro area and Britain have been revised up by an average of 0.5 percentage points.Indeed, there is good reason to believe that America’s recent growth will be revised down.These are good reasons not to place too much weight on GDP in trying to spot recessions or when comparing slowdowns across economies.
The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), America’s official arbiter of recessions, instead makes its judgments based on monthly data for industrial production, employment, real income, and wholesale and retail trade.It has not yet decided whether a recession has begun. But even the NBER’s more sophisticated approach is too simplistic in that it defines a recession as an absolute decline in economic activity. This can cause problems when trying to compare the depth of downturns in different cycles or across different countries. Suppose country A has a long-term potential (trend) growth rate of 3% and country B one of only 1.5%, due to slower labour-force growth. Annual GDP growth of 2% will cause unemployment to rise in country A (making it feel like a recession), but to fall in country B. Likewise, if faster productivity growth pushes up a country’s trend rate of growth, as it has in America since the mid-1990s, an economic downturn is less likely to cause an absolute drop in output.

It makes more sense to define a recession as a period when growth falls significantly below its potential rate.

The IMF estimates that America and Britain have faster trend growth rates than Japan or the euro area. The bottom-right chart shows that since the third quarter of last year, growth has been below trend in all four economies, but Britain, closely followed by America, has seen the biggest drop relative to potential. But even if this is a better definition of recession, potential growth rates are hard to measure and revisions to GDP statistics are still a problem.

One solution is to pay much more attention to unemployment numbers, which are not subject to revision and are more timely. A rise in unemployment is a good signal that growth has fallen below potential and it matches the definition of recession that ordinary people use.

During the past half-century, whenever America’s unemployment rate has risen by half a percentage point or more the NBER has later (often much later) declared it a recession. European firms are slower at shedding jobs, so unemployment may be a lagging indicator. Even so, the jobless rate has usually started to rise a few months after the start of a recession.

When your neighbour loses his job, it is called an economic slowdown. When you lose your job, it is a recession.

on the background….The Economic Cycle:

When the economy is strong, most people are employed and making money. There will then be a larger demand for goods such as food, electronics & vehicles and this increases so much that the supply can not keep up with the demand This excess demand creates a rise in prices, or inflation. As prices go up, salary’s need to rise to keep up with the rising prices of goods The rise in employment cost for companies translates into a rise in prices for most items.

When the prices for goods and services get too high, consumers decide goods are too expensive and slow down or stop buying. When the demand decreases, companies lay off workers because they don’t need to make as much as before. Decreasing demand fuels declining prices, which means the economy is in a recession.
Companies counter act this by lowering prices to spur the demand. As demand picks up, people begin buying again, fueling the need for greater supply. And the cycle starts again.

European place in a new world order

marialuisa82 — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:37:14 +0000

The Georgian crisis has exposed a shift in the global balance of power.

In Europe it has diffused the sense of an American decline. Something like a multipolar world, dreamed by the previous generation of EU leaders, such as Jacques Chirac or Gerhard Schröder, may have arrived.

The EU has been slow to act because the new world order is making it anxious.

The EU mission to Russia is negligible
the deal reached on September 8th ignored some serious problems like

the withdrawal of extra Russian troops from South Ossetia and Abkhazia (because the loss of these enclaves seems to be done),
or the ceasefire monitors and the return of refugees.

Russians don’t show great respect for the Europeans; they consider EU an insignificant club

their troops might not withdraw to pre-conflict positions after all and
Russian officials refused to display the EU flag at the press conference, wanting only French and Russian flags

By the way Mr Sarkozy’s weight as a negotiator derives from a mandate, agreed by 27 EU heads of government, to demand that Russia pull back its troops.

The definition of the new order

Moreover EU foreign ministers defined the new order “apolar world”(a phrase coined by Niall Ferguson, a British historian) in which America remains an undisputed superpower, but no single country can now control the world. Europeans had imagined the new world would be a paradise of dialogue and compromise in which assertive nation-states challenge the idea of an open global system, governed by international rules, common values and multilateral organisations, but that was naive.

Maybe this one can be considered a neo-polar world, in which old alliances and rivalries are changing. Mr Chirac dreamt a European pole in opposition to American “hegemony” but even the crisis in Georgia has not shocked the EU so to assume a common position on Russia.

The pro Russia camp, reckons Russia is unreasonably being held responsible for a war that was started by American-backed Georgians. On the contrary,

The Anti Russia camp: Britain, Sweden and newer EU members from the ex-communist block condemn Russia as well as Georgia.

Naming the stand-off between Russia and the West

The Cold war was an era of rivalry, both military and ideological, between two global superpowers.

However defining the beginning and end of the old cold war is difficult.

Maybe it started with Lenin,

Stalin

when the Iron Curtain was erected in Europe at the end of the second world war.

with the Berlin airlift of 1948

it ended with the Helsinki Accords of 1973,

with Mikhail Gorbachev’s glasnost and perestroika.

Now Russia

seems to flirt with Venezuela and Iran, and
refuses to vote for sanctions against Zimbabwe at the UN

But the West’s disagreement with Russia is just a regional conflict because Russia is too weak for global struggle. The Soviet Union could pretend to be a superpower but Russia cannot.

In alliance with China, it might perhaps be able to form a serious anti-western alliance.

Even in nuclear arms, Russia is no match for the West. As far as conventional weapons go, any adversary bigger than Georgia would present problems.

And the clear ideological division seems missing too.Russia has no messianic ideology that attracts fervent believers all over the world. Westerners who sympathise with the modern Kremlin are a rum mixture of amoral financiers, America-haters and anti-capitalists. Finally, Russia is integrated into the West in business, financial and cultural terms to an extent that would have been inconceivable in Soviet days. Millions of Russians travel abroad. Russia is an open society where people can live their lives as they like. That’s why a “new cold war” seems to be absurd. The current era of confrontation with Russia is new and different .

But there are similarities wuth the cold war. The main theatre is the same; the countries of eastern and central Europe. Now they are struggling not be affected by Russian economic influence or military occupation.

The ideological struggle between capitalism and communism has been replaced by a clash of values. Russia reckoons that a free press and an opposition that can win elections are not necessary parts of a modern economy.

European Role

Whether the neo-polar world remains a scary place, nobody knows if Europeans will keep supporting the Euro-Atlantic pole. Indeed foreign policy, led by France, asserts a stronger alliance with America. Since the EU needs its own defence capability if it wants to be taken seriously, a French plan for a push on European defence, in support to NATO, will be presented in October. But there’s no consensus for an ambitious defence project in Europe.

Russia’s Western Neighbours warned by Russia’s war with Georgia

marialuisa82 — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:39:54 +0000

UKRAINE, BELARUS AND MOLDOVA REACTIONS TO THE SHORT AUGUST RUSSIAN WAR

THE priority for Europe after Russia’s August war with Georgia was

to secure a ceasefire and a pullback of Russian forces

to start dealing with Russia’s other neighbours (Ukraine)….

Ukraine supports Georgia:

Viktor Yushchenko, Ukraine’s president flew to Tbilisi to support Saakashvili.
Georgian battle tanks were modernised in Ukraine.
Russian nationalists believe Crimea, which has a large ethnic Russian population, should be returned to Russia (new Russian passports have been diffused, just as happened in South Ossetia and Abkhazia).
Ukraine, like Georgia, has tried to enter in the European Union and NATO.

Internal contrasts:

Tymoshenko (prime minister +RUSSIA) against Yushenko (president+ Georgia)

Both will contest a presidential election in 2010

Ms Tymoshenko

Mr Yushenko

1. Her usually pro-Western government blocked a parliamentary motion to condemn Russia’s aggression

2. The prime minister joined with the pro-Russian Party of the Regions, led by Viktor Yanukovich.

3. She has great popularity ratings (22,5% for her, against 5% for him) because she asserts her desire to guarantee Ukraine’s territorial integrity, without inflaming relations with Russia

1. He tries to impose restrictions on Russian Black Sea fleet

2.Mr Yushchenko pulled his own Our Ukraine party out of its coalitionwith the Tymoshenko block.

3. He accused Ms Tymoshenko of “high treason”, suggesting she was a Kremlin agent out to win Moscow’s support (and financial backing) for her presidential Purpose.

Three political options:

a fresh parliamentary election,
a face-saving truce between Mr Yushchenko and Ms Tymoshenko
a new coalition between Ms Tymoshenko and Mr Yanukovich.

USA

America’s preference called for orange unity: Ukraine should be united domestically first and united with other democracies. It seems that the Bush administration supported Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, but Mr Yanukovich pointed out that a majority of Ukrainians are against joining.

At a European Union-Ukraine summit in Paris on September 9th, France’s Prime minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, offered to sign a vague “association agreement” next year. But unlike a similar agreements for the Balkan countries, this one would not carry any implication of eventual membership. Countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany oppose the chance to confer the candidate status to Ukraine.
Russian Federation

Ukraine will have to maintain reasonable relations with Moscow as well as the rest of Europe.

Because it is dependent on Russia for its oil and gas,

for uranium enrichment,

and as a market in which it can sell its own goods.

The Baltics, already in both the EU and NATO, are still wary.

Belarus, Europe’s “last dictatorship”, is using the war to refasten its relationship with the West, resisting Russian pressure to recognise South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Belarus’s president, Lukashenka, disposed to let a new parliament decide the matter, after an election at the end of September. It’s an attempt to ease Western sanctions on the country.

Indeed Mr Lukashenka seems also to have permitted the hosting of Russian nuclear missiles on his soil as part of the Kremlin’s response to America’s planned missile defences in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Moldova, like Georgia, has an enclave, Transdniestria,“protected” by Russian troops. Although Moldova has no aspirations to join NATO, it would be expected to get into the EU.

Its president, Vladimir Voronin, met his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, in late August. Mr Medvedev said there was a “good chance” of settling the dispute. But after the August war, the Moldovans fear, rightly, that this might be done only on Russian terms.

The costs of America’s fight against terror, seven years later

marialuisa82 — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:21:40 +0000

Even if both the Whitehouse candidates Barack Obama and John McCain agree that American “war on terror” could be consedered successful, it doesn’t seems to be like this…

1. there are two American-led wars in the Islamic world,

2. al-Qaeda still installed in Pakistan

3 American security is not efficient

BAD NEWS IN

anti-American sentiment around the world remains high

1. Afghanistan: America invaded Afghanistan shortly after the 2001 attacks, yet nowadays, victory is a long way off in the battle against terror.

(According to some America’s military officers) The Taliban and al-Qaeda continue to mount attacks, and American operations result in civilian deaths.

2. Pakistan: offers an almost untouchable refuge for al-Qaeda. America has the tribal areas along the Pakistani-Afghan border at it.

This has caused anger in Pakistan, risking to weaken American influence on a crucial ally.

3. Iraq:Americans openly admit that they would move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.

GOOD NEWS

No attack has taken place on American soil since sept 11 2001 because

1.Those countries having suffered terrorism since 2001 themselves: Britain, Spain, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia offer co-operation with American spy services, encouraging a large number of high-profile arrests since 2001,(including that of two of the leading organisers of the September 11th attacks)

In America’s mainland every terrorist organisations’ attempt (Recruits’ finding , training, getting t visas into the countries they would attack)is impeded.

THE COSTS

a) America’s economy lacks in keeping foreign workers and tourists that traditionally enriched it.

b) the highest price is the tightening of civil liberties due to the Patriot Act, wich gives the government sweeping powers of surveillance.

c) America still maintains a legally dubious prison at Guantanamo Bay, the sympol of compromised liberty for security. Because of this citizens feel vulnerable and uneasy about what they have given up for better security.

The aim of this blog

marialuisa82 — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:09:57 +0000

it’s just to avoid this!!! IGNORANCE