tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87163137038743554512024-03-13T17:55:09.837-07:00Hard CurrencyQueensU kid, and self diagnosed policy wonk. I'm a sucker for a good graph.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03121806177519862492noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716313703874355451.post-44983713065104182322015-09-25T20:01:00.000-07:002015-11-03T12:49:34.638-08:00Libya is Obama's Mess To Own <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2011/05/04/2f954d32-a643-11e2-a3f0-029118418759/thumbnail/620x350/4edfcfe3d3816de2e63a1abf04a32002/AP110504048643.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2011/05/04/2f954d32-a643-11e2-a3f0-029118418759/thumbnail/620x350/4edfcfe3d3816de2e63a1abf04a32002/AP110504048643.jpg" height="225" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Libya's Lost Generation </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
As his administration enters its twilight years, President Obama certainly has several key policy pieces he can proudly tout as his legacy; healthcare reform that eluded the Clinton administration, a resurgent economy as well as wins on several social issues. Even his record on foreign policy, relatively muddled as it may be, holds several moves which in time could prove to be shrewdly negotiated wins. The same cannot be said however, for how this administration has handled its involvement in the Libyan Civil War. Given the renewed questions about potential American involvement in Syria due to Russia ratcheting up its support of the Assad regime, the time is now ripe to revisit the country’s last foray into a messy civil conflict in the region and see what lessons can be learned. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
in 2011, what began as a string of popular protests against the oppressive rule of Libya’s longtime strongman Moammar Gaddafi, inspired by similar movements in nearby countries such as Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan and Bahrain that later came to be collectively dubbed as the “Arab Spring”, turned bloody. As the chorus calling for extensive reforms grew louder, Gaddafi initially cracked down in brutal fashion. Perhaps remembering what happened the last time the West <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/mar/31/usa.rwanda">plead ignorance</a> to flagrant atrocities being committed right under its nose, the United States led an effort to secure NATO a UN Security Council mandate to intervene by means of a no-fly zone in hopes of averting a potential humanitarian catastrophe. President Obama would later say “We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi -a city nearly the size of Charlotte- could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.” And so not long after receiving authorization in a tenuous vote where both the Chinese and Russians were convinced to abstain, NATO warplanes made the first bombing sorties over Libya. Already facing pressure from a fractious alliance of several until-recently-largely-suppressed tribal and militant groups, now being armed by sympathetic countries both in the Gulf and the West (<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/14/libya-rebels-weapons-qatar">via Qatar</a>), Gaddafi's forces didn’t stand a chance. In a matter of months the tables turned dramatically. By October, Tripoli had been overrun and Gaddafi summarily executed by a bullet to the head. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Western analysis of the situation in the immediate aftermath of Gaddafi being deposed declared the intervention a success, having prevented large scale atrocities and seen the ultimate toppling of, by<a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12532929"> some accounts</a>, a very brutal dictator. The US’s representative to NATO even went so far as to pen an article where he declared the alliance’s involvement a victory and went on to call it a “model intervention”. Now four years later this cheery assessment rings hollow, when the country’s internationally recognized government is now unable to exert control over its own ports and oil fields, Islamists and tribal groups run roughshod over large swathes of its territory and Libyan weapons ransacked from its armories have turned up in other <a href="http://blogs.cfr.org/patrick/2013/01/29/collateral-damage-how-libyan-weapons-fueled-malis-violence/">hotbeds for Islamist terrorism</a> across the region. <br />
<br />
But before turning an eye towards the extent to which radicals have infiltrated the political and social fabric of Libya itself, it is important to consider the ripple effect of toppling Gaddafi, and what role it played in nurturing the Islamist insurgencies many other countries in the region are now grappling with. Perhaps the most jarring example of illicit weapon flows from Libya fueling conflicts abroad however, can be found in Mali. The first wave was caused by ethnic Tuaregs within the country’s security services taking their weapons and fleeing to Mali following the fall of the regime. Hoping to assist the Tuareg minority in that country launch an insurrection of their own, it instead was <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-new-terrorist-training-ground/309446/">hijacked</a> by the Islamist groups such as Ansar Dine with whom they had formed an uneasy truce in hopes of driving Malian forces from the north of the country. Indirectly or not, the Libyan rebels played a key role in the war, allowing weapons to be funnelled out of the country through Tunisia and Niger and into Northern Mali. While ISIS made waves last summer when it declared the establishment of a “Caliphate” in parts of Iraq and Syria, Mali quietly gained the notorious distinction of being host to the <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/terrorists-guns-and-cocaine-why-northern-mali-matters/">largest swathe of sovereign territory controlled by a terrorist organization</a>. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
And to make matters worse, it does not simply stop there; Libyan weapons have also been smuggled through Egypt and Lebanon and into the hands of militants everywhere from the Gaza Strip to Syria. Of particular concern to arms control experts is the widespread proliferation of man-portable air defence systems, often referred to as <a href="https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/manpads">MANPADs</a>. Light enough to be carried by individual infantry, they are capable of shooting down anything from a helicopter to a commercial airliner. Approximately 15,000 went missing in the aftermath of the war, and a buyback effort by the United States has only managed to secure roughly 5000. Perhaps even more frighteningly, a report on the subject added that <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/thousands-of-libyan-missiles-from-qaddafi-era-missing-in-action/">several hundred of the missiles were still completely unaccounted for</a>, potentially having wound up in the hands of groups such as Boko Haram in Nigeria or Hamas in Gaza. And any doubts regarding this assertion were shattered during 2012’s Operation Returning Echo, when an IDF helicopter was nearly shot down by a missile that subsequent investigations determined originated from Libya. More recently, militants in Egypt successfully shot down a military helicopter using the missile. Other Libyan arms have surfaced in arms markets frequently used by terror groups in places such as <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/pomegranate/2013/03/arms-yemen">Yemen and Somalia</a>. That NATO intervened without seriously considering the intentions of the groups it would implicitly be backing, or made any effort to secure Gaddafi’s arsenals, instead trusting that the militias would agree to unilaterally disarm was foolish and naive on the part of the Obama administration and its allies. Of course all the blame for what transpired cannot be placed upon the United States, for Gaddafi’s weapons represented just one stream of armaments that flowed out of the country following the war. NATO’s mission was imperilled from the get-go by the actions of its supposed allies, who purchased billions in weapons for various militant groups that later went on to fuel other conflicts across the region. It became incredibly difficult for participating states to credibly state that the reason for intervention was purely humanitarian in nature when moves by allies widely seen as being done in concert with NATO efforts were blatantly aimed at propping up one side in the civil war. The Russian ambassador to the UN made note of this when he said “NATO forces frankly violated the UN Security Council resolution on Libya, when instead of imposing the so-called ‘no-fly zone’ over it they started bombing it too.” Whether NATO expanded its mandate <a href="http://www.mei.edu/content/article/nato-and-gulf-what%E2%80%99s-next">at the behest of Gulf state allies</a> or if they intended to take sides in the conflict all along is up for debate, but regardless, doing so enabled the nearly uninterrupted flow of weapons to Islamist terror groups, who once rid of Gaddafi (a strong ally with regards to U.S counterterrorism efforts in the region) were now free to pursue their goal of fomenting instability in the region armed with billions in newly acquired weapons. <br />
<br />
Due to the efforts on the part of the UAE and Qatar, who in defiance of an arms embargo supplied arms to several militias, most of whom later refused to disarm once the conflict was over, a fertile breeding ground for terrorist groups was created. Many of these very same fighters and militias would go on to play significant roles in other terror hotspots in nearby countries, affiliating themselves with groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIL. Qatar in particular, who continued to <a href="http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/09/21/Report-Qatar-arming-Islamist-extremists.html">funnel arms</a> to Libyan militias as late as September 2014 (two years after the attack on the American compound in Benghazi by a group nominally supported by Qatar), seemingly took no lessons away from Libya, for they continue to arm radical groups in Syria, constructing a potential post-Assad power paradigm that is increasingly likely be eerily similar to that which we now have in Libya.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The government which supplanted Gaddafi’s regime in the years since its fall can only be considered an <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/libya-tale-governments-150404075631141.html">unmitigated disaster</a>. This is the case for several reasons, chief amongst them being the totally outsized role played by the tribal militias who deposed Gaddafi. As previously mentioned, upon the war’s conclusion just about every militia, rather than disarming, instead turned towards consolidating and expanding their territorial holdings. As a result, the interim National Transitional Council that was appointed to oversee a speedy return to free elections had its hands tied. Its largest source of funds, oil, was<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-now-has-a-foothold-in-an-oil-rich-mediterranean-port-city-2015-3"> virtually cut off</a> as the majority of the country’s ports, fields and refineries were in the hands of militias who refused the NTC’s demand that they disarm and stand for election if they wished to play a role in government. Entrusting the momentous task of implementing regime change to a group of insurgents that the West did not seem to fully understand backfired spectacularly, especially when you consider how atrocities against civilians have still continued post-Gaddafi, with hospitals being the site of kidnappings and rocket attacks. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The narrative widely peddled in the media as to why intervention was necessary in the first place claimed that Benghazi was the site of an impending massacre by Gaddafi’s forces. And yet reexamining the regime’s actions in the months before intervention reveals a portrait of relative restraint. While the actions taken by Gaddafi’s forces would not have been acceptable from Western forces, intervening only seemed to worsen the situation. Initial reports on casualties seemed to vindicate NATO action; in September 2011 rebels claimed that 30,000 had been killed. However the NTC’s subsequent investigations following the war poked several holes in this figure, revising the number down to 11,500 including regime and rebel fighters, as well as missing persons. In the years since the conflict however, supposedly a period of peaceful transition towards democracy, 2012 and 2013 both saw low level conflict that is estimated to have killed roughly 500 a year. 2014 essentially saw the return of open civil war, and with it the deaths of over 2,750, three years removed from a supposedly successful intervention.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: orange; font-size: large;">“Throw away your weapons, exactly like your brothers in Ajdabiya and other places did. They laid down their arms and they are safe. We never pursued them at all.”</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As the legacy of Western intervention in the country becomes more clear, so is just what really happened. An alternative narrative has emerged, that Libyan nationals in Switzerland, sympathetic to the rebel forces who were on their last legs in Benghazi, leaked false information pertaining to a potential massacre of the besieged troops and civilians in the city. Regardless of how true this claim was, their plea for help worked; NATO swiftly intervened and completely reversed the tide of the war, handing the rebels who were previously on the brink of defeat a stunning victory. Lending credibility to this story are the numbers from Syria. Before the Libyan intervention commenced in March of 2011, protests had been largely nonviolent and the regime response, criminal as it was, had not yet morphed into the all out war on its citizens that it would soon become. But by that summer, it is not unlikely that the Syrian opposition took up armed insurrection in hopes of provoking a regime response that would trigger NATO involvement similar to what transpired in Libya. What did occur was a drawn out war with no end in sight four years after the fact. And now as the Russians seem intent on taking a more active role in the war there, it's concerning that the only lesson President Obama took away from Libya was that the United States and its allies didn’t intervene enough. In an interview with the New York Times last year he said “I think we underestimated the need to come in full force. If you’re going to do this there has to be a much more aggressive effort to rebuild societies.” If NATO had more carefully studied the conflict it entered, there might not have been any need to rebuild in the first place. </div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03121806177519862492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716313703874355451.post-47470548589924362982015-07-05T23:02:00.000-07:002015-09-14T12:36:30.775-07:00Swallowing The Poison Pill <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/greece-referendum-no-vote-bailout.jpg?w=1600" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/greece-referendum-no-vote-bailout.jpg?w=1600" width="590" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em;"><tbody>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px; text-align: center;"> Voters in Greece rejected further EU-led austerity today <span style="color: #999999;">(Photo: AFP)</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The stage for a confrontation years in the making was finally set last week, when the Greek government failed to repay a $1.7 billion USD instalment and announced its intention to hold a referendum on whether or not to accept a bailout package which Eurogroup creditors insist be contingent on further austerity measures the leftist government there was loathe to implement. While some likened the latest twist in the ongoing crisis as a game of chicken to see which side <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2015/jun/29/greek-crisis-stock-markets-slide-capital-controls-banks-closed-live">blinks first</a>, it increasingly looks like the rest of the currency union's patience is beginning to wear thin. Eurozone leaders last week warned that a "no" vote would only serve to isolate Greece and drive it further into insolvency. Evidently it wasn't enough to convince Greeks however, who have grappled with levels of unemployment which now see 1 in 4 people jobless, as well as youth unemployment <a href="http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/youth-unemployment-rate">just shy of 50%</a>, for they voted overwhelmingly in favour of rejecting the deal as is. A significant reason why was the successful narrative painting the referendum as the reassertion of the democratic process in negotiations, which many in the country view as the realm of European technocrats and politicians more interested in their European Union pet project than the plight of the average Greek. When the results were announced, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras was jubilant, and for good reason; a "yes" vote would have been disastrous for his vehemently anti-austerity party, who were key in spinning the ultimately winning narrative. To illustrate, the Minister of Labour later said "I believe there is no Greek today who is not proud, because regardless of what he voted he showed that this country above all respects democracy."<br />
<br />
But what of the already dire situation which is now only set to become worse? After the ECB cut emergency liquidity in response to Greece defaulting, the government was forced to implement <a href="http://thecoolcanuck.blogspot.com/2015/04/should-greece-be-quarantined.html">capital controls</a>, something which should have been done months earlier while the banking system was still receiving regular injections of liquidity. While tightly controlling the flow of money out of the system has bought Greece some time, it has done little to stave off a potential banking collapse, with most estimates forecasting that the banks will run out of cash on Monday. Some have suggested that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrip">the use of "scrips"</a>, or IOUs presents a potential way forward in the event of a now inevitable liquidity crunch, pointing out that such a system was successful in 2009 when California was undergoing significant economic turmoil. Ignoring the fact that the system was only in place for two months (even then banks had ceased purchasing scrips in exchange for USD, fearing potential overexposure) and that Californians were okay receiving incomes, pensions and benefits in IOUs was in part because of 3.75% annual interest to be paid upon maturity, the fact of the matter is that Greece's <a href="http://rt.com/business/270547-greece-credit-rating-downgrade/">creditworthiness</a> is such that borrowing on such a scale is virtually impossible. July 13th is when the government must pay salaries, benefits and other liabilities, a de facto deadline which will certainly test the mettle of Tsipras's government, whose officials have repeatedly insisted they can get a new deal done within a <a href="http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000394005">24-48 hour time frame</a>.<br />
<br />
And that claim raises yet another issue. The government got a favourable result in the referendum by promising to extract greater concessions from the Eurogroup, something which it must now do. It wants budgetary restraint on its terms, favouring an increased tax net rather than further cuts to social programs that will only be more necessary as the economy's plunge accelerates. While austerity failed to cut into Greece's debt at the anticipated rate, European leaders would likely lay the blame for that at the feet of successive Greek governments which failed to improve competition, fight corruption and combat rampant tax evasion, all of which played a role in turning the aftershocks of the 2008 global financial crisis into a six year recession. As such, it is hard to imagine any of the involved parties being in a charitable mood come Monday. The initial responses to the referendum and Greek entreaties for continued talks only confirm this grim assessment. Eurozone finance ministers shot down the idea of emergency meetings Monday, point blank saying they "would not know what to discuss". The ECB reluctance to agree carte blanche to continue providing emergency funds to Greek banks, despite the potential for such a move to cause the country to collapse, speaks volumes to the fact that the Greek debt crisis has reached uncharted territory; and the rest of Europe isn't ruling out anything. <br />
<br />
<span style="color: orange; font-size: large;">"You have to do things that are going to be fundamentally impossible to explain to people" - Former U.S Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner </span><br />
<br />
Taken alone, the jubilation in Athens today could have made one forget about how Greece currently sits at the precipice of total economic collapse. Retailers in the city go sometimes days without a single customer, and even butchers and grocers who still do brisk business are feeling the pinch from their suppliers abroad, who are beginning to demand payment upfront. The now uncertain future of the country's economy has rendered Greeks unable to import everything from simple foodstuffs to desperately needed <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/07/greeces-economy-under-capital-controls">medical supplies</a>. The fact that many in the country <a href="http://qz.com/445108/greeks-are-making-a-momentous-and-completely-confusing-vote-on-the-future-of-their-country/">didn't know what exactly they were being asked to vote "yes" or "no" to</a>, or that the government there won by appealing to Greeks' wounded pride, all signal a dark future ahead for Greece. Tsipras's referendum might have been a win for democracy, but it carries with it a significant price; the rest of Europe is now reconsidering its support for the Greek economy, and behind the government's hopelessly optimistic assessment that it can get a deal done in a matter of days, as opposed to weeks, complete silence about the coming unravelling of the country's economy makes the "democracy at work" narrative being peddled ring hallow. Successful bailout programs, such as <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-tarp-has-been-a-success-story/2011/03/25/AFEe6jkB_story.html">TARP</a> in the United States as well as Sweden's <a href="http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/ireland-hopes-swedish-mr-fixit-has-the-answer-to-banking-crisis-26549551.html">rescue</a> of its banking sector in the 90s, were both reviled by the public when they were first unveiled. And yet the architects of such programs are now lauded for their work, and the model of isolating toxic assets in "bad banks" first pioneered by Bo Lundgren in Sweden has been emulated in several debt crises since. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/Greece_public_debt_1999-2010.svg/300px-Greece_public_debt_1999-2010.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/Greece_public_debt_1999-2010.svg/300px-Greece_public_debt_1999-2010.svg.png" /></a></div>
Antagonizing your creditors is never a good idea, (something Argentina knows <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/20/argentina-kirchner-debts-crisis-bond-holders-economics">very well</a>) even when their methodology isn't working as intended. Should a productive relationship be reestablished however, there may be hope yet for Greece. Recently the IMF released a <a href="http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2015/cr15165.pdf">white paper</a> containing its latest analysis of Greek debt, and came to the conclusion that given the sheer heft of Greece's debt load, its unlikely Greece's creditors will ever be repaid the entirety of the sum they are owed. Among some of the figures thrown out, perhaps the most interesting was the fund's assessment of Greece's ability to both service and pay down its considerable debt. In the IMF's estimation, the country not only requires a third bailout to the tune of $67 billion USD, but that the maturities on its debt obligations be doubled to 40 years. The hope for Greece however, lays in what was said next; it is vital that a significant portion of Greece's debt be written off, to the tune of $59 billion USD. This makes sense, given that the economy will continue to suffer for the foreseeable future. A restructuring of the country's debt would allow the Greek government, which has drained funds from areas such as healthcare and education in order to make repayments, to further stabilize the economy without having to resort to further cuts to important social programs. Surprisingly, it was the Eurozone which first proposed such a move <a href="http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/133857.pdf">three years</a> prior, in exchange for reforms. Should such terms be reintroduced, the EU will get the fundamental changes to the Greek economy it wanted, and Greece gets more favourable terms in the form of long term debt relief. While by no means sufficient, such a deal would firstly put Greece on a path to recovery, and provide a roadmap for the Greek economy going forward. But it simply cannot happen if the current admittedly rather frosty state of affairs between involved parties persists. <br />
<br />
The current austerity regime is far from perfect, having misjudged the impact of cuts and overestimated the Greek economy's capacity to grow in order to compensate. And yet the wholesale rejection of austerity, combined with a seeming abdication of responsibility on the part of the Greek government for the role of its fiscal policies in initiating this crisis reflect a seeming dissonance between Greece and its fellow EU confederates. One argues that a messy and fraught economic issue should be placed in the hands of those who simply cannot hope to understand it, while the other believes that such problems best be left to the brightest minds. Greece has no clear path forward, but a messy divorce from the eurozone, now a real possibility, certainly will not help matters. Sensible solutions have been put forward for years, now both sides simply need to listen. <br />
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03121806177519862492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716313703874355451.post-57296109872283519742015-06-24T23:19:00.000-07:002015-07-05T15:09:23.219-07:00The Fallacy of America's Love Affair With The Confederacy <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.dickdestiny.com/conflag.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.dickdestiny.com/conflag.jpeg" height="265" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;">“You and I know what’s the best way to keep the nigger from voting.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;">You do it the night before the election.”</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Last week, Americans underwent a routine that has become depressingly familiar over the past few years. In Charleston, North Carolina, nine people were killed in a racially motivated mass shooting at one of the country's most prominent black churches. In the aftermath, the usual once-rousing but now tired-sounding tributes and entreaties for change were made. A defeated sounding Obama told the nation: "I've had to make statements like this too many times." He reiterated his frustration with Congress for their steadfast refusal to enact a single iota of legislation aimed at curbing the free flow of guns in the country. Despite yet another incident of mass violence carried out using weapons banned in just about every other industrialized country (and yes, that includes <a href="http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/">Switzerland</a>), it seemed like one of America's most sacred cows would remain beyond reproach.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And while American reverence for their Constitutionally granted right to bear arms seems destined to remain intact for the time being, it was another questionable aspect of the country's cultural fabric which seemingly began to unravel in the aftermath of the shooting; the Confederate flag. Ever since the conclusion of the American Civil War in 1865, elements of various Confederate flags have appeared everywhere from <a href="http://www.confederatedigest.com/2012/01/planting-confederate-flag-at-snui.html">Okinawa</a> to the flags of several southern states to <i>The Dukes of Hazzard</i>. Georgia reintroduced elements derived from the rebel flag to its own banner in 1956, widely held to have been in response to the Supreme Court desegregating schools two years prior. And while this period marked the reemergence of Confederate symbols as a direct counterpoint to the advancement of the black cause in America, the airbrushing of the Confederacy that began almost immediately during Reconstruction (including the troubling depiction of Dixie life in <i>Gone With The Wind</i>) ensured that no black person would truly strive to be equal to their white counterpart long before then, lest it cost them their life. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
While the war settled the Constitutional aspects of white supremacy, it left several important questions by and large unanswered. Where the federal government had previously enforced the racist social hierarchy, Klansmen took the reigns. In some cases, members of the Klan and the government officials who in theory were supposed to protect blacks from them were one and the same. Benjamin Tillman, a Reconstruction era lawmaker from South Carolina whose likeness stands outside the state's capitol to this day once said on the floor of the U.S Senate "We of the South have never recognized the right of the negro to govern white men, and we never will. We have never believed him to be the equal of the white man, and we will not submit to his gratifying his lust on our wives and daughters without lynching him." This narrative of inherent racial inferiority spun by policymakers sought to rationalize the reasons for which their southern forebears had chosen to secede, painting the war as one to maintain the division of powers outlined in the Constitution, claiming that President Lincoln's administration aimed to infringe on their sovereign rights. This version, popularized as a "War of Northern Aggression," was instrumental in propagating the myth that slavery was a benign institution, servitude was something blacks desired, that whites were performing a "civilizing mission" by bringing slaves to the west from Africa, and that the Civil War had simply been northern elites imposing their will unfairly and illegally on a way of life that all parties involved were happy to be a part of. This is patently false. <br />
<br />
And yet refocusing the scope of the war to the preservation of a way of life as opposed to the institution of slavery is what allowed what is essentially the flag of traitors (on par with those of Imperial Japan, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa) to proliferate so extensively that it now features quite prominently in American cultural identity. Those from the south oftentimes considered a flag to be a symbol of their heritage, a relic of a simpler yet better time. And yet it is an evil emblem, whose sole reason for existence was to symbolize the continued economic and political subjugation of blacks. Its continued role since then has only reinforced this; during the Civil Rights era, KKK members who harassed Freedom Riders and marchers brandished them, and to this day they have been a common sight at right-wing rallies protesting the actions of President Obama (including an infamous incident where a protester flew one right <a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115172/confederate-flag-white-house-intellectual-history">outside the White House</a>, the offensiveness of which cannot be overstated). Bringing down the flags wherever they fly is the easy part. Addressing the ignorance of the realities of being black in America which allowed these symbols to exist outside of a museum 150 years after the Civil War had concluded however, will not be so simple. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03121806177519862492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716313703874355451.post-48701804582221508582015-05-07T20:19:00.001-07:002015-07-29T18:00:01.320-07:00The Real Outrage About Omar Khadr <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i><span style="color: orange;">"I like my son to be brave...I would like my son to be trained to protect himself, to protect his home, to protect his neighbor, to see a young girl innocent, being raped or attacked, to really fight to defend it. I would really love to do that, and I would love my son to grow with this mentality...[a]nd you would you like me to raise my child in Canada and by the time he's 12 or 13 he'll be on drugs or having some homosexual relation or this and that? Is it better? For me, no. I would rather have my son as a strong man who knows right and wrong and stands for it, even if it's against his parents."</span></i><br />
<i><span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></i>
Those were the words of Maha el-Samnah, the matriarch of the now-infamous Khadr family and an Al Qaeda sympathizer whose husband was killed in a 2003 U.S drone strike on Taliban militants in Pakistan's volatile border <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waziristan">region</a> with Afghanistan. It was her and her husband's decision to uproot their young family and move to Pakistan in 1987 which inflicted the first in a series of injustices against Omar Khadr and his siblings. During the years that followed, Khadr flitted between Canada and Pakistan, later being manipulated by his father's associates into planting IEDs and ultimately engaging in combat with American soldiers under the guise of serving as a translator to foreign "visitors". Omar Khadr during this chapter of his life committed acts that were undoubtedly wrong, and yet it is important to note that the crimes he was accused and convicted of were committed by a brainwashed fifteen year old with little understanding of the conflict in which he was engaged, an assessment shared by the United Nations, who officially <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/khadr-should-go-back-to-canada-un-official-1.913030">designated</a> him a child soldier in 2010. The frankly galling failure of those in Guantanamo, Washington and Ottawa to account for this fact in their subsequent prosecution of Khadr was the primary reason behind the ultimately needless fifteen year legal saga which ensued.<br />
<br />
Omar Khadr was tried in a court which could not provide a fair and transparent trial. Since the military tribunals commenced in 2001, 3 of the military personnel appointed to serve as prosecutors resigned, citing a biased and unfair legal process. Further, Colonel Fred Borch, who served as Chief Prosecutor, was forced to <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E3DC1E3FF932A3575BC0A9639C8B63&pagewanted=all">resign</a> when leaked memos purported to reveal that he had bragged about jeopardizing the integrity of the proceedings, and that the officers on the commission had been chosen because they could be trusted to convict those brought before them. Furthermore because much of the evidence provided by the government in these cases are legally flimsy intelligence reports, if the same notions of evidence and "the burden of proof" which exist in the civilian court system were applied to the Guantanamo proceedings, the government <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/11/gitmo-law-could-someday-apply-americans">would simply not be able to convict.</a> To that end, the standards for evidence admission were tweaked so that the reliability and validity of such reports would not be questioned. In doing so, U.S officials ensured that the tribunal system would not pass muster if an American citizen were to be tried there, seeing as how they blatantly infringe upon several 6th Amendment rights. And then there's the matter of "enhanced interrogation", and how the confessions and intelligence extracted from them were oftentimes false and/or of little value. Khadr's attorney claims that his client was waterboarded during his time at Guantanamo, a claim which the U.S government vehemently denies. If true, the confession to murder which was the bedrock of the plea deal that labelled Khadr a terrorist and war criminal would not be admissible as evidence in court. Even if we were to not recognize children utilized by terror organizations as child combatants, Khadr's trial was nonetheless a travesty in the eyes of not just international law, but American law as well. <br />
<br />
But perhaps the most outrageous aspect of this case was what wasn't done. As a Canadian citizen, Omar Khadr was entitled to certain <a href="http://travel.gc.ca/travelling/publications/guide-for-canadians-imprisoned-abroad##servicesnotprovided">protections and a degree of support </a>from his government, chief among them ensuring that he was receiving fair and equitable treatment under the laws of the United States. Not only was this not fulfilled, RCMP officers sent to interview him turned their notes over to prison officials, abetting an illegal detainment. Further, consular officials are supposed to encourage the speedy processing of cases against Canadians held abroad, but this was also not done, nor was a formal repatriation request made by the government at any point during Khadr's detainment without charge. While Omar Khadr's ordeal began under Paul Martin's Liberal government, it worsened under Stephen Harper. Countless NGOs, legal experts and even the <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/khadr-ruling-sees-top-court-clash-with-tories/article4388304/">Supreme Court of Canada</a> harshly criticized the Tory government's actions with regards to Khadr, and yet they only doubled down. Earlier this week in a last ditch attempt to prevent him from being released, the government argued that releasing Khadr on bail would do <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/omar-khadr-learns-today-if-he-can-leave-prison-for-first-time-in-13-years/article24303386/?cmpid=rss1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=gplus">"irreparable harm</a>" to U.S-Canada relations. This failed, as the presiding justice said that the government had failed to produce evidence that the U.S shared this belief. <br />
<br />
And so as this decade-and-a-half long ordeal finally winds down, what actually was Khadr? A war criminal, as the government suggests? A victim of terrible circumstance, as his many boosters claim? As he embarks on his new life with hopes of becoming a medic, we shall no doubt find out. Currently a $20 million civil suit against the government is underway, and Khadr is appealing his criminal conviction in the United States. So while the ultimate fate of Khadr remains up in the air, an important question to consider is this; When the Canadian government willingly abets the torture and illegal imprisonment of one of its own citizens, a 15 year old boy nonetheless, who is the real war criminal here? </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03121806177519862492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716313703874355451.post-59239788845351145532015-04-15T01:31:00.000-07:002015-07-29T18:05:58.666-07:00The Coronation of Hilary Clinton <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://assets.nybooks.com/media/img/illustrations/clinton_hillary-092514_jpg_250x1327_q85.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://assets.nybooks.com/media/img/illustrations/clinton_hillary-092514_jpg_250x1327_q85.jpg" height="400" width="283" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Portrait by John Springs </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
For the staffers who have been frantically working on the worst kept secret in Washington, the months of working out of coffee shops and crashing on relatives' couches in and around New York are as of this Sunday over. After carefully crafting the framework of the formal campaign machine for the <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-campaign-headquarters-brooklyn-116649.html" target="_blank">better part of four months</a>, Hilary Clinton finally announced her candidacy for president in 2016 last Sunday. Being the only big ticket candidate on the Democrats' radar for the better part of two years, her announcement came as a surprise to nobody. And yet while <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/17/inevitability-trap" target="_blank">several</a> <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/is-hillary-clintons-nomination-inevitable/390330/" target="_blank">analysts</a> have warned of the dangers of inevitability, as more of Clinton's campaign team and network of advisors are revealed it increasingly looks like the Democratic Party establishment has not only accepted Clinton but embraced her.<br />
<br />
In the months leading up to the announcement it was interesting to note that many of the names being floated for top jobs on the campaign were veterans of the 2008 and 2012 Obama campaigns as well as recent departures from the White House. John Podesta, who has been tapped to serve as campaign chairman was until recently a key advisor to the Obama Administration and served on the President's transition team in 2008. Furthermore, some of the players who were instrumental in implementing Obama's youth targeted and data driven "get out the vote" initiative back in 2008 have resurfaced here in similar roles. Obama's 2008 and 2012 digital strategists <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/teddygoff" target="_blank">Teddy Goff</a> and <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-bleeker/2a/9a7/b7a" target="_blank">Andrew Bleeker</a> are expected to be advising the Clinton campaign on its own plans for utilizing the Internet. This is all in marked contrast with this point in the 2008 election cycle, where establishment Democrats were visibly split into several camps, with John Edwards, former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, and even Joe Biden also being posited as viable candidates early on. Compare that to now where nine months out from Iowa, Clinton has successfully monopolized the support of beltway Democrats. And unlike the time when establishment Republicans faced <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/john-boehner-allies-tea-party-107189.html">open rebellion</a> from their party's Tea Party elements in 2012, the anticipated progressive rebuke of Clinton's "establishment" credentials has so far failed to materialize.<br />
<br />
Having gained the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/27/elizabeth-warren-i-hope-hillary-clinton-runs-for-president/">implicit approval</a> of liberal champion and congresswoman Elizabeth Warren, Hilary Clinton has likely removed the final potential roadblock to the 2016 Democratic nomination. The two other frequently mentioned candidates, former congressman Jim Webb and former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley, simply do not pose the same threat to Clinton that Warren and the progressive wing of the party do. While it is easy to understand why Webb, <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/3/9/8161145/jim-webb-interview">a gun-loving former Reagan administration official</a>, has limited appeal, O'Malley is a more interesting case. He served as Mayor of Baltimore for eight years, and another eight as governor. In 2011 he was elected Chair of the Democratic Governors Association, which he served as for two years. Articulate, intelligent and well liked, in 2005 <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2005-08-21/can-the-democrats-seize-the-day">Business Week</a> called him one of the Democratic Party's "rising stars", alongside Obama and current Chicago mayor Rahm Emanual. But while Obama, then a freshman congressman, was able to launch himself onto the national stage, why have O'Malley's national ambitions largely stalled? <br />
<br />
A fact that's largely been overlooked regarding Obama's rapid rise to prominence since first being elected to Congress in 2005 is the significant establishment backing that was required to launch his brand nationwide. His personal story is compelling yes, but the central role of that story in his initial presidential campaign was the careful result of a DNC effort to find a message that would resonate with key swathes of the electorate. Obama's story, that of a young, charismatic, mixed-race, Harvard Law educated freshman congressman who had spent years organizing at a grassroots level in Chicago was, in the DNC's estimation, fresh enough to mask the centre-left policy positions he shared with most mainstream Democrats. That many of the voters targeted by Obama (students and college educated women, both of which are <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-economy/big-questions/obama-s-approval-rating-rebounds-despite-divisions-over-economic-policies-20150317">overwhelmingly liberal</a>) found him <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/11/navarrette.obama/index.html?iref=24hours">"not liberal enough"</a> just months into his administration only confirmed it. "Change" was an intoxicating slogan, projecting the image of a political outsider as fed up with Washington as <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/106426/bush-job-approval-28-lowest-administration.aspx">the average voter</a>. And yet, Obama was still at the core an establishment candidate who received backing from some of the Democrats' wealthiest donors. Normally, the monolith that was Obama's donor base in 2008 and 2012 would be dispersed amongst several viable candidates, but instead it seems that many prominent Obama financiers threw their support behind a Clinton campaign <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-pro-hillary-clinton-super-pac-attracts-donors-and-worries/2013/06/21/ce2b3c7c-d9ee-11e2-a9f2-42ee3912ae0e_story.html">over a year ago</a>.<br />
<br />
O'Malley has stated that <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2015-03-09/martin-o-malley-readies-his-run-as-the-un-hillary">he is running for president</a>, and judging from his record as a mayor and governor it is not unreasonable to think he'd be a good one. But running a presidential campaign today means ad buys, PACs, data and staff, all of which require a fairly extensive donor network. Having locked up vast swathes of the Democrats' donors roughly a year before the first primaries means that, barring a surprise Warren entry, Hilary Clinton has effectively iced out competition from other mainstream Democrats. While Hilary Clinton will go to great lengths to stress that there is no "air of inevitability" this time around, party officials and donors' actions seem to suggest otherwise. Sunday was a coronation, and make no mistake, Democrats firmly believe that Hilary Clinton is their ticket to the White House. </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03121806177519862492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716313703874355451.post-13730697148772311812015-04-10T00:17:00.000-07:002015-04-11T23:36:21.757-07:00Cyprus And Its Own "Grexit": A Roadmap for Greece?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Greek deputy finance minister Dimitris Mardas reassured the finance world last week that Greece would in fact meet an April 9th deadline to repay a 450 million euro IMF loan instalment on time, after comments his superior had made on television were construed by many to suggest that the country was actively considering renegading on its debt. It did little to help already <a href="http://blogs.barrons.com/emergingmarketsdaily/2015/03/30/fitch-downgrades-greek-debt-says-govt-will-survive-liquidity-squeeze/" target="_blank">skittish</a> investor confidence, and reignited speculation amongst <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/ubs-the-chances-of-greece-defaulting-are-now-greater-than-50-2015-4" target="_blank">many</a> financial journalism outlets on a potential "Grexit" that is now to be expected whenever the newly installed anti-austerity government in Greece pokes its creditors in Brussels and Berlin in the eye. But while the fracas unfolded in Athens, across the Mediterranean an unlikely and largely unheralded success story quietly <a href="https://euobserver.com/economic/128244" target="_blank">wound down</a> Monday.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzX9FBz9ICPyalB28YtdUKoFfe2LYHkP14vuB8d3aGVu-jGBKA3OPMb29vwLTrn1il9AWhQfvE7DL8DKzEWWB8O-_1KnBVegN7j4c9TkLG5bemceEfQiWdKfPdAq8w2kC0tUVnodxZRr1x/s1600/Cypriot_debt_and_EU_average.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzX9FBz9ICPyalB28YtdUKoFfe2LYHkP14vuB8d3aGVu-jGBKA3OPMb29vwLTrn1il9AWhQfvE7DL8DKzEWWB8O-_1KnBVegN7j4c9TkLG5bemceEfQiWdKfPdAq8w2kC0tUVnodxZRr1x/s1600/Cypriot_debt_and_EU_average.png" height="320" width="316" /></a></div>
in late 2012, the Cypriot government was in trouble. Facing an over leveraged banking system exposed to (perhaps ironically) the stumbling Greek economy and an overheated real estate market, the subsequent downgrade to "junk" status of the country's debt meant that Cyprus was suddenly unable to turn to global equity markets in order to finance the stimulus and rescue packages needed to save its faltering economy. Facing a looming default, in March of 2013 the Cypriot government <a href="https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2013%2F04%2F04%2Fbusiness%2Fglobal%2Fimf-to-contribute-1-billion-euros-to-cyprus-bailout.html&ei=ToInVcL1FonwsAWCmICYDw&usg=AFQjCNEt2cRWboUxWjQj5-BEUOa6YJ60mA&sig2=IuDAOEOiJkb1PDV4PuTbHg" target="_blank">agreed</a> to a rescue package with the "troika" (the IMF, ECB, as well as the European Commission and Eurogroup representing the EU) consisting of a 10 billion euro bailout as well as strict reforms meant to forcibly instill confidence in the Cypriot banking system as well as the creditworthiness of the government. The portion of reforms aimed at preventing a large scale exodus of money from Cyprus's banks are known as "capital controls", and were implemented in the hopes of buying more time for efforts to recapitalize the country's banking system and prevent panicked runs on the banks, which would most likely have resulted in a collapse of the system. Initially quite strict (withdrawals from personal accounts were limited to 300 euros per day, and transfers to foreign banks were severely limited as well), the restrictions on the Cypriot euro were gradually lifted as the banks were further stabilized and confidence was slowly restored. <br />
<br />
The measures were never popular, with leftist parties opposed to the package floating alternatives ranging from a reduction in the size of the military, a corporate income tax increase, and even outright nationalization of the banking sector. A common theme among <a href="https://citizenactionmonitor.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/events-in-cyprus-expose-eu-plan-to-steal-peoples-savings-and-bailout-private-banks/" target="_blank">many</a> opponents was resistance to what many believed amounted to EU-imposed austerity, championed by technocrats in Brussels who were only interested in preserving their economic and political union and cared little for the average Cypriot. A blog attached to <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2013/03/cyprus-bail-out" target="_blank">The Economist</a> even went so far as to call the package "unfair" and "self defeating", arguing that the high political cost of such austerity preconditions for bailouts made them impractical if the EU hoped to maintain the goodwill of its constituent states. <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/cyprus-bailout-woes-harmful-to-eu-strategic-interests-a-892331.html" target="_blank">Others</a> worried that the implementation of such harsh measures would push Cyprus into the arms of Russia, from whom it had already received substantial financial aid. Ultimately, it was not an easy road to recovery in Cyprus; the country's significant community of wealthy Russians who had stashed their wealth there had to be placated, and the first parliamentary vote on an assistance package failed amidst widespread protests. And yet <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-03-05/cyprus-has-recovered-faster-than-ireland-hourican" target="_blank">last month</a>, two years removed from the bailout, a Bank of Cyprus official referred to the capital controls as "irrelevant", suggesting that the country's top economists were now confident enough in the state of the recovery that they were considering doing away with the last of the monetary restrictions first put in place two years ago, a milestone they quietly fulfilled earlier this week.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Cypriot president Nicos Anistasiades heralded that admittedly largely symbolic day as indicative of "the full restoration of confidence in our banking system and the stabilization of the economy of Cyprus." And he's not wrong in asserting that significant progress has been made. The flow of money within the country is now unhindered, the country has <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/cyprus-returns-to-public-debt-markets-1403080906" target="_blank">resumed borrowing</a> (paywall) and the economy is finally expected to return to growth in 2015 after three years of recession. While decisive action on the part of the ECB and Cypriot lawmakers no doubt played an important role in staving off a default and subsequent exit from the Eurozone, capital controls were imperative in allowing the structural issues within the economy (the banking sector's debt obligations at one point were nine times greater than the size of the Cypriot economy) to be resolved. Despite initial public backlash, Cyprus today is in markedly better condition than Greece. While the full extent of Greece's sovereign debt issues mean that capital controls, should they be implemented, would be in place for potentially much longer than they were in place in Cyprus, they present a more desirable alternative to the "Grexit" as a means of quarantining the country's financial troubles until a deal finally resolving the crisis is struck (or the ruling Syriza party in Greece is voted out), as opposed to continuing to simply bankroll the Greek government while subjecting it to austerity measures which are <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/02/26/the-reason-austerity-in-greece-didnt-work/" target="_blank">doing little</a> to improve the long term viability of the country's economy. But given how the Bank of England has all but <a href="http://www.streetwisejournal.com/bank-of-england-plans-for-greek-eurozone-exit/9562/" target="_blank">thrown in the towel</a> when it comes to Greece, it remains to see how much appetite remains amongst the EU's other core economies, especially Germany, for continued support in order to stave off a Greek default, especially given the latter's penchant for <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/world/europe/greece-syriza-government-names-anti-austerity-economist-as-finance-minister.html" target="_blank">creative</a> <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/08/globalpost-greece-germany-reparations/25453333/" target="_blank">schemes</a> aimed at alleviating its strict bailout conditions. Barring a significant change in tune from the government in Athens however, its looking highly unlikely that a currency quarantine will be given a chance to help rectify the country's long running debt issues. </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03121806177519862492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716313703874355451.post-46074339940816879272015-04-05T15:09:00.000-07:002015-04-11T23:04:01.514-07:00Russia's Love Affair With Europe's Far Right <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://img.washingtonpost.com/rw/2010-2019/Wires/Online/2015-03-22/AP/Images/RussiaFarRight-04332.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://img.washingtonpost.com/rw/2010-2019/Wires/Online/2015-03-22/AP/Images/RussiaFarRight-04332.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A Cossak confronts a demonstrator (Associated Press)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Russia under President Vladimir Putin has forged an unusually aggressive foreign policy, a fact widely circulated in Western news media. What has received little coverage outside of think tank and NGO circles however, is the full extent to which Putin and his inner circle have consolidated power within the country. While military expenditures have increased significantly since Putin first took office in 1999, it has been accompanied by brutally effective asymmetrical tactics, which although successful at resolving internal conflicts like in Chechnya, have eroded civil liberties and subverted the democratic process to such a degree that in some aspects Russia now resembles North Korea as a crony-capitalist kleptocracy masquerading as a democracy. Why has nothing or nobody, neither domestic nor otherwise, been able to put a significant dent in Putin’s seemingly imperial and authoritarian ambitions? <br />
<br />
The 1990s were a tumultuous time for the then-nascent Russian Federation. Still smarting from the breakup of the Soviet Union, which <a href="http://www.themoscowtimes.com/sitemap/free/1996/3/article/speaker-downplays-dumas-soviet-vote/326765.html" target="_blank">many</a> blamed on the weakness of final Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, and plagued by civil strife, many in the country were understandably not optimistic about the future. Radical privatization (dubbed “shock therapy”) of the Soviet era economy by Western-backed President Boris Yeltsin, whose supporters were pushing for rapid implementation of free market reforms, had resulted in the now infamous “cash for shares” fire sale of state-controlled assets at a fraction of their value to a small group of Soviet era political elite. Global recession in 1998 exacerbated Russia’s economic woes, and brought the ruble to the precipice of collapse. Yeltsin’s government underwent a period of significant political turmoil, with Yeltsin appointing several Prime Ministers in quick succession. <br />
<br />
This was the scene in Russia when the world was first introduced to Vladimir Putin, then a largely unknown politician with roots in the foreign intelligence community. Yeltsin spoke very highly of the technocrat-turned-Prime Minister, once even <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/415087.stm" target="_blank">proclaiming</a> Putin his heir presumptive. Almost as if he was making good on a promise, Yeltsin abruptly resigned not much later, making Putin Acting President. And so began a stranglehold on power which is now entering its 15th year. During his time in office Putin has proven himself a master at populist politics, deftly weaving a network of support amongst seemingly disparate segments of Russian society. By embracing revered institutions such as the military and Orthodox Church and tapping Russia’s proud military tradition, he has been able to propagate a myth that the country is under attack from a Western conspiracy; that the economic hardships of the 1990s was the result of seeking rapprochement with the West. Putin has cast himself as a defender of the proverbial “Motherland” from foreign meddling, a theme increasingly prevalent in almost every facet of Russian policymaking today. A “gay propaganda” law pushed through the Duma last year included clauses which seemed to insinuate that the Russian government viewed same-sex rights activists as foreign agitators. Liberal minded opposition media outlets are regularly accused by what are likely <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/12/09/putins-new-weapon-in-the-ukraine-propaganda-war-internet-trolls/" target="_blank">Kremlin-backed “internet trolls”</a> of parroting the American line. Conflating the fiercely nationalistic rhetoric of his supporters with “patriotism” has allowed Putin to virtually silence his opposition and justify actions within the purview of his agenda which otherwise would not be deemed acceptable. Much like how the Cold War was a clash of ideologies, Putin has framed cold relations with the west, domestically at least, as a clash of values. His brand of “leadership” has been lauded on Fox News, and provided as a contrast to President Obama’s purported weakness. His methods have proven successful in stifling dissent and sending his popularity domestically soaring, but have left Russia isolated as the Kremlin’s foreign policy goals have alienated the West. And yet for years Putin has quietly championed a policy that is only now beginning to bear fruit. <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/international-russian-conservative-forum-inside.jpg?w=640" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/international-russian-conservative-forum-inside.jpg?w=640" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A peek inside the conference. (Associated Press)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
What may turn out to be an auspicious day for Russian foreign policy began in decidedly unsexy fashion on a dreary Sunday last month. The inaugural Russian Conservative Forum kicked off as leaders of North American and European right wing parties gathered at a Holiday Inn in downtown St. Petersburg to ostensibly advance the brand of global conservatism. And yet there was quite possibly nary a discussion of conservatism to be had. Delegate after delegate tripped over themselves to declare their disgust with the supposed “European” and “American” way of life, and all of its homosexual, multicultural, globalized trappings; it was no coincidence that each party was essentially parroting Vladimir Putin’s agenda. While his name was not attached to the meeting, it was hard to ignore the influence his United Russia party exerted over the proceedings. The assembled parties were an array of distasteful ideologues which included Greece’s borderline neo-Nazi Golden Dawn and Italy’s Forza Nuova, amongst the more vanilla attendees. Guests at what amounted to a fascist pep rally also included Holocaust deniers, Nazi sympathizers, and a Russian skinhead notorious for beheading a puppy in the name of publicity. <br />
<br />
It is not surprising that this gathering was reminiscent of “Communist International”, an association of communist parties founded as an instrument of Soviet control over international communism back in 1919, a period of hostile relations with the West. Internationally isolated, Lenin and his bolsheviks turned to the forum as a means of finding support and allies abroad. While the first congress was attended almost exclusively by Soviets and had few foreign delegates, the organization soon came to be recognized as the face of international communism. <a href="http://www.riskandforecast.com/useruploads/files/pc_flash_report_russian_connection.pdf" target="_blank">Reports</a> indicate that today Russia is engaging in a similar campaign of currying favour amongst ideologically friendly parties not just in neighbouring countries but in western Europe as well. Confirming what various reports and papers say, the French right wing party Front National <a href="http://www.theweek.co.uk/europe/61498/russia-funds-french-national-front-is-moscow-sowing-european-unrest" target="_blank">admitted</a> to taking a roughly 9.5 million euro loan from a state controlled Russian bank. The FN went on to make unprecedented gains in <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/elections2014-results/en/election-results-2014.html" target="_blank">last year’s European Parliamentary elections</a>, forming a substantial pro-Russia bloc within European Parliament, a decent return on investment. Under Putin, the Kremlin has sought <a href="http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141067/mitchell-a-orenstein/putins-western-allies" target="_blank">closer</a> relations with an array of far right political parties, from Hungary’s Jobbik to Austria’s Freedom Party, to Belgium’s Vlaams Belang. Many backed Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia, and last year declared the referendum on Russian annexation of Crimea legitimate which begs the question; why would such fiercely nationalistic parties seemingly contradict themselves by unquestionably following the lead of another country?<br />
<br />
The answer has less to do with fascism, Russia, or even conservatism and more to do with political marginalization and hatred of a U.S and EU pecking order they feel their own countries are beholden to. Hence the defiant policymaking and disdainful regard for both displayed by Vladimir Putin has won him many admirers amongst Europe’s far right, and made Kremlin funds much more effective at achieving its goals. Having smartly nurtured such parties for years, rampant anti-EU sentiment amongst many Europeans over the past year or so mean that Moscow is just now beginning to cash in on its far right strategy. As these parties increasingly score significant victories at the polls, actions like further Russian sanctions or even renewal of current ones might eventually become quite difficult. Russia didn’t create Europe’s far right but Moscow cultivating vocal allies willing to sing Russia’s praises in European Parliament and legislatures across the continent is a classic case of my enemy’s enemy is my friend. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03121806177519862492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716313703874355451.post-78492090697411248872015-01-25T23:29:00.000-08:002015-01-26T22:25:15.737-08:00Ukranian Redux <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/donetsk-airport-destruction-ukraine-8.jpg?quality=70&w=838" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="223" src="https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/donetsk-airport-destruction-ukraine-8.jpg?quality=70&w=838" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Aftermath of the offensive at Donetsk's airport</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Earlier this summer I wrote about how Russia's role in the Ukrainian crisis had escalated to the point where the two countries were in a <a href="http://thecoolcanuck.blogspot.ca/2014/08/russia-unofficially-invaded-ukraine.html" target="_blank">de facto state of war</a>. Since then various geopolitical events have threatened to overshadow the ongoing insurgency in eastern regions of the country, but a recent renewal of an offensive against rebels in Donetsk thrust the spotlight back on both the region and Russian interference in it. In fact, some of the images and videos coming out of Mariupol, which was first attacked this past summer but has seen renewed fighting in recent days, are a disturbing insight into daily life under what is almost certainly Russian bombardment.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/PD_bwzPbGrA" width="600"></iframe><br />
<br />
This dashcam video purports to show the driver narrowly escaping an artillery strike. The truck in front was not as fortunate. Other videos by residents clearly convey what seems to be a city under siege. <i>(<u>Update:</u> As of the 25th of January, the video has been removed due to copyright)</i><br />
</div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/j1IGTek8_5o" width="600"></iframe><br />
<br /></div>
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/MuQjfctHLZ4" width="600"></iframe><br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/uXZ4-zJ3OPU" width="600"></iframe><br />
<br />
There is increasingly strong evidence that the western sanctions regime and plunge in oil prices have done little to impede Russian ambitions in eastern Ukraine. As the New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/24/world/europe/ukraine-violence.html?_r=0" target="_blank">wrote</a>:<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">"With the appearance in recent weeks of what NATO calls sophisticated Russian weapons systems, newly emboldened separatist leaders have abandoned all talk of a cease-fire."</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_BDfEez9c4S2nrOnSxTrKLlPiR1H_UgsKTFxSnsRl60MseLiExBA6BuRceEscyvj3xWWr34qunL2oeIwbngd2xXJQYuMDdqeOimvYrNRIjEQaD7M_7ODpFOgDd73r0-tK50c6GzWaW7nG/s1600/Screenshot+2015-01-26+at+12.05.34+AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_BDfEez9c4S2nrOnSxTrKLlPiR1H_UgsKTFxSnsRl60MseLiExBA6BuRceEscyvj3xWWr34qunL2oeIwbngd2xXJQYuMDdqeOimvYrNRIjEQaD7M_7ODpFOgDd73r0-tK50c6GzWaW7nG/s1600/Screenshot+2015-01-26+at+12.05.34+AM.png" height="226" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span>As my previous post on the subject stated, it is very likely that the Kremlin is backing insurgents in hopes of asserting some degree of influence over the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine, host to the roads which serve as Russia's only land-based lifeline to Crimea. A successful push along the southern coast would at best allow Russia to annex a swathe of territory which extends to <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18284837" target="_blank">breakaway regions of Moldova</a>, or more plausibly, de facto Russian hegemony over the aforementioned territories within the framework of a federalized Ukraine. <br />
<br />
Further implicating the Russian government were images released by the Ukrainian government which purported to show <a href="https://news.vice.com/article/eastern-ukraine-is-slipping-back-into-all-out-war?utm_source=vicenewstwitter" target="_blank">documents</a> taken from captured Russian mercenaries. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">"The National Security and Defence Council recently reported that Ukrainian artillery destroyed a column of Russian mercenaries near Donetsk airport and detained more than 10 of them" </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">- </span>Sheila Casey, State Department attache for Ukraine <span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<br />
Despite strong words from the United States government, there doesn't seem to be a clear path forward. With the United States and its allies slowly escalating their role in the fight against ISIS, there just doesn't seem to be much of an appetite for substantial action against the Russian government. That said however, European Union economic sanctions on Russia come up for renewal soon, and if there was talk about <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/25/us-ukraine-crisis-eu-idUSKBN0KY0JY20150125" target="_blank">easing them</a> before, such talk is now gone. Latvia and other eastern European states, citing a negotiated ceasfire signed in Minsk which was broken by rebels early last week, are in some cases now pressing for even harsher sanctions. All the while, open warfare rages in the cities of Eastern Ukraine. Some more photos of the recent devestation which left at least <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.638732" target="_blank">30 dead</a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/ap719798212623.jpg?w=940" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/ap719798212623.jpg?w=940" width="590" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span> <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://postmediacanadadotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/ukraine2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="424" src="https://postmediacanadadotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/ukraine2.jpg" width="590" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.bostonherald.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/media/ap/1244c36cc1fc45538b7dd45e6a7bad1f.jpg?itok=8T1tl0Ak&c=21f5b8c907917231466e65dde1632c86" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.bostonherald.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/media/ap/1244c36cc1fc45538b7dd45e6a7bad1f.jpg?itok=8T1tl0Ak&c=21f5b8c907917231466e65dde1632c86" height="360" width="590" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03121806177519862492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716313703874355451.post-62834624161971258022015-01-20T02:30:00.000-08:002015-02-08T20:33:42.982-08:00Marie Le Pen and the NYT's Chickenhawk Stance on Free Reporting<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.lefigaro.fr/medias/2007/06/16/20070616.FIG000000756_32305_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.lefigaro.fr/medias/2007/06/16/20070616.FIG000000756_32305_1.jpg" /></a></div>
Yesterday, readers of the op-ed section in the New York Times may have been surprised to see one of the published pieces was written entirely in french. It was on that day that Marie Le Pen joined the ranks of countless other culturally significant (and make no mistake, controversial) figures to have been able to publish opinion pieces in such a storied paper. While La Pen and her resurgent Front National party have been the beneficiaries of <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/marine-le-pen-her-fathers-daughter-7583994.html" target="_blank">significant coverage</a> in the EU, North American audiences for the most part are unaware of the stunning redressing of far right politics she may be on the cusp of accomplishing in France.<br />
<br />
Established in 1972 as an amalgamation of various radical French nationalist groups, the Front National was, from its conception, a party predicated upon the principles of "pure" French identity and the rejection of non-European immigration. While most of its policies actually aligned with those in the mainstream right, it was the party and its leader Jean-Marie Le Pen's (Marie Le Pen's father and the party's only other leader) virulent xenophobia, antisemitism and seeming <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/23/news/23iht-1r_35.html" target="_blank">fondness</a> for dictatorial right wing regimes which drew the frequent condemnation of French politicians of all stripes. In fact, his outrageous antics were enough that after the FN came in 2nd in the 2002 elections, the senior Le Pen essentially solidified his role as the figurehead of far right sentiments in the French political consciousness. That a man who once referred to the occupation of France and subsequent deportation of Jews and other targeted groups during WWII as "not particularly inhumane, even if there were a few blunders, inevitable in a country of [220,000 square miles]" was very nearly elected to the Élysée Palace is a frightening reminder that a slumbering nationalist beast exists in French politics to this very day, threatening a groundswell nearly every election cycle. <br />
<br />
If the elder Le Pen is considered the spiritual center and figurehead of the FN, he has largely conceded the brain to his daughter Marie. Upon taking the reigns from her father in 2011, she embarked upon an ambitious redesign and airbrushing of the party's platform in the hopes on increasing its electoral chances, a gamble which so far seems to be working. Riding a wave of Europskepticism among the EU's wealthier nations, the party has captured 23 seats in European Parliament, and has taken control of councils and mayoral offices in mainly industrial cities which have borne the brunt of the most recent economic crisis. Even though her party only currently holds three seats in the National Assembly, many party faithful are confident <a href="http://www.dw.de/le-pen-basks-in-attention-at-front-national-conference/a-18102093" target="_blank">Le Pen will indeed be President in 2017</a>. But no one has been fooled into thinking that the core message has changed; in the aftermath of the shootings in Paris two weeks ago Jean-Marie Le Pen told the Huffington Post "I am not Charlie Hebdo, I am Charlie Martel." Martel of course, was a Frankish (de facto) king among whose many accomplishments was the successful repelling of Islamic invaders from North Africa. Poor historical analogies aside, the racist and borderline fascist origins of the policies which continue to guide the Front National today were enough that Nigel Farage of UKIP, himself <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/02/ukip-party-bigots-lets-look-evidence" target="_blank">no stranger to accusations of racism</a>, blasted Le Pen's party as "antisemetic" and "racist". <br />
<br />
And so we arrive at Le Pen's editorial. In it, she seems to imply that the government shied away from labelling the attack on Charlie Hebdo's offices an act of Islamist terror, a <a href="http://qz.com/329219/marine-le-pens-new-york-times-op-ed-is-a-knife-in-the-back-for-france/" target="_blank">patently false</a> accusation. Both Le Pen and her party may seem repellent and their policies and rhetoric harmful to efforts to integrate Muslim migrants fully into French society, and yet publishing her piece was not where the Times stumbled. While it is not surprising that the FN and other far right groups are seizing upon this opportunity to label the government as <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/13/je-suis-nicolas-sarkozy-ump-fn-charlie-hebdo-le-pen/" target="_blank">soft on Islamic terror</a>, and laying responsibility for the attacks at the feet of Muslim immigration, it is surprising that the editorial staff at the New York Times felt that giving La Pen a soapbox with which to extol her agenda of Islamaphobia and xenophobia was of value as news, especially in light of another editorial decision at the paper to not publish the cover of Charlie Hebdo's <a href="http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2015/01/12/mahomet-en-une-du-charlie-hebdo-de-mercredi_1179193" target="_blank">first edition</a> since the shooting. In a blog post a week later, NYT Public Editor Margaret Sullivan wrote that in her opinion, the cartoon depicted on the cover, despite its potential to offend a minority of readers, was not gratuitously offensive nor was it devoid of news value. And yet, it was shelved to avoid <a href="http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/with-new-charlie-hebdo-cover-news-value-should-have-prevailed/" target="_blank">"offending Muslim sensibilities"</a>.<br />
<br />
This isn't a question of journalists having the ability to publish whatever they wish, but rather one of them being restricted in their ability to best illustrate and convey stories they deem newsworthy. For example, Executive Editorial Editor Dean Baquet's decision to not include the more graphic of the Mohammad cartoons because they were of little worth with regards to advancing understanding of the story at hand (The shooting at Charlie Hebdo's offices) was perfectly justified. If asked to defend the publication of Marie Le Pen's editorial, the editors at the Times will no doubt point to the long history of people writing controversial and potentially inflammatory things in its op-ed pages over the years, and how ideas and speech, regardless of how morally reprehensible they may seem, should be publicly aired, lest they quietly fester on the fringes much like most of the radical policies the FN espouses; and they would be absolutely correct. There is no doubt that op-eds critical of Marie Le Pen's views have been published, and will continue to be published. Her policies will be subject to critical analysis and challenged based on their adherence to facts, versus distortion of them. What the New York Times should apologize for however, is the double standard it adhered to when it decided that publishing an editorial possibly damaging to religious relations in France was alright, but that a story about a cartoon with the potential to inflame some readers could be neutered to appease that minority by removing an image of the cartoon itself. <br />
<br />
No one should harbour any delusions that this cowardly attack in Paris two weeks ago was remotely justified, or that jihadis deserve to not feel insulted. To suggest so would be to equate those who perpetrate such acts of terror with those who peacefully practise Islam, those who owe no more of a condemnation of terrorism than the rest of us. The only ones who owe the people of France and generally anyone horrified by such acts anything are those who suggested that the perpetrators' actions were in any way justified. It is <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-pope-francis-says-those-who-ridicule-others-religions-should-expect-a-punch-9980192.html" target="_blank">Pope Francis</a>, and those who marched in Tehran and Beirut under the banner "I am not Charlie" who owe a condemnation of radical Islam to us, and not to a rank political opportunist like Marie Le Pen and her ilk.<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03121806177519862492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716313703874355451.post-25057117390056091862015-01-18T13:08:00.001-08:002015-01-19T18:13:21.297-08:00Why OPEC is Prolonging Cheap Oil (And Why It May Backfire This Time)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://breakingenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/12/2534814.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://breakingenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/12/2534814.jpg" height="236" width="400" /></a></div>
In the face of falling oil prices, OPEC found itself under the market's microscope. News that the cartel was holding production steady at 30 million barrels per day and revising production for 2015 lower to 28.9 million barrels did little to placate volatility-averse traders, who in turn sent US treasury bonds further south, the Dow Jones (DJIA) plunging nearly 300 points and generally had a negative impact on everything from the Canadian Dollar (CAD) to the Norwegian Krone (KR). By almost any metric, the markets were affixed on commodities, and specifically fossil fuels. <br />
<br />
Seemingly serving as a reminder of just how beholden we are to the black gold, oil played a role in numerous geopolitical developments this past year. From the thawing of relations between <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jorge-castaaeda-/venezuela-oil-cuba-us-deal_b_6348824.html" target="_blank">Cuba and the United States</a> to the NATO and EU sanction regime meant to <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/29/us-russia-gdp-idUSKBN0K70DK20141229" target="_blank">punish the Russian economy</a>, 2014 saw fossil fuels once again take on the role of political flashpoint, furthering some agendas while hindering others. But the reasoning behind why the Arab-dominated OPEC is dragging its less fortunate members through the mud has all to do with recapturing a near monopoly on oil production it enjoyed on oil exports before high prices drove investment towards U.S shale. <br />
<br />
OPEC was initially formed in 1960 by countries with substantial oil reserves in order to collectively better control the market for exports. What they discovered during the Yom Kippur War in 1973 was that putting a vital resource under the control of a non-aligned cartel provided OPEC's Arab and Latin American member states with an "oil weapon" that provided them leverage with otherwise superior western powers. In a move meant to punish the United States and its western European allies for supporting Israel in that conflict, OPEC agreed to an oil embargo. The subsequent spike in oil prices and ensuing chaos led to a significant change in U.S energy policy, as the hardships experienced by both industry and consumers led to renewed efforts to conserve oil, increase fuel efficiency and develop alternatives to oil. If OPEC's oil weapon was able to cause the United States and its allies significant economic hardship, why have they been loathe to use it since? <br />
<br />
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Oil_price_chronology-june2007.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Oil_price_chronology-june2007.gif" height="272" width="400" /></a>Former Saudi Oil Minister Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani perhaps stated his country's oil policy most eloquently 40 years ago when he said "''The Stone Age didn't end for lack of stone." His prediction was eerily precinct, because the following decade saw various factors conspire to create a situation which at a glance may seem similar to the period of "cheap oil" in which we find ourselves right now. A plunge in the demand for oil (to the tune of five million barrels per day) coupled with a rise in production in non-OPEC states created enough of a surplus that prices continued to fall, capping a 46% decline in 1986. OPEC countries, historically known<a href="http://soberlook.com/2011/12/who-is-cheating-on-their-opec.html" target="_blank"> for exceeding quotas and inflating estimated reserves</a>, responded to the successful campaigns aimed at reducing global dependency on oil by cutting production several times, by nearly half. This did little to staunch the bleeding as non-OPEC states stepped in to pick up the slack, and as a result OPEC's market share fell from a peak of roughly 50% in the 1970s to around 30% by 1985. While Saudi Arabia initially led the charge by throttling production, it found its less economically secure partners largely unwilling to engage in a price war at the expense of much needed revenue. Fed up with essentially subsidizing excess production in other OPEC countries, Saudi Arabia pioneered the same strategy which it is applying here today, albeit with different targets in mind.<br />
<br />
Back then, Saudi Arabia's primary goal was to make it too expensive for OPEC's more undisciplined members to continue overproducing by dumping the price of oil long enough to run other producers out of business until it once again held major sway on the price of oil. This time the ultimate goal is the same, but the Saudis are taking aim at the American shale producers whose torrid levels of production have been a large reason (along with the still-<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/05/asda-cuts-petrol-price-diesel" target="_blank">precarious</a> economic position of Japan, China and the Eurozone) why prices have taken a nosedive over the past year (even with ongoing instability in Libya and Iraq. And yet while Saudi Arabia was successful in reigning in its OPEC partners, it was helped at least in part by the fact that the Bush (Sr.) administration made a decision to to double down on Gulf-supplied oil, <a href="http://www.merip.org/mer/mer171/oil-gulf-war?ip_login_no_cache=656167a85a56b8c3073af46309c9ad58" target="_blank">ramping up military aid to allies on the peninsula and scrapping policies</a> which had been quite effective in reducing demand for oil. If the United States actually declining to seriously invest in efforts to increase energy efficiency seems ludicrous, take a comparative look at Japan's efforts in the same area. At the height of the oil embargo, Japan's energy security was even more compromised than that of the United States. Consisting of a series of generally resource poor islands, it both did and continues to import 92% of its oil. At the time of the embargo, roughly 71% of the country's imports were derived from the middle east. As such, when crisis struck Arab states labelled Japan an "unfriendly country" for its refusal to get involved in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and slapped it with a 5% production cut. Very vulnerable to disruptions in oil supply, it was forced to reorient its energy policy with an eye towards minimizing susceptibility of the economy to oil shocks. As a result, Japanese energy efficiency today is such that it uses less than half the energy that the United States does to produce a dollar of GNP.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://vid.alarabiya.net/images/2014/06/23/525e22bd-11c5-4306-94cd-e6be49ca2995/525e22bd-11c5-4306-94cd-e6be49ca2995_16x9_600x338.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://vid.alarabiya.net/images/2014/06/23/525e22bd-11c5-4306-94cd-e6be49ca2995/525e22bd-11c5-4306-94cd-e6be49ca2995_16x9_600x338.jpg" height="180" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">American strategic interest in the Middle East is waning</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Those days of a Stockholm Syndrome-esque relationship between the Saudis and Americans with regards to energy policy are over. From the toppling of Iran's Shah in 1979 up until the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States was heavily invested in the region and as such was willing to incur instability-induced spikes in the price of oil. Following a prolonged economic recession which served as the culmination of a decades long decline in the prosperity of the American middle class as well as the election of a President who ran on a platform predicated upon extricating America from the Middle East, both the government and public no longer have the stomach nor faith in the ability of America to sort out a region so fiercely sectarian, conflict ridden and seemingly resentful of American assistance. If President Bush's eight years in office were about Middle Eastern foreign policy, the electorate has demanded that President Obama's be about the economy. To that end, his most highly touted legislative achievements have almost entirely served a domestic agenda, through major overhauls of healthcare policy (ACA), financial regulation (Dodd-Frank) and the Justice Department's tackling of social issues such as marriage equality and police violence. If anything, this administration's most prominent foreign policy move was arguably its much discussed "<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8895726/US-will-shift-focus-from-Middle-East-to-Asia-Pacific-Barack-Obama-declares.html" target="_blank">Asia shift</a>", which essentially served as a way for the President to fulfil his election promise to end the two wars started by his predecessor while at the same time not giving ammunition to critics who accused the Obama administration of retreating from a leadership role the United States had held since WWII. Even when the United States has found itself inevitably dragged into one Middle Eastern conflict or another, it has been loathe to get directly involved, instead extolling the necessity of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/obama-isis-coalition-middle-east-countries" target="_blank">coalition building</a> and Middle Eastern countries taking on <a href="http://passblue.com/2014/09/24/obama-speaks-to-the-un-together-we-must-strike-out-terrorism/" target="_blank">a larger role</a> in conflicts that involve them.<br />
<br />
Saudi Arabia very well may <a href="http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-09/opec-tries-stamping-out-frackers?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=djUNjH&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook#!djUNjH" target="_blank">stamp out frackers</a>, and once again gain some degree of control over oil prices. Fracking is expensive, with a break even price of around $50 per day. Already western producers are <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurengensler/2015/01/15/schlumberger-profit-takes-a-hit-on-oil-blues/" target="_blank">laying off workers and slashing exploration budgets,</a> as petrodollar economies<a href="http://www.ctvnews.ca/ctv-news-channel/power-play-with-don-martin/all-canadians-will-feel-impact-of-alberta-s-oil-patch-pain-1.2190841" target="_blank"> adjust for a rough landing</a>. But Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal agreed that the days of high oil prices are essentially<a href="http://time.com/3663522/oil-prices-alwaleed-bin-talal/" target="_blank"> over</a>. Electric cars are on the verge of going <a href="http://time.com/money/3669973/chevy-bolt-auto-show-electric-cars/" target="_blank">mainstream</a>, and just about every country has launched ambitious plans to cut <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/11224908/China-and-US-agree-landmark-carbon-emissions-deal.html" target="_blank">carbon emissions</a> and increase the share of renewables in <a href="http://www.dw.de/denmark-leads-the-charge-in-renewable-energy/a-17603695" target="_blank">energy consumption</a>. Oil will continue to be an important commodity for years to come, but the point has come where countries such as Venezula, Russia, Libya and Iraq who failed to diversify their economies while prices were high can no longer hope to nearly entirely fund their governments from royalty proceeds. The world has finally become serious about pushing alternatives to fossil fuels in a bid to cut carbon emissions, and falling oil prices might finally topple the last big obstacle to achieving that goal. One can only hope so, at least. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03121806177519862492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716313703874355451.post-11476615769722238352014-08-27T14:47:00.000-07:002015-01-18T13:19:33.091-08:00Russia (Unofficially) Invaded Ukraine <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BwEI7qUIEAApsmP.jpg:large" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BwEI7qUIEAApsmP.jpg:large" width="320" /></a></div>
As of this morning, reports have been filtering in from Ukraine that Russian forces have begun slowly entering Ukraine. And unlike what unfolded on the Crimean Peninsula, these aren't just Russian troops with no insignias. Vox reports that some of the assets Russia has moved into the region include "<a href="http://www.vox.com/2014/8/27/6069415/lets-be-clear-about-this-russia-is-invading-ukraine-right-now?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=voxdotcom&utm_content=wednesday" target="_blank">Russian artillery, Russian tanks, Russian-trained irregular forces, and even uniformed Russian soldiers</a>". <br />
<br />
At around the same time this was reported, Fox was able to report that pro-separatist forces had opened a new front in the conflict by attacking the strategically important city of Novoazovsk, a resort town of approximately 12,000 which borders Crimea. Leaving aside questions of how a group <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5a4f8a8e-2618-11e4-9bca-00144feabdc0.html" target="_blank">who just a few weeks ago was on the brink of defeat</a> in Donetsk now have the logistics and manpower to attack elsewhere, what makes this move suspect is that Novoazovsk, should it be taken would leave a clear path to Mariupol, a city through which runs a road that serves as the only land connection Crimea has (via Ukraine) with the rest of Russia. Photographs of the besieged town showed plumes of smoke rising from the eastern Ukrainian city (pictured), due to what residents described as a heavy artillery barrage. Interestingly enough, a quick Youtube search reveals that back in March when Russia began the process of annexing Crimea, it brought along with it <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT3_HR8-1Ks" target="_blank">heavy artillery</a> not unlike those which the pro separatist "rebels" are currently pounding Novoazovsk with. <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/fn2/feeds/Associated%20Press/2014/08/27/876/493/Ukraine-1.jpg?ve=1&tl=1" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/fn2/feeds/Associated%20Press/2014/08/27/876/493/Ukraine-1.jpg?ve=1&tl=1" height="180" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Shelling in Novoazovsk (Associated Press)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Taken in tandem with a videos that surfaced which purported to show the ten Russian paratroopers Ukraine had claimed to have captured admitting to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/world/europe/ukraine.html" target="_blank">being Russian military personnel under orders to invade Ukraine</a>, it should leave no doubt in the minds of NATO that there is much more to Russia's role in this conflict than the bystander it claims to be. And thankfully, that seems to be the case. The Canadian government has taken quite a hawkish position on seeming Russian interference in the affairs of Ukraine, culminating in <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEUQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.ca%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fukraine-to-get-helmets-vests-from-canada-to-help-protect-border-1.2729999&ei=Qzz-U-WuDcmhyATXkYGYDA&usg=AFQjCNGwFX5pYRv8cXbzUylswrwX7-xKGg&sig2=VLQ9lL_pfQvJrFeYj1DYuw&bvm=bv.74035653,d.aWw" target="_blank">sending military aid earlier this month</a>. It made its position on this latest incursion known immediately, issuing a tersely worded tweet earlier today:<br />
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
Geography can be tough. Here’s a guide for Russian soldiers who keep getting lost & ‘accidentally’ entering <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Ukraine?src=hash">#Ukraine</a> <a href="http://t.co/RF3H4IXGSp">pic.twitter.com/RF3H4IXGSp</a><br />
— Canada at NATO (@CanadaNATO) <a href="https://twitter.com/CanadaNATO/statuses/504651534198927361">August 27, 2014</a></blockquote>
<br />
Meanwhile the United States, which has has been letting Germany <a href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/merkel-pushes-for-russia-ukraine-talks-1408800284" target="_blank">take the lead on Ukraine</a> as of late, has not been totally neglecting the crisis unfolding there. As the New York Times reported:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><span style="font-size: large;">"Analysis by Western officials indicates that Russia is orchestrating a multipronged offensive against Ukrainian forces. Russian forces have been trying to help separatists in eastern Ukraine break the siege of Luhansk, one of the main rebel-held cities, and open a corridor to another, Donetsk, from the Russian border"</span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ukraine8.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ukraine8.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The United States role can be best described as the good cop to Canada's bad cop, with its more nuanced criticism of Russia and focus on gathering intelligence to discredit Russian claims of non-interference in the country. In fact, earlier today the US finally broke their relative silence on Ukraine, in a <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/us-russian-directing-offensive-ukraine-25149175#.U_5D0gTH5k0.twitter" target="_blank">statement </a>accusing Russia of reinforcing faltering rebel efforts. "These incursions indicate a Russian-directed counteroffensive is likely underway in Donetsk and Luhansk," State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki told reporters. And so given the recent escalation in the conflict, expect an announcement soon from the President on potential military aid in the form of advisors and equipment for the Ukrainian military, as well as a possible beefing up of NATO presence within the borders of regional members. But make no mistake, Russia and Ukraine have all but formally gone to war, with Russia seeking to strengthen its grip on the vital defence industries present in Eastern Ukraine, as well as carve out a land strip connecting it to the currently largely isolated Crimea. Should they succeed, it would destabilize an already precarious situation in Ukraine, and would prevent a democratic government from exerting control over all of its territories. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
But interestingly enough, Russia's continued "whodunit" approach to engaging with its neighbours may be having negative ramifications for its foreign policy ambitions. Putin's Eurasian Economic Union pet project is starting to look like an abject failure. Despite all the transformations this conflict has undergone, its important to remember it was first ignited by then-President Yanukovych moving towards joining Putin's attempt at a counterbalance to the EU. Since then, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan have all been reluctant to draw themselves into Russia's sphere of influence again after seeing it's messy divorce with once-close ally Ukraine, and even those who have agreed to ascend are causing Russia significant headaches. Kazakh <a href="http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/6/19/north-kazakhstanisntthenextcrimeaayet.html" target="_blank">fears</a> over potential Russian aggression have lead to the severing of several mutual defence treaties, and it forging its own foreign policy route. It blocked Armenia, a major recipient of Russian aid, from ascending, and along with Belarus refused to join Russia in banning food imports from the West. It'll be interesting to see if in the long term the antagonism Russia is breeding ends up manifesting into something more than just a healthy skepticism of Russian intentions, but right now it is imperative that Western countries come to the aid of Ukraine before Russia is able to tear it in two.</div>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03121806177519862492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716313703874355451.post-47280356184357309922014-08-26T21:13:00.000-07:002014-08-26T21:43:47.383-07:00Campaign Finance Reform May Hold the Key to Slowing Corporate Inversion <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/10/01/gall.capdome1001.gi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/10/01/gall.capdome1001.gi.jpg" height="208" width="320" /></a></div>
While corporate inversion is by no means a new phenomena (McDermott International reincorporated in Bermuda in 1982), recent comments by prominent figures in government characterizing such actions as "unpatriotic" have thrust the issue back into the spotlight. With pressure increasingly on Congress to close the tax loopholes that allow such moves, the GOP stance on only doing so in tandem with cutting the effective corporate tax rate means that a solution may not be forthcoming anytime soon. And as such, that leaves us with plenty of time to think of equally improbable but decidedly more creative solutions to this latest issue. <br />
<br />
Although technically donations to political campaigns made by foreigners are illegal, ever since 2010's <i>Citizens United</i> decision greatly reduced limits on political contributions, companies based outside the US have been able to effectively circumvent such laws (I talk about just how murky US laws governing corporations have become <a href="http://thecoolcanuck.blogspot.ca/2014/07/just-what-is-corporation-how-hobby.html" target="_blank">here</a>). In the last full election cycle, the first since the landmark ruling, foreign controlled subsidiaries contributed over $12 million to Super PACs on both sides, and that's just what was able to be traced. Due to <i>Citizens United</i> and other subsequent rulings, political action committees (PACs) that do not coordinate with campaigns and their donors are afforded great latitude when it comes to contributions, with no limits to how much can be given to such PACs, and little in the way of disclosure laws on the part of these committees. Major corporations didn't miss a beat, creating PACs through their American subsidiaries, and then drawing contributions from employees. This allowed them to influence U.S elections while at the same time shielding themselves from any chance of prosecution, But what if we could curtail foreign influence in the American electoral process while at the same time slowing or even stopping the exodus of American businesses and their tax revenues abroad?<br />
<br />
Currently the American subsidiaries of foreign companies may make political contributions so long as the subsidiary in question is able to prove that it has funds drawn from domestic operations that equal or exceed the donated amount, as per this FEC advisory opinion (<a href="http://saos.nictusa.com/saos/searchao;jsessionid=9C004338BA193E136715AA9691E681C0?SUBMIT=ao&AO=1170" target="_blank">AO 1992-16</a>):<br />
<br />
<b>FEC, AO 1992-16:</b> <i>The [U.S.] subsidiary must be able to demonstrate through a reasonable accounting method that it has sufficient funds in its account, other than funds given or loaned by its foreign national parent, from which the contribution is made.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
As such when we examine recently "inverted" corporations, we see that the value of their American operations generally represent a disproportionate percentage of their total global revenue. For example Burger King, who recently announced a merger with Canadian coffee chain Tim Hortons in order to relocate to Canada, earned less than half (48%) of revenue in 2013 from territories outside of the United States. Burger King conducts the majority of its business in the United States through its Miami based subsidiary, and yet since its newly founded "parent company" will be based in Canada, it will only have to pay 26% income tax on revenue earned in Canada, and a rate consistent with the tax code in the country where any income that is repatriated was generated. While robbing the federal government of tax revenues, due to a very profitable US operation Burger King, should it be so inclined could spend millions on donations to PACs supporting candidates it likes. <br />
<br />
While Burger King remains at its core essentially an American fast food company, it's unlikely it would feel the need to drastically influence policy, aside from more favourable tax laws (nothing seems to satisfy them nowadays) and looser labour regulations. But such loopholes present an opportunity to companies whose fortunes are largely tied to government spending and/or policy. The defence, (which currently has strict export regulations in place) education, health, food, pharmaceuticals industries have in the past tried to influence policies that would adversely affect them (See <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ee806732-2b6d-11e4-b052-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3BYoYGUnC" target="_blank">Pfizer's own proposed inversion via merger</a>, or <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/06/25/busted-health-insurers-secretly-spent-huge-to-defeat-health-care-reform-while-pretending-to-support-obamacare/" target="_blank">the HMOs' opposition to the ACA</a>) and if they were to merge with foreign companies, what checks would be in place to limit their influence in American politics? By preventing subsidiaries wholesale from making political contributions, it effectively ices these "tax emigres" out of the legislative process, and helping determine where tax dollars they did not proportionally contribute go. American corporations and the people who benefit from them the most may not have the same interests as the vast majority of Americans, but they still live and work in the country, and as such do have a stake in a healthy and robust consumer base and economy.<br />
<br />
Preventing the American subsidiaries of foreign companies from making political contributions will not definitively solve the problem of money in politics, nor will it stop the most determined of companies from relocating abroad. But it will make the decision a tougher one, unlike the no-brainer that it is. Admittedly, with Republicans currently likening these companies to "economic refugees" (but judging from their response to the influx of children from Central America, they really couldn't care less about actual human refugees), the chances of anything that makes life harder for the Burger Kings and Pfizers of American commerce being passed by this Congress is infinitesimal at best. Perhaps a more comprehensive solution including both cutting the corporate tax rate and closing these ridiculous tax loopholes would do better in coaxing businesses to return home. Maybe recognizing the sheer size of a corporation allows it to exercise its freedoms as a person much more effectively than a single American, and putting limits on that freedom would better check undue commercial influence in the legislative process. But in the meantime, piecemeal legislation such as this will have to do.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><br /></i></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03121806177519862492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716313703874355451.post-14222266214129655582014-07-09T18:56:00.000-07:002014-08-04T20:54:34.414-07:00Just What is a Corporation: How Hobby Lobby may have Pierced the Corporate Veil <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2011/4/12/201141252840996360_20.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2011/4/12/201141252840996360_20.jpg" height="211" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Corporations are people, my friend.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
A few weeks back the Supreme Court dealt a largely symbolic blow to President Obama's signature healthcare reform bill by ruling that Hobby Lobby, as a legal person under the law, would have rights granted by the Religious Freedoms Restorations Act (RFRA) infringed by the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate, which stipulated that employers must also cover the cost of contraception for their employees. While it was definitely a setback for those who are pushing for healthcare reform, the bigger story that came out of the landmark ruling was the many questions it raised. Between this and <i>Citizens United</i>, corporations increasingly seem like vehicles for those who control them to disregard laws that restrict their ability to unduly influence others. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Firstly let us examine the "Corporate Veil", which was designed to shield shareholders of a company from personal liability (Hence the "Limited." suffix attached to the name of every corporation). The foundation of this legal protection is the emphasis of a corporation as a seperate legal entity, independent of its shareholders. Justice Samuel Alito, in writing the majority opinion, claimed that "allowing Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel to assert RFRA claims protects the religious liberty of the Greens and the Hahns." And yet just how is it that laws applicable solely to their corporate holdings also seemingly affect the Greens and Hahns? When Hobby Lobby and other so called "religious corporations" were incorporated, their owners did so voluntarily, acknowledging that in exchange for shielding both themselves and their wealth from the company's liabilities, they were relinquishing absolute control over the company (Think Apple firing Steve Jobs), which would then become a legal entity of its own, independent of them. Since then, David Green, CEO and founder of Hobby Lobby, has amassed a fortune (estimated at $4.5 billion by Forbes) in no small part thanks to the protections that the corporate veil has afforded him, including <a href="http://www.mycorporation.com/state/oklahoma.jsp" target="_blank">various tax benefits</a>. David Green willfully and knowingly incorporated his picture frame business, and as a result has reaped the benefits of doing so. With Hobby Lobby's Supreme Court case he now sought to ignore the legal seperateness of him and Hobby Lobby, for it was now personally convenient for him to do so.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles." That is how David Green describes Hobby Lobby's business model. Setting aside <a href="http://theweek.com/article/index/263225/stop-calling-hobby-lobby-a-christian-business" target="_blank">the veracity of those claims</a>, it's important to note that following "Christian principles" would be impossible in situations where it clashes with law because companies do not have religious freedoms. The Supreme Court implied this by choosing not to rule on religious protections afforded companies under the First Amendment. The court however also argued the RFRA stipulated that a person had to comply with a government law that violated their religious beliefs only if it was restrictive in the least possible way (held up under <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny" target="_blank">Strict Scrutiny</a>) and that Hobby Lobby, as a person under the law, was protected under this law. This becomes problematic when one attempts to determine where a corporation's religious beliefs come from. The Supreme Court seems to believe that companies whose controlling shareholders possess devout religious views determine the religious views, if any, of their company. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There are many worrying questions that arise from this, not only what constitutes "sincerely held beliefs", for Hobby Lobby engages in a few decidedly "un-Christian" <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/01/hobby-lobby-christian_n_5545618.html" target="_blank">practices</a>, but also is the Corporate Veil maintained even while the religious views of a company and its shareholders are now synonymous? Can companies now just claim a religious exception to any laws they do not like? This will no doubt be clarified in the coming year as pending cases in the lower courts are ruled upon, but New York Times editor Dorothy J. Samuels captured the issue perfectly when she wrote "If owners indicate that they are not entirely separate from their corporation-by denying corporation employees' birth control coverage based on their personal religious beliefs-the case could be made in future state-court litigation that they have waived their right to be shielded from responsibility for corporate financial liabilities." </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Over the years the culpability of shareholders for the misdeeds of the corporations they helm has slowly increased, and may this be the final blow? On the flipside, the current slate of Supreme Court Justices seem determined to hand corporations rights and protections normally only granted to humans without giving much consideration to how the sheer scale of the average corporation gives it a natural advantage in exercising those rights compared to the average American, and the subsequent impact that has. A single person excercising their religious objection to contraception by refusing to shop at stores who sell it does not have the same outsized impact that a corporation denying its employees access to contraception has. The recent SCOTUS decisions granting corporations various rights has eroded the seperation between a company and its owners, turning them into little more than vehicles which they can then utilize to influence national discourse. This is a dangerous precedent and must be addressed quickly, lest the United States continue its trajectory towards what is increasingly looking like a corrupt kleptocracy where those who dictate policy are those who benefit from it the most. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03121806177519862492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716313703874355451.post-49121407184212059952014-04-05T15:20:00.000-07:002014-04-09T20:25:01.086-07:00Russia Is In a Perceptible Decline: Why Crimea Changes Nothing<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://neftegaz.ru/images/Neft%20Perey/yamalpenisula.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://neftegaz.ru/images/Neft%20Perey/yamalpenisula.jpg" height="267" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"Cri-me-a-river."</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
In my last <a href="http://thecoolcanuck.blogspot.ca/2014/03/zero-sum-game-putins-imperial-crusade.html" target="_blank">post</a> I talked about Russian foreign policy (an admittedly mysterious subject) in light of Crimea, and the threat that Russia now posed to other eastern and central European states. Russia without question is a powerful player in global politics, but do not make the mistake of equating that with a bright outlook for the country at home. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Putin's approval ratings have hovered north of 80% in the wake of Russia's annexation of Crimea, and has galvanized support for a more strong and assertive foreign policy. Many analysts have remarked on how Putin has managed to grab the West by the balls, embarrassing the Obama administration by blatantly disregarding them on every issue from Syria to Iran. Further, Europe's dependence on Russia for gas has crippled any possible sanctions regime for the short term at the very least. In fact, "<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/29/us-ukraine-crisis-crimea-time-idUSBREA2S0LT20140329" target="_blank">Russification</a>"of the Crimean peninsula went ahead with much fanfare earlier this week, drawing a rather tepid response from the international community. <br />
<br />
It's easy to imagine that there's a pretty euphoric atmosphere in the Kremlin right about now, and that probably is the case considering that they managed to pull of the annexation of a sovereign territory in the 21st Century without triggering a military response. But it should not be, for the whole drama over the Crimea has only served to distract Kremlin functionaries from the grim realities that Russia faces from the near to long term.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Population_Pyramid_of_Russia_2009.PNG/736px-Population_Pyramid_of_Russia_2009.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Population_Pyramid_of_Russia_2009.PNG/736px-Population_Pyramid_of_Russia_2009.PNG" height="260" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The median age is buoyed by the 20-35 demographic</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, demographics have not been Russia's friend. Its population peaked in 1991, and for the next decade saw rapid population decline as emigration, poor healthcare and violence in periphery regions took their toll. Since then Russia's population has stabilized, and recently even experienced a net increase. Even so, in coming years Russia will grapple with the same issues that Western countries will face in coming years, exacerbated by large scale emigration as well as poor healthcare and elevated poverty levels compared to the West. While birth rates have recovered somewhat over the past decade, the median age in the country is 39.4, compared to 29.9 in Kazakhstan. Already possessing an aging population this is set to worsen due to emigration, especially amongst young people in the country. Economic collapse in the 1990s saw emigration surge, especially to western European countries such as Germany and the UK, as well as other countries such as Israel. A rapid increase in the average Russian income slowed the pace of emigration, and immigration from former Soviet states for the most part offset it. The numbers are deceiving however. In a poll conducted last year, nearly half of Russian students indicated a desire to leave the country, citing lack of economic opportunity and disillusionment with the political establishment. Comparatively, the overwhelming majority of migrants that come from the former Soviet bloc are labourers who lack the academic background of the highly coveted migrants who are currently leaving Russia in droves. <br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.themoscowtimes.com/upload/iblock/10d/5343-emigration-file6e9c1mx1airtxsqk3wx.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.themoscowtimes.com/upload/iblock/10d/5343-emigration-file6e9c1mx1airtxsqk3wx.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Increasingly iced out, young Russians are looking abroad</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The emigration of the intellectual elite is nothing new to the country, with many prominent Russian liberals such as Sergei Guriyev and Garry Kasparov living in self imposed exile abroad. What's different this time around are the numbers, having dramatically increased in recent years. In fact, 2013 saw a 76% increase in political asylum requests compared to 2012, a meteoric rise that should it prove to be more than a statistical anomaly, could have dire consequences for the Russian economy. The effects of the impending demographic "crash" that many countries have been well documented by academia. Countries such as Canada, the U.S and large swathes of Europe as well as Japan all grapple with the issue of caring for an increasingly old population while drawing from a constantly shrinking tax base. Russia, along with Japan is one of the few countries in the world that will most likely face a simultaneously shrinking and aging population, something that countries such as Canada have successfully countered by encouraging students, businessmen and young professionals from around the world (but predominantly Asia) to immigrate. <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Moscow_City_2013.jpg/300px-Moscow_City_2013.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Moscow_City_2013.jpg/300px-Moscow_City_2013.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 13px; text-align: center;">The economy is controlled by Oligarchs </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Now while the population might marginally decline, but is that the only trend with long term implications for Russia and this supposed decline? On the surface, Russia's economy actually looks pretty solid. Unemployment hovers around 5%, foreign debt is relatively low and the recession for the most part left Russia unscathed. In fact, some might be surprised to know that the United States has a greater percentage of their population living under the poverty line (14.8%) compared to Russia (11.2%). But this is somewhat of a Potemkin Village, for the Russian economy's structure is fundamentally different from the capitalistic liberal democracies of the west. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the cash-strapped Russian state instituted a controversial "Loan for Shares" program that ended up transferring control of SOEs (State Operated Enterprises) from the Russian government to shady nouveau-riche types, often with links to organized crime, who came out of seemingly nowhere to purchase heavily undervalued government assets at bargain basement prices. Having paid marginal prices to acquire large swathes of Russian industry, this exclusive club of billionaires forged close ties with the Kremlin and through graft and corruption wrested control of the economy from the fledgling free market forces that were just gaining traction in the country. As a result, Russia is now home to the greatest number of billionaires in the world. While much noise has been made in the media about the close links between these robber barons and many top politicians, they're not exactly the patriotic type. <br />
<br />
Capital flight has plagued the Russian state almost from its inception, with most wealthy Russians stashing their wealth abroad. One only has to drive through London's most exclusive boroughs need to see <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2013/mar/25/iceberg-homes-basements-rich-hell-neighbours" target="_blank">the "Iceberg Homes"</a> that many of Russia's ultra-wealthy have erected. The Crimean invasion caused a spike in capital flight abroad, from $8 billion a month to roughly $70 billion during the first three months of the year. As a result, the Russian economy is especially sensitive to shifts in the global economy geopolitical shocks, and why the continued decline of the ruble has many economists worried, despite the obvious boon it would be for Russia's large export based economy. The large scale investments that Putin has unveiled to modernize the military, improve infrastructure and revitalize the economy are already taxing the Kremlin treasury, and a chronic decline in the value of the ruble does not bode well for a Russian economy that remains under the threat of sanctions. <br />
<br />
What's important to consider is that Russia can be cursorily described as a hybrid petro-state and nuclear power, relying on revenues from oil exports to pay for the large (and often corruption riddled) "megaprojects" that have become a hallmark of Russian economic policy in recent years. It is the largest exporter of oil in the world, and possesses its largest proven natural gas deposits. While the financial and industrial sectors have sputtered, resource extraction has taken off, providing enough hard currency that allows Russia to maintain an <a href="http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.DOD.TOTL.GD.ZS/countries/1W-RU?display=graph" target="_blank">exceptionally low</a> debt as a percentage of the GDP, especially when compared to the U.K (88.7%). Exporting upwards of 10 million barrels a day, mostly to the rest of Europe, also means that Putin could bring his rivals to the west to their knees with a turn of the spigot, and as a result has been granted an unusual degree of latitude in his geopolitical maneuverings. But the leverage over his enemies that Putin enjoys may not last. Many experts predict that an increase in overall production coupled with slowing growth in demand and lower extraction costs will lead to a long term decrease in the cost of oil. Iraq has added 1 million barrels of production since 2007 and that number <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-29/lukoil-starts-iraq-oilfield-as-output-reaches-35-year-high-1-.html?_ga=1.131854796.2135251854.1396594654" target="_blank">is expected to increase</a>. In response to the Crimean crisis, the United Kingdom had organized meetings seeking to wean Europe off of Russian oil and natural gas. Compounding this, between 1995 and 2005, spending on renewable energy sources (excluding large scale hydro) grew from $10 billion to $30 billion, and that number is only expected to increase as countries increasingly seek clean and sustainable alternatives to pricey fossil fuels. Some economists disagree that this will put a damper on oil prices however, arguing that in response to lower prices some producers will cut back on production and shelve expansion plans, repeating the cycle of increased prices due to high demand versus low supply. What they fail to consider is that over the last decade or so the energy landscape has changed dramatically, with some of the biggest energy companies in the world now SOEs such as Sinopec and Indian Oil, whose primary goals are not profit but rather securing long term energy sources for their countries' burgeoning and energy hungry populations. Such companies would hardly cut production in the face of reduced prices, and in fact might be inclined to ramp it up. Russia's ability to balance its budget is contingent upon the price of oil remaining at $117. Should oil prices drop, the Russian economy would be negatively affected, as production is cut and drilling shelved. Further Ukraine and various other countries which are currently essentially hostage to Russia due to their energy dependence on it will have alternatives not too far away as pipelines from Middle Eastern oil fields through Turkey can deliver oil and gas via Odessa. Hence, oil may not prove to be as reliable a tool in the future as it has been in the past, both economically and politically. <br />
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1475335/thumbs/o-PUTIN-facebook.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1475335/thumbs/o-PUTIN-facebook.jpg" height="160" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Dark clouds are gathering over Russia</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
Russia's dramatic shift in foreign policy has led many political pundits in the West to laud Putin for rebuilding Russia, his grand vision central in revitalizing a country that was viewed by many as a crumbling state, in the throes of chronic decay. And they may be partially right, for he has energized the electorate and set about reversing the damage that general neglect has rendered upon various parts of the country. But Putin has hardly addressed some of the biggest issues facing his country, such as the de facto oligarchy, dependence on resource extraction and capital flight. In fact in some areas Putin has exacerbated problems, presiding over widespread corruption, increasing international isolation and the emigration of Russia's youngest, bright and best in near-unprecedented numbers. The long term prognosis for Russia looks grim, and annexing Crimea has done little to change that. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03121806177519862492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716313703874355451.post-39183297052513461652014-03-23T15:20:00.002-07:002015-04-12T00:26:59.065-07:00Zero Sum Game: Putin's Imperial Crusade <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://voices.suntimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/527583518_44765097.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://voices.suntimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/527583518_44765097.jpg" height="322" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Russian troops in Crimea</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
Things have moved very fast in Crimea. Following the results of a widely condemned referendum in the Crimea where results showed that over 97% of voters chose to secede from Ukraine and instead join the Russian Federation. While the results were almost immediately disavowed by a large majority of the international community, claiming that the referendum was conducted under intimidation and suppression by both Russian troops and the Crimean (as well as those from other nations) militias loyal to them, that did little to stop Russia from recognizing it. Since then, Russia has solidified its de facto control of the region, with Ukraine withdrawing its 25,000 troops from the peninsula in an implicit sign that Kyiv recognizes its rather limited ability to assert control over the breakaway region. The very next day, Russia’s lower house voted in favour of formally annexing it. With Crimea in the Russian camp for the long term at the very least, what implications does it have for the rest of the former Soviet sphere?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Putin’s obsession with empire building is well documented. Reasserting control over the former Soviet sphere has been an increasingly prominent policy goal of the Kremlin over the past decade. But any doubts that remained should have been dispelled by Putin’s March 18th address to Parliament. Denouncing what he deemed a centuries-long conspiracy by Western powers to suppress Russia, Putin heralded the dawn of a new era of Russian dominance, which was later christened by the Duma the very next day, who voted in favour of annexing the Crimean peninsula. With its new doctrine of intervention on behalf of ethnic Russians that worked so successfully in the Ukrainian crisis, where will Putin go next? Many point to Transnistria, a heavily industrialized breakaway region of the ethnic hodgepodge that is Moldova. In response to the Duma vote to annex Crimea, the Transnistrian Parliament in turn passed a motion to join the Russian Federation. Some speculate that Russia may turn to Estonia and Latvia, both countries with substantial Russian populations in hopes of bringing them into its orbit or at the very least carving out Russian exclaves within them. Regardless of whatever move the Kremlin does make, it’s fairly certain they will not stop with the Crimea. Despite drawing strong condemnation from the international community and potentially alienating UN ally China, the biggest provocation in recent memory drew little in the way of firm consequences for Russia, and damaging sanctions do not seem likely any time soon. Europe is heavily reliant upon Russia for energy, and that will not change anytime soon especially as many European countries move away from nuclear energy. Russian-American trade is so diminutive that sanctions would have a rather limited impact.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So how do the events of recent weeks affect Moscow’s geopolitical ambitions? The Russian dominated antithesis to the EU, the Eurasian Union, is set to become reality on New Year’s Day next year, with membership currently consisting of Belarus, Russia and Kazakhstan, with Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan all potentially joining as well. While Russia’s annexation of Crimea provides it with the framework to take over other so-called “frozen” conflict zones, it also runs the risk of alienating other former Soviet states who may have been eyeing the union with wary interest. While some states such as Poland and Lithuania voiced their desire to remain outside of any sphere of Russian influence by forging closer ties to NATO and the EU, countries such as Moldova and Armenia that could be compelled to join may look elsewhere, as evidenced by the rather lukewarm statements they issued in response to the annexation vote. Russia’s newfound aggression is not the spontaneous combustion of a cocktail of nationalistic fervour at home and instability abroad but rather the culmination of a decade’s worth of meticulous planning. Putin orchestrated various factors to create “the perfect storm” that would enable him to push his foreign policy agenda of restoring Russian domination in the region. Harnessing the influence that the Russian Orthodox Church wielded over the population in order to stoke nationalistic sentiments, rebuilding the Russian military as an effective fighting machine with a global reach, and influencing the affairs of other states in the post-Soviet sphere were all elements which enabled what unfolded on the peninsula to happen. Putin took a calculated risk by invading Crimea, as its capture was an easy sell to the international community due to its traditional history as part of Russia as well as a litmus test of western appetites for Russian provocations. It could not have hoped for a better result, and now count on the consolidation of Russian interests in the region to accelerate.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The picture does look particularly bleak, but what should the west do? Sanctions may not be as effective as they have been in Iran (until recently), but the U.S and its allies do have a unique asset in NATO. While it has seen a decade of general neglect, the 28-member military alliance is maybe the one tool in the U.S’s arsenal that Putin does fear. When Poland, Latvia and the Czech Republic joined in 1999, Russia was wary of what it perceived to be creeping western influence beginning to encroach upon its own sphere of influence. The U.S has dispatched naval forces to the Black Sea and a few days ago along with France announced it was sending sending air assets to Poland. John McCain has stated that he wanted to see military equipment sent to Ukraine, and with leaders of former eastern bloc states becoming increasingly nervous about Russian activities, such a move would be easily defensible. In fact, it might be prudent as ten day old Russian military exercises have led to a military buildup that NATO’s top commander described as “very, very sizable and very, very ready." While it is desirable to avoid a “hot war”, it should not be avoided at all costs, lest the dovish policies of blind appeasement that failed spectacularly in the 1930s make a return. While the situations are in no way parallels, there are some disturbing similarities that offer insight into how a potential conflict could be avoided. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
While on paper NATO countries (excluding the U.S and Canada) spent $269.736 billion on military expenditures and account for a significant chunk of global military spending, this is set to change with cuts to the militaries of most members. The United States accounts for 70% NATO spending, and with some European members cutting spending up to 40%, it isn’t exactly unusual to hear some of the more fiscally conservative members of Congress complaining about how their European allies have been shoving the burden of defending them increasingly on the United States. In the meantime, Putin has gone ahead with a vast and sweeping modernization program for the military that is estimated to cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $770 billion dollars and will oversee the expansion of the air force, navy, special forces and intelligence capabilities. While there has been some criticism about the realisticness of such an ambitious plan, such as the effect of corruption that is almost synonymous with massive projects in Russia, it nevertheless demonstrates the sincerity of Putin’s pledge to pursue a more aggressive foreign policy. Hearkening back to 80 years ago, one of the biggest draws of the upstart Nazi Party was its goal of restoring Germany to its former stature as a world power. While illegal rearmament had begun from almost the moment that the Treaty of Versailles was signed, it was ramped up in the 30s under the direction of Hjalmar Schacht (notably never a member of the Nazi Party and later jailed at Dachau), the Reich Minister of Economics at the time. Schacht successfully managed to create dummy companies that shielded rearmament efforts from prying Allied eyes. From a force that was limited to a 100,000 ground army with no tanks, no air force and a navy of just 6 ships with no submarines, it was transformed in short order into a well oiled military machine that 20 years later would roll across Europe in a deadly “lightning war”, or Blitzkrieg. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now there are some stark differences in these situations (namely the Treaty of Versailles), but remaining oblivious to the military buildup occurring to the east is not a plausible or realistic plan of action for European countries seeking to avoid conflict. While placing boots on the ground would be an obvious provocation and carries the risk of spilling over into armed conflict, NATO allies should begin by pledging to immediately provide Ukrainian forces with both arms and training in how to use them, as well as signing contracts for modern naval and air assets that could be paid for at a later date. Although a UN mandate seems unlikely thanks to Russia’s status as a veto-wielding power in the Security Council, NATO forces should be deployed under its banner nonetheless with the sole purpose of securing the borders and maintaining the territorial integrity of countries who specifically have requested its assistance. It may be met with protest from countries such as India who seem content to be willfully blind to the realities in the region, but ensuring that current tensions do not spill over into wider conflict demands that a principled stand against a Putin regime that has set its sights on nothing less than restoring the clout its old Soviet empire wielded be taken. If Ukraine is further divided, it does not bode well for Eastern Europe at large. </div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03121806177519862492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716313703874355451.post-67873807046519513682013-04-28T09:00:00.001-07:002013-04-28T11:47:06.154-07:00Bill S-7 & What it Means for the NDP<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-4467bdbd-515d-f829-620c-f8556677cc35" style="font-weight: normal;"></b><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-4467bdbd-515d-f829-620c-f8556677cc35" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Earlier this week it was discovered that the RCMP had foiled a plot in which two individuals had planned to destroy a New York bound VIA train across the border. In light of this revelation, the Harper government moved to introduce a bill in parliament that it was said would assist law enforcement officials unearth and disrupt such plots. WIth nerves still raw following the Boston Marathon bombing and the ensuing manhunt, it’s no surprise this controversial piece of legislation was....controversial. The Liberals, who had actually passed an earlier incarnation a decade earlier in response to the 9/11 attacks, wholeheartedly supported this Conservative bill. This of course, led to the NDP landing the sole dissenting role. While there are genuine concerns with Bill S-7, and very valid criticisms, there has also been very saddening politicking and partisanship on the NDP’s part, with some MPs making very dubious arguments, namely that Prime Minister John Diefenbaker would have “rolled in his grave” should he have known his own party was proposing such a law. </span></b></div>
<b id="docs-internal-guid-4467bdbd-515d-f829-620c-f8556677cc35" style="font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<b id="docs-internal-guid-4467bdbd-515d-f829-620c-f8556677cc35" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">While many point to the general deterioration in the NDP’s political capital, hastened by an ill-advised move to the centre, defections, and Thomas Mulcair’s generally abrasive attitude as reasons for a decline in its electoral fortunes, I’d say it’s just the petty, dumb, unhelpful and small-minded criticisms and comments that we’ve seen their MPs make in recent months. (Not to mention some pretty dumb policy wonks as well.) </span></b></div>
<b id="docs-internal-guid-4467bdbd-515d-f829-620c-f8556677cc35" style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In the last election, they won 103 seats, with 59 of those in Quebec. Many heralded this “Orange Wave” as the beginning of an NDP resurgence that could down the road lead them to the PMO. In reality, this shift to their party by Quebecers was generally fuelled by discontent with the Bloc, who had done a terrible job in Parliament pushing both a rather leftist agenda, and soft sovereignty. First one must realize that what happened in Quebec was very similar to what nearly happened in the last Albertan elections, with the upstart and markedly more likeable Wildrose Party, a carbon copy of the ruling Conservatives minus the social conservatism, nearly capitalized on general discontent with the job the incumbents were doing. The untested Wildrose did not really put anything too radical on the table, such as a comprehensive (and realistic) plan to diversify the economy. Instead what happened was that they won seats and took on opposition status in legislature by doing what the NDP did; making themselves into a conduit by which the people could express dissatisfaction with the status quo. When the people are satisfied, their electoral fortunes will fall. When things aren’t going so great, it will rise. The thing is, people who stumbled into the NDP fold looking for change in 2011 are increasingly shifting their support back to the Liberals, who emerged from a disastrous period in which they contemplated merging with the NDP. With a young, charismatic leader, powerful political organizing machine and polls that say they are making headway across the country, Harper knows his greatest threat lies not with the Official Opposition, but with the party he decimated two year ago. </span></div>
<br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But Stephen Harper doesn’t have much to worry about. The Liberals’ upswing has generally been fuelled by NDP voters who are returning to the party they fled in droves. The recent BOC economic outlook for the next two years was more optimistic than even Mr. Flaherty’s own prediction, and if they hold true, Canada is in a position to return to be back in the black by 2015, which is the current target, and an election year. Jim Flaherty has said he is contemplating introducing income splitting should he eliminate the deficit on schedule. Although this would cost roughly $1.5 billion, implementing something so politically popular going into an election would make it toxic for any party to try and repeal it.</span></div>
<br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The NDP rode a wave of discontent to (almost) the top. And now that same wave will bring them back down to earth. In an attempt to keep the voters they wooed in 2011, they dropped the most overtly socialist sections of their party manifesto, moving to the centre left, traditionally Liberal territory. People who vote centre-left would much rather trust the party that’s been doing it for over a century, especially now that it’s found its mojo again. Bloc voters, generally very leftist (explains the absence of a Conservative Party provincially and general scarcity of Conservative MPs from the province) and a significant chunk of the seats they lost in the last election should return. Combined with a lack of anything that would compel the populace to vote NDP, there isn’t really anywhere for them to go except down. FIPA notwithstanding, the Conservatives generally have pulled the right strings with regards to foreign policy, and when there is some unforced error that does come to light, the NDP sound like a bunch of whining teenagers, content to complain and just point blame instead of working towards a genuine solution, something that should be the hallmark of any opposition party.</span></b></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03121806177519862492noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716313703874355451.post-13769827818409319122013-04-01T14:08:00.001-07:002013-04-01T14:08:46.856-07:00The African Enigma: Aid (Part 1)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Africa is a perplexing case study for even the most seasoned economist. Home to over a billion people, and tremendous growth in recent years (Ethiopia posted GDP growth upwards of 11% in 2012),the continent is also home to its fair share of troubles. The birthplace of humanity is now it's laggard, subjected to centuries of harsh colonialism that has left the continent drenched in blood to this very day. There is, however, change afoot. Opportunities abundant, in this multiple-part series, we'll delve into just what Africa presents investors with. <br />
<br />
Take a look at global GDP growth in 2012, and you may notice that the biggest movers were African. (Not always in the good way, South Sudan's infantile economy contracted a whopping 55%) Libya's recovering economy, subjected to a damaging civil war in 2011, experienced 121.9% growth last year, and war-torn Sierra Leone posted a 21.3% increase in GDP. Now just what do these numbers mean? <br />
<br />
Observing, and ultimately forecasting economic data about Africa is an exercise in economics, but one must also take into account various geo-political factors, history, and tribal allegiances that still play such an important role in day-to-day African life today. It's mainly been a lack of understanding of this (as well as the lingering traumatic aftermath of colonial rule) that has caused Africa to remain "the final frontier" of economic development. Why has African development over the last 60 years generally been sluggish at best?<br />
<br />
From the establishment of JFK's Peace Corps in the early 60s, most Western attempts at development of Africa revolved around a smaller, grassroots humanitarian effort. This is great when faced with sudden disasters, (man made or otherwise) such as wars, famine or floods, where immediate short term help is required. The problem arises when either 1) this short term aid becomes extended into an annual event which donor countries end up budgeting for, or 2) the projects become so large/unsustainable that they turn into "white elephants", accomplishing nothing while just wasting everyone's money. For a great example of this we turn to 1970s Tanzania. <br />
<br />
In 1976, President Julius Nyerere, despite horrible stewardship of the economy (By the time he left office in 1985, Tanzania was one of the largest recipients of foreign aid in the world, and a substantial portion of it's budget was funded by foreign donor states), he made significant strides in healthcare and education, mostly by way of his pledges to make both accessible to every Tanzanian. In a bid to help Nyerere out with his education plan, the World Bank thought they could kill two birds with one stone by building a pulp refinery that could create paper upon which textbooks could then be printed, in essence creating a new industry, and making the education reforms instituted by the government beneficial in the short term as well. All fine and well on paper, but the reality was much different in that the suits back in Washington chose to overlook one key detail; The Tanzanians had no idea whatsoever about how to run such a plant. The one thing that might have provided the greatest long term benefit, funding for training and education programs, was not even budgeted for in the project, for fear of the project being deemed too costly by executives across the Atlantic. To make a long story short, the project blew up in their faces, and Tanzania was left paying the bills for this disastrous exercise in aid that for some reason it seems nobody (except maybe the Chinese) learnt from.<br />
<br />
So just what needs to be done? In Canada, when the CIDA, the Canadian government's aid agency, was rolled into the Foreign Affairs department, people were outraged, with German media conglomerate Deutsche Wells <a href="http://www.dw.de/canadas-foreign-aid-fiasco/a-16701948" target="_blank">bemoaning</a> the "top down control" the Harper government maintained on just about every aspect of Canadian domestic and foreign policy, and how it would negatively impact people desperately in need of aid. Despite the perceived negative reaction by certain news outlets, this may have been the smartest thing done by a developed country when it comes to foreign development in decades. By tying foreign aid to Canada's foreign affairs and trade department, it'll ensure that Canadian aid dollars are spent more effectively, where they can do the most good. In announcing the move, the government touted aligning our aid and foreign development policy with trade and foreign policy goals would slash bureaucracy, reduce administrative costs and mean that the agency would now be better placed to provide long term development assistance to places that require it, more so than continued food aid, or large sums of cash that often end up unaccounted for. Countries such as Myanmar, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Egypt and Indonesia are countries that require help, whether through expanded guest worker programs, loans, grants or training. Coincidentally these countries that Canada has determined present potential trade partners, with explosive growth opportunities. Some people say that this signals the onset of a new type of foreign aid policy, one where the government is motivated by profit. To those people, I propose a question; Is there anything inherently wrong with making a profit, so long as it doesn't overtake administering aid as the primary goal? Now of course these same people will clamour that commercial interests would surely do just that, but a legislative framework, something lacking before, is soon to be put in place, which should allay those fears. <br />
<br />
800 million people have been lifted out of poverty globally since 1990. The amount of people without access to clean drinking water halved. Great progress has been made in the fight to eradicate global poverty. What is interesting to note about these statistics, however, is that very little, if any, of this can attributed to the billions of dollars poured into countries over the same period. rather, trade liberalization, wider proliferation of development loans, and greater availability of productivity-enhancing technologies. Government aid agencies must retool and refocus on ensuring that these enablers of progress are within reach of countries that need them. It is only then when the world can once and for all end rampant poverty, and move toward a new era of shared, sustainable prosperity. <br />
<b id="internal-source-marker_0.0908088986761868" style="font-weight: normal;"><div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b></div>
<br /></b></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03121806177519862492noreply@blogger.com0Markham, ON, Canada43.8561002 -79.3370188000000143.6729812 -79.6597423 44.0392192 -79.014295300000015tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716313703874355451.post-71322723581248285062013-01-02T12:52:00.000-08:002013-01-02T13:09:48.216-08:00Lose the Countdown: Why the talk about the "Fiscal Cliff" is overblown<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
One only has to look at CNBC or CNN to see these apocalyptic "Countdown to the Fiscal Cliff" timelines that pretty much distort the picture. What should have been a simple re-adjustment of fiscal goals in light of economic conditions has suddenly turned into a giant proverbial partisan volleyball game, with the President and Democratic Senate pitted against the Republican-filled house, lobbing the ball of public opinion into the others' corner. Last night's dramatic finish saw the Senate passed an emergency set of laws to sort of delay the fiscal cliff and soften the landing should they go over. There wasn't much anyone could do except sit close to their T.V and pray that Speaker Boehner would cut the brinkmanship and actually work towards avoiding plunging the United States into what could be a long and protracted recession, and an extended period of slow growth that could put a cap on the economy for years. But the vital thing to keep in mind here is that this whole circus is a MANUFACTURED crisis, and really is only a a question because of the partisan bickering of both houses in the wonderful Bicameral system the United States has been blessed with. What should have been a simple fiscal decision to stagger spending cuts and lower taxes has been hijacked by ideology and a certain pledge named after the always charming Grover Norquist. <br />
<br />
To understand the Fiscal cliff one must roughly understand the economy. A rough but easy way to look at it would be to visualize the economy as a bucket, with taps injecting water, or economic activity into the economy, and drains, leaking economic activity out of it. The "injections" would basically include investments, exports, consumer spending and the golden ticket in our case, government spending. On the flip side, there's savings, imports, and the other key word, taxes. In biology they teach you about an ecosystem's "carrying capacity", or just how much a population it can hold. Well the economy works in a similar way. There's an equilibrium where economic growth is sustainable and that is where fiscal and monetary policy combined come together to strive for this equilibrium. The "Fiscal Cliff" has the potential to be a destabilizing force in the economy because now government injections in the economy because what it would've done was hiked taxes, "draining" more economic activity, and lowered government "injections" into the economy moving the economy below the desired equilibrium. But in economics everything is related, and this would have the effect of curtailing business investment as profits are squeezed which would spin-off into other business sectors that rely on corporate investment which would cause layoffs reducing consumer spending as purchasing power declines, etc. As you can see, the ripple effect could have serious effect on the economy that Ben Bernanke and the Fed would be pretty much useless to try and stop, considering the huge balance sheet it's accumulated through previous stimulus measures. <br />
<br />
So things seem pretty dire judging from the economics of it all, and as a result CNN wouldn't be too far off the money with that countdown to the cliff would they? Nope. Congress had the option, not to mention the time to deal with this all the way back since they, characteristically like the 112th Congress, they agreed to raise the debt ceiling in yet another 11th hour deal. And keeping with the indicators, Congress did not disappoint. They had about a year and a half to talk about an important issue that would effect possibly millions of Americans. Instead they resorted to a policy of brinkmanship, confrontational showdowns and concocted dumb rules they ended up breaking anyways like the unrealistic "Boehner Rule". Not to mention making pledges that then held them hostage to the whims of one very partisan group, something that runs against the very nature of democracy itself. Those countdowns served no purpose other than to panic political pundits and the general public, and maybe expose just how gridlocked Congress is. <br />
<br />
At midnight when the ball dropped in Times Square there wasn't a magic switch that went off that all of a sudden plunged the United States into a recession and wiped out trillions of dollars from the global economy. Only when businesses and people would be forced into paying more taxes and the government tap squeaked shut would we have seen any substantial real reaction. That would've given Congress about a month to hammer out a deal. The important thing to note is that they should not have needed a month, as this was something that could have been solved by the time the Republican caucuses were taking place. Things that had been politicized heavily such as a tax hike on the top 2% and defense and medicare spending held up negotiations and negotiations are still ongoing as the relatively over hyped sequesters, which don't cut spending but decrease projected increases in spending and find savings through "inefficiencies". The deficit is still projected to increase by a large amount, although this is a good start. It's been more than a decade since America has seen a surplus, and years of fiscal irresponsibility and financial imprudence have taken their toll on the country. Of course markets may have dropped should Congress have failed to reach an agreement by the time markets had opened on the 2nd, but that's controlled by two of the worst human emotions: Fear and Greed. The stock market cannot be used as a barometer of the health of the economy immediately following an event of mass economic hysteria. Last night the Nasdaq Futures index was up around 400 points, an indicator of the bull market that took hold today. And yet the American and global economy are not in much of a safer position now than they were 72 hours ago. So CNN, lose the hysterical pundits and doomsday clocks, because sure catastrophe is fully possible, but this isn't the Dark Knight Rises. There's no nuclear bomb sitting in the back of a truck with a timer saying when it's going to go off. </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03121806177519862492noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716313703874355451.post-12333484308924337922012-09-24T19:13:00.000-07:002012-09-25T04:03:35.902-07:00Why CNOOC wants Nexen<div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Ever since the CNOOC deal for Canadian oil company Nexen has come to light, debate has raged on about selling the company. While most of the arguments have been based on a distrust of the Chinese government, as well as a state owned company owning highly coveted Canadian resources, I looked into the economic reasons as to why it would be bad not only for Canada but every oil producing nation in the world. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Firstly, let me say the point that a CNOOC purchase would be a security threat to North America is moot. An oil producing company, employing Canadians, with the majority of it's executive positions in Canada, filled by Canadians, would pose not much of a threat to Canada, and with Nexen likely to axe all operations in the U.S, that problem is solved.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now firstly, CNOOC is aiming for Nexen because China has a voracious appetite for resources. In the immediate short term, the oil sands are means to meet China's growing need for energy to keep pace with it's economy which has grown at an astonishing rate over the past 20 years. The primary argument from proponents of the deal has been that when south of the border growth is a measly 1-2% annually, and increasing calls for more protectionist policies are being heard across the country, the future lies across the ocean in Asia, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper, despite a belated start, has taken these calls to heart. China is now a priority for trade with Canada, along with India, the European Union and South America. Initially this has consisted primarily of Chinese injections of capital into Canadian companies, primarily in the resource sectors. Recently, however, there has been a flurry of acquisitions of projects and entire companies, not just in Canada, such as the McKay River oil sands project and Talisman Energy by state-owned Chinese firms. Nexen is the biggest oil company yet that the Chinese government wishes to acquire, and it is a major player in the Athabasca oil sands, a title that is the cause of all the debate surrounding the potential sale of the company.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
With all that said, this is all the public line, what everyone is being told. Chinese capital, through Chinese companies, will create jobs because they will fund infrastructure to ship resources out of the country to Asia. Now the one glaring hole in all of this is that Nexen has two primary projects in the Alberta Oil Sands, the Long Lake and Horn River projects. After this what is left to be done? Nothing in the Gulf of Mexico seeing there is no appetite for Chinese investment in the U.S, at least when it comes to resources. The answer is at <i>home</i>. The proven reserves in all of Nexen's current projects equates to a measly 6% of <i>proven </i>oil reserves within China. <br />
<br />
Now this is why the CNOOC, and by extension the Chinese Government need Nexen. China already has one of the largest middle classes in the world, and their ranks are due to be vastly increased as more and more Chinese are lifted out of poverty and into a consumer class with voracious appetite for cars, consumer electronics and generally things that require power. In a world with more people competing for rapidly dwindling resources, it's only natural that China would move to secure plentiful energy supplies in stable regions where acquisition would face little risk of expropriation (Argentina and the Repsol fiasco) or disruption (Syria, South and North Sudan). All of this is great, but not many countries (stable ones at least) are not so willing to give up energy assets they view as strategically important, and China would prefer to keep money at home if possible, and this is where the domestic reserves come into play. Large shale gas fields, sizable offshore reserves, and oil in the north of the country all account for what is a sizable energy play in China, in the hands of what essentially is a government backed oligopoly between three state owned company. Now the Chinese have little if any experience in extraction of resources, while that seems to be an age-honoured tradition in Alberta, so who better to learn from? Essentially the game plan is to buy an under performing Canadian company with projects that will be able to satisfy China's short-term energy needs while providing domestic companies such as CNOOC but also Sinopec and China National Petroleum Corp. the expertise that they require to extract China's vast resources. While yes, CNOOC has promised to keep it's current staffing numbers as well as expand jobs at the head office, which will remain in Calgary, not to mention list stocks on the TSX, is that really of net benefit to Canada? That's all arbitrary stuff that while yes important, are things prerequisite to getting the deal approved by shareholders, plus a healthy premium of course. Compare all this to what we are giving away, and then all of the offerings pale in comparison to the potential loss.<br />
<br />
Now don't think for one second I'm saying that Nexen as a company is of strategic value to Canada, but what it does enable China to do once it is out of our hands is not to great benefit to us. Sure, they'll be exporting the oil produced by Nexen in the Oil Sands to China, but not for long, maybe even as short as 10 years. proponents of the deal argue that the exporting of oil will create jobs, but will they increase Nexen's levels of investment in the Canadian market? No, they've promised to maintain current levels, all because they can afford to do so, despite it not really being in their long term interests. And where does all this profit go? Straight into the coffers of China's Energy Ministry, from which it will be put into their sizable war chest to fund their acquisition spree, and the development of domestic reserves so that China will not depend on countries like us for oil. That is like saying Wal-Mart opening up shop in India is for the net benefit of the majority of India. Yes, it's good business for the suppliers, real estate developers and other retailers set to benefit from the droves of people streaming into these new Wal-Mart anchored shopping malls, but the multitude of small business owners that India is home to suffer, and the benefit to consumers is negligible considering how cheap most consumer products in the country are already. Back to Nexen, one must notice that the loudest proponents of the deal are the ones who will walk away with fatter wallets after or soon after the transaction is completed, including shareholders, executives, and other oil companies who view this case as being the signal to open the floodgates when it comes to foreign investment in our Oil Sands. What I'm concerned is that will Canadians be ensured access at a reasonable price to their own resources? Will Canadian values be maintained and respected? Will this deal be beneficial to the <i>average</i> Canadian? <br />
<br />
These are questions we must leave to the federal government to decide, and I'm not too sure either as to whether it will get passed or not. What I do think we should do is this; If this was our water we were selling, under these very same conditions and promises, would it be good for us? In a world reliant on fossil fuels, and one where we will probably depend on it for years to come, it is essential we do exactly what the Chinese are doing and ensure we have a reliable supply to fossil fuels while we work on solutions and alternatives which are beneficial to everyone. And this doesn't only mean we protect our oil reserves and ensure they remain in Canadian hands, we ensure the necessary infrastructure is in place to refine, ship and distribute it. Whatever the government decides, I hope it's in the interests of EVERY Canadian and not jsut a select few people. </div>
</div>
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03121806177519862492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716313703874355451.post-3154966741193028252012-08-20T13:49:00.002-07:002012-08-20T13:49:48.631-07:00Quebec's special status is no invitation to depose of Canadian values<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr">
After having talked about some stuff far from home in my last two posts, I want to take the time to talk about a issue closer to home. Well, MY home that is. :)</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
I was reading a National Post article about the elections in Quebec, specifically about a mayor who took offense to a PQ candidate's suggestion that the crucifix displayed in legislature didn't fit in with the Parti Quebecois' vision of a secular Quebec. There is so many things wrong with what politicians of every stripe in this election are saying that is mind numbing, and I will list all I can think of, but after the story. This mayor, an ultra conservative, who held prayers before every council meeting, took this remark as an invitation to question her trust worthiness because she was "from Africa" and "I can hardly pronounce her name.". He concluded by ruefully saying "These people think they can come here and tell us what to do. They will destroy our culture!" (A note of irony here, because the French seemed to have destroyed plenty of cultures shortly after arriving here themselves.) Now, apart from being complete misinformation (She was born in Europe, although her father is Algerian.) this blatant and public display of xenophobia, from an elected official nonetheless is shocking and completely wrong. But the sheer ridiculousness of these elections doesn't stop there. In response to the tirade, Pauline Marois called for an apology, calling Quebecers "Open, tolerant and respectful of all cultures. I think she forgot the "when its politically convenient" part. The aforementioned PQ candidate, not so surprisingly, isn't exactly a tolerant embracer of all faiths like Marois painted her. She's a hardcore anti-islamist, and the public face of the PQ's pledge to make Quebec "secular" (Catholics notwithstanding). This takes a page from French law in which objects expressing religion are banned from the public realm, and this encompasses anything from crucifixes to prayer hats worn my Muslims and Jews. In departing from French law, however, what really is a two tier system emerges. The only objects that have been confirmed as banned are hijabs, head scarves worn by Muslim women as a sign of modesty. Nothing has been said about other faiths, but it has been confirmed that crucifixes have been excepted, as they supposedly a part of Quebec's culture because one has been hanging in Quebec Legislature. A little history lesson: in the mid thirties, <b style="background-color: #f9f9f9; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;">Maurice Duplessis</b>, upon arrival in the chambers, hung a cross in the room to show his government's commitment to Catholicism, understandable since the majority of Quebec at the time was church-going, God fearing Catholics. But times have changed and while I feel religion, especially Catholicism, has played a major role in the history and culture of the province, but if the PQ is so eager to banish religion from the public realm, it should do it across the board, and not with this flimsy legislation that is essentially thinly veiled racism. And do I need not mention the muted response to these travesties from the public? In the rest of the country, such open denouncements of minorities would quickly be followed by public outcry to the point where its almost overreacting. But this mayor's unfair denouncement was met with little resistance and even a few "hear hear!"s from nationalists. The only statement that seemed to elicit any emotion from pretty much anyone was one where Francois Legault said that Quebec teens generally were lazy and unmotivated, and that they should "work harder, like Asians." Firstly I don't know what is it with people, but "Asian" seems almost like a dirty word in this country, with that mess with the $100 bill, but it's no secret that Asians, and by this definition I think he means Asia as a whole, work very hard. Look at China, India, Japan. School is a drudgery that I would be horrified to have to participate in, but they take it with no qualms. I attribute this outcry to Quebec's surprising unwillingness to address it's shortcomings if it involves drastic change, hence the animosity to multiculturalism, English instruction in school and futile programs to "breed" more Francophone children. Regardless, blatant xenophobia and intolerance is rife in Quebec, something that for the most part would be met with denouncement in the rest of the nation. I don't know if it's Quebec's "Nation within a Nation", but it is no excuse to go ahead and peddle values many would view as "Uncanadian."</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03121806177519862492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716313703874355451.post-65546358901371454172012-08-15T19:43:00.003-07:002012-08-15T20:38:34.107-07:00The Sino-Russian Situation<div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
What Would and Israeli-Iranian War mean for the World?</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Talk is heating up of an Israeli confrontation with Iran is heating up fast, not to mention what could blow up into a regional conflict with players all over the globe. Hilary Clinton has admitted that enforcement of a "no-fly zone" in Syria is on the table, similar to one that was in place in Libya, whilst Israel has given the United States memo after memo detailing a potential Iranian threat. It came to light yesterday that Israel had detailed a scenario for any conflict with Iran, and it encompassed a large scale cyber-attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, followed by a missile barrage, then a further wave of jet fighters. All this was to be accompanied by a massive mobilization of Israeli defense forces on the ground in anticipation of what could be retaliatory attacks from Iran proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah from Sinai and the West Bank. All this, of course, would be carried out in conjunction with the U.S. All though it seems as though Israel has covered all the immediate bases, for some reason or another the implications this conflict could have on ones throughout the region and for countries all around the world.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
China and Russia are two countries that have vehemently refuted any attempt by any country to intervene, and I would agree with them if their motives had been as innocent and kind-hearted as they try to make it seem. Russia has been the primary source of nuclear expertise and equipment, while China, along with India and many other emerging economies, has continued to buy Iranian oil, inadvertently funding a government that has incited genocide, a crime in itself, against the Jewish people on multiple occasions, all while developing an arsenal of nuclear weapons that will allow them to carry out their threat to "wipe Israel from the map." Both these countries opposed any form of support for various insurgent groups throughout the Middle East in the Arab Spring, and China even shipped weapons to Qaddafi during this conflict. Why would they do this in the face of international pressure to do the complete opposite? I'll outline it below.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
China's rise on the world stage has been meteoric; annual growth numbers that make the rest of the G8 finance ministers green with envy, and even the numbers put up by Brazil and India, two other emerging economic powerhouses pale in comparison. With it has come increased political clout for Beijing, and the politburo is determined to harness this to outdo not only the U.S, but every other western power, primarily Japan, through what we'll call "soft power." American culture is everywhere, and everyone knows the good ol' US of A, and you only need to turn on news channels from Russia to China to Ethiopia to catch up on what's going on stateside. American music and movies are loved across the globe, and China seethes at the sight of this. It should be their culture in the spotlight, and so they set out to do that. Although they do use the traditional avenues such as cultural attaches and expositions, not to mention the Olympics, they've realized that creating a sphere of influence outside of traditional American allies will help establish China as a rival superpower to the Americans. They've invested heavily in African countries, building dams, roads and factories that the West, bloated with bureaucracy, and held back by red tape, has been unable to build. This efficiency has impressed many in Africa, who now prefer doing business with the Chinese, rather than us. But what does Africa have to do with the situation in the Middle East, you may ask. Well, if you noticed, many African leaders haven't been too impressed with the West, however unfair their judgement may have been. In the Middle East, Iran and now Syria are both countries with and adamant hatred for America, as well as the West at large. With these countries in a sphere of influence centered around Russia and China, they are now all nations allied against the U.S and it's allies, not in a militaristic sense, but an ideological sense. By protecting these countries, and this is where Russia comes in, they are defying a group of countries they view as a tired old boys club, interfering in their affairs. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So with that out of the way, if Israel and the U.S do go ahead and launch a preemptive strike against Iran, it would go without saying that Canada, most of Europe, South Korea and the Philippines would pony up on their side, although I feel only maybe the U.S, Canada and possibly Great Britain would actually put down boots on Israeli soil should Iran attempt a land invasion either directly. More likely, Iran, which has threatened to do so, would fire multiple ballistics towards major cities in Israel, followed by terrorist attacks by Iranian proxies, which would probably result in a higher casualty count than the predetermined 500 dead. I doubt that China and Russia would actually attack Israel, but Russia especially would supply money and arms to Iran while China would make a lot of noise in the security council and denounce the U.S and it's allies, and it could plunge U.S-Sino relations to new lows, as well as hurt Chinese relations with South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and the Philippines. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
China and Russia have repeatedly irritated the West, ignoring sanctions and blatantly funding the war machines of autocratic states that sponsor terrorism and intentionally building diplomatic relations with countries that are a proverbial thorn in America's side. While much ado has been made about the immediate consequences, I feel that the U.S feels reluctant to attack primarily to avoid upsetting China, whom's actions it is frustrated by, but who at the end of the day is America's largest single foreign creditor, and a major trade partner. A case can be made for the war-weary American public as well. After having been led through that rabbit hole we know as Iraq in search of WMDs, and a increasingly impossible situation in Afghanistan, a conflict with Iran, however justified it is, will not be very popular with the public, and popular with the public is one thing President Obama must be if he is to win this election. <br />
<br />
<i>On a side note, in regard to the ongoing civil war in Syria, international support for the rebel FSA is picking up steam, but Saudi Arabia and the U.S, two primary backers of the opposition, have been in this all to familiar situation before. In the 90's, Iran had warned the U.S about the growing prominence of a Islamic fundamentalist group, backed by the Saudis, called the Taliban, and a clan of essentially a group of religious zealot mercenaries, a group we know as the Al Qaeda, and the threat they posed to the U.S. Alas, blinded by the need to eliminate their immediate foe, they not only paid no heed to the inner workings of these organizations but went forward and funded their crusade against the "infidel invaders" from the north. Now years later, with the Soviet Union dead and gone, these same fundamentalists, painted as revolutionaries and freedom fighters by the media, much in the same way that the fighters in Syria are, set their sights on America. It seemed to tolerant, too "morally bankrupt" (oh horror, women in the army!) for their taste, and lacking any better enemy, set out to wage "jihad" against them. Prior to this though, the American and international media, primarily the Saudis, had given people the impression that the people actually fighting the Soviets were for the most part actually Afghan. As it turned out, that was the opposite. The majority of these glorified militia men were actually from across the Middle East, but primarily from Saudi Arabia, come to wage a holy war to "liberate" their Muslim brothers, much like the steady flow of mercenaries now flowing into Syria from Lebanon and Jordan to fight a battle against a bloody tyrant in the name of freedom. Iran has warned that the opposition is not much better than the Assad regime, and this is clearly exemplified in its indiscriminate use of IEDs, suicide bombs and liberal application of extra judicial justice, not to mention brazen attacks on UN observers for no apparent reason. Iran correctly warned the U.S against supporting a group that would go on to become public enemy number 1 once, and it isn't much of a stretch to imagine that they could be right again. Replacing tyranny with tyranny is not a recipe for success and is a situation ripe for disaster. </i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03121806177519862492noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716313703874355451.post-2953116802470610022012-08-14T17:30:00.000-07:002012-08-14T17:30:02.002-07:00A Bullet for Your Thoughts<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>(This was written prior to the tragic shooting rampages in Wisconsin and Texas)</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
In wake of the horrific shooting spate last month, beginning with dozens of people shot in a brazen attack at a block party in Toronto, culminating in the horrific massacre in a Colorado theatre, I can't seem to get guns off my mind. Strong but probably meaningless rhetoric from politicians about "cracking down" on crime is widespread, and the usual post-massacre damage control by the NRA and other right wing political groups and individuals is in full swing. This collective group, in the U.S claims that any move to regulate firearms is an infringement on their second amendment right to bear arms, and in Canada point to the recent spate of shootings as evidence that tighter gun control do not result in lower crime. One gentleman felt so sure about this he wrote to the Globe and Mail pinning the blame for the violence on Canadian firearms. This man who no doubt values his right to shoot his fellow compatriots, felt the need to point out how Canada's strict control of handguns had not prevented Toronto "from turning into a shooting gallery." Now I felt that this proud exerciser of the second amendment was overlooking one key fact: The large majority of weapons used in cases of gang violence were cheap handguns smuggled in FROM the U.S. Yes, we need more "hug a thug" programs, as our mayor calls them, and as long as he is mayor, we probably won't get them, but this man should really check his facts before he goes ahead and makes such a spurious and superficial statement with probably no research.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>Now we can add the poor souls murdered for no good reason in Wisconsin and Texas, and not to mention the countless other unnamed but no less important victims of gun crime across North America since then. With the bodies piling up, you'd have to wonder when the conservative electorate will wake the hell up. The countless victims, their families and ordinary civic minded people cry for it. The Second Amendment was signed into law in a time where the country was under constant threat of invasion, and the founding fathers who signed it could not fathom the weapons that would follow in the future. It is technically legal to possess nuclear weapons in the United States, all because of the lack of foresight of the founding fathers, which they cannot be held accountable for, because no one would have fathomed the development of an entire industry churning out cheap and readily available firearms for anyone willing to pay, no questions asked, from a simple declaration that allowed Americans the privilege of defending themselves from invasion. I think it is time for Americans to revalue whether they really need full blown assault rifles and handguns to defend themselves, the safety of countless people not only in North America, but around the world depend on it.</i></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03121806177519862492noreply@blogger.com0