NEWS,29.11.2012

The Politics of Fear

To those who were surprised that the European Union received the Nobel Peace Prize, I say: "Think twice." This was not only a deserved award for Europe's contribution to bringing peace and stabilizing democracies in the recent past  the Nobel Committee was also sending a clear warning to contemporary leaders. I could almost hear them saying: "On this difficult odyssey, don't abandon ship. In today's world, the EU is too valuable to squander."It was an indirect but powerful rebuttal to the dangerous nationalist and populist rhetoric some politicians have adopted when describing the recent financial crisis.This message couldn't have come at a better time.Like ghosts from the past, we see political violence, xenophobia, migrants being scapegoated and extreme nationalism creeping into our public debates even into our parliaments. This is a Europe diverging from its founding principles. Principles that rendered nationalistic hatreds an anathema.But it is these politics of fear that seem to have incapacitated Europe. A Europe seemingly incapable of ending this crisis, a fractious Europe. This has undermined a sense of trust between us and in our European institutions. This climate does not inspire confidence either in our citizens or the markets. Nor will our retreat into a renationalization of Europe be the solution.My recent experience in dealing with the financial crisis in Greece and in Europe has confirmed my belief that this is a political crisis more than a financial one.I am convinced that, with the political will, we could have avoided much pain, squelched market fears and stabilized the euro, while at the same time reformed ailing, unsustainable economies such as ours in Greece. Despite media hype to the contrary, it is the Greek people who first and foremost have wanted this change. Instead, we allowed fear and mistrust to overcome us. And fear begets more fear and uncertainty. Instead of understanding, we have name-calling. Instead of collective, transparent action by our institutions, we have moved into a mode where the community method is undermined by makeshift intergovernmental decision-making, with the balance of power tipping dangerously towards the very large member states. Instead of real, necessary reform and fiscal responsibility, we are implementing an overdose of austerity dealing more with symptoms and less with the root causes of the economic woes of Europe. Instead of rewarding superhuman efforts, we are condemned for our shortcomings. More than anything else, it has been this political climate that has undermined our common efforts to deal with today's financial crisis. Whether it is banks or governments, we have adopted a passive, almost defeatist, attitude, which we cloak in the language of "caution and responsibility. "It is our responsibility to break this cycle of fear and mistrust now. We are vastly underestimating our own capacities as a union. Our capacity to calm markets or create jobs. We again need to believe in the great capacity of our peoples north and south, west and east. We must rekindle the spirit that united us in 1989 when the Berlin Wall fell. We know the difficulties we then faced. But we did not cower. We decided to invest in the potential Europe and our peoples had. And there is so much hidden or untapped potential in our youth, our experience, our diversity and our cultures.But this not simply an issue of political will. We must combine this will with an understanding of our real weaknesses. Over the decades we have become more and more interdependent in Europe. This was not by chance, this was by design -- from the days of Monnet and Schuman. It is this interdependence that has made the wars of the past unthinkable.But if interdependence is important to keep the peace, it is not enough to make us effective, adaptive, powerful on the global scene. Neither does interdependence guarantee the democratic empowerment of our citizens and the liberation of our peoples' potential.In fact, this interdependence today is seen by many as a straight jacket, hindering us rather than giving us the capacity to deal with new global challenges. The debate about the breakup of the euro, or even euro-exits, is a case in point.Our citizens, therefore, wonder whether this European structure is still useful or if we should go our own separate, independent ways. As in The Odyssey, the sirens are beckoning that we change course. However sweet their song, we know their purpose is that we crash on the shallow rocks. If we are to avoid these rocks, we need to radically rethink our governance structures and policy responses so that we capitalize on our strengths and neutralize our weaknesses.Three fundamental principles must underpin a more progressive Europe.First, we must strengthen Europe's institutional capacity. Priority today must be in the financial-economic sphere. The eurozone is the world's largest economy, the euro is the world's second reserve currency and on aggregate we have strong economic fundamentals; but we are not able to leverage our strengths due to weak or missing institutions. Despite significant progress such as:

- More robust fiscal monitoring;
- The European Stability Mechanism;
- The Six-Pack to strengthen governance and oversight; and
- A broader mandate for the European Central Bank, with the recent introduction of Outright
Monetary Transactions, we must go one step further. 

We have already pooled our risks, now we must pool our strengths. Eurobonds and a federal banking union are vital tools to safeguard the EU from similar crises and set our economy on a more stable footing. Second, we need to liberate and reenergize Europe's human capacity. High unemployment needs to be offset by investment in our human capital, education, research, green growth and the necessary infrastructure for green energy and a knowledge society. In our race towards competitiveness, we are emulating models that have little to do with our traditions. In many emerging markets, a lack of collective bargaining and democratic accountability, low wages, substandard working conditions and denigration of the environment combined with tax havens which have robbed countries of huge revenues up to 11 billion euros per year in Greece alone may offer a temporary comparative advantage. But in seeking growth, we cannot race to the bottom. We must base our competitiveness on quality, not inequality. Third, we must strengthen our democratic capacity. We need innovative democratic institutions that will empower our citizens and strengthen the legitimacy of our decisions .The EU's complex decision-making process has been an outcome of a delicate historical balance between member states. Today, however, people feel they are sidelined by these decisions. In trying to confront its fiscal deficit, Europe has run up a democratic deficit. As we take the next steps towards European integration, we must give ownership of this process to the people. Policies imposed on citizens without their active consent are doomed to fail. Already, a frustrated, educated but unemployed younger generation is losing faith in our European institutions and values. This vacuum has created fertile ground for populism and extremism. When our citizens feel disempowered, they will turn to saviors or target scapegoats as they do not participate through dialogue and responsible deliberation to understand and solve common problems. Europe can regain the confidence of the markets, but first we must regain the confidence of our citizens. That is why I called for a referendum in Greece, so that people could debate and decide on their own future. There is nothing wrong with European countries ceding sovereignty in the interest of creating a stronger Europe. Indeed, they already have. But as we do so, we need to rethink how our representatives in the Union are elected and how decisions are made. An EU president, elected by a European Parliament (or even a directly elected president), European-wide referenda, forms of more direct citizen participation and the use of social media are ideas already ripe to explore. This new Europe, as I see it, will not be the product of one grandiose decision, dictated by an elite minority of powerful nations or some anonymous bureaucrats in Brussels. Small, incremental but complementary steps -made by each of us individually and all of us together -will build the values and the foundations for the Europe that we want. Democracy and education will give new capacity to our citizens and that, in the end, will empower Europe and reinforce its legitimacy in our societies and around the world. We do have a choice. Either we empower Europe and its citizens and become a catalyst for humanizing our global economy, or globalization will dehumanize our societies and undermine the European project. As a citizen of Europe, I vote for the first choice.

 

EU outlines stop-gap 2013 budget

European Union negotiators have provisionally agreed to fix the bloc's spending at nearly 133 billion euros ($209 billion) in 2013, as part of a deal that adds 6 billion euros to spending this year.The agreement which must now be approved by EU governments and the European Parliament ensures stable funding for EU programmes next year.It also guarantees the continuation of several employment, education and research programmes this year that had been threatened with cancellation because of a funding gap."There was an agreement on the draft package for the 2013 budget that will be submitted to the European Council and Parliament in the coming days," a spokesman for the European Commission said in a statement.But one EU official warned that the approval of governments and lawmakers was far from guaranteed. "I'm not sure that everyone is going to be happy with this package, particularly among some MEPs," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. A successful conclusion to the 2013 budget row would allow governments and officials to focus on the far thornier subject of the bloc's next long-term budget, for 2014-2020.EU leaders failed to reach a deal on that 1 trillion euro ($1.57 trillion) budget at a summit in Brussels last week, and are expected to try again early next year.As part of Thursday's deal, EU payments next year will be limited to a maximum of 132.84 billion euros ($US208.97 billion).That would have represented an increase of 2.9% compared with this year far below the rise of 6.8%demanded by the European Parliament and the executive Commission, and only a small real increase after inflation is taken into account. But the extra 6 billion euros agreed for this year means that spending in 2012 will now amount to 135 billion euros the highest level ever and as a result, the budget will actually fall by 1.6% next year. During previous rounds of talks, the Commission had insisted that an extra 9 billion euros was needed to fill the 2012 funding shortfall. But at Thursday's meeting, the EU's executive said it could forgo some of the extra funds while it checked whether all the conditions for payment had been met.About three-quarters of the EU's annual budget is spent on farm subsidies and funding for new motorways, bridges and other public infrastructure projects in poorer eastern and southern European member countries.

BoE urges UK banks to boost capital

British banks need to act now to bolster their defences against financial shocks, as many have underestimated the cost of loans going sour and future fines for misconduct, the Bank of England (BoE) has said.Underlining a growing sense of urgency about capital defences, outgoing BoE Governor Mervyn King said that while the problem was "manageable", he wanted the banks' regulator to report back by March on what steps banks were taking, and warned that he did not want them to cut lending."Our primary concern has been to ensure that UK banks have sufficient capital ... so that they are on a solid footing to support economic growth," King told a news conference."The problem is manageable, and is already understood at least in part by markets. But it does warrant immediate action," he added.King made the comments as he presented the half-yearly report by the BoE's Financial Policy Committee, which from next year will take charge of British bank regulation.He said that the government would not need to put extra money into Royal Bank of Scotland or Lloyds Banking Group, the two banks in which it has held controlling stakes since the financial crisis. Instead, he said banks could raise funds by issuing contingent debt that converts into equity in a crisis, or by restructuring actions - often a euphemism for asset sales. The BoE said that British banks' true capital position was probably worse than relatively healthy official numbers imply, and this was already hurting investors. "Progress by banks in raising capital has slowed and investor confidence remains low," the BoE said in its half-yearly Financial Stability Report. "Market concerns are likely to reflect in part uncertainty about bank capital adequacy."he BoE has repeatedly urged British banks to raise capital levels, and November's report marks a stepping up of these recommendations, despite a slight reduction in the risks facing the financial system due to an easing in euro zone tensions. "UK banks' capital buffers, available to cushion losses and maintain the supply of credit following realisation of a stress scenario, are not as great as headline regulatory capital ratios imply," it said.King also confirmed the new effort would apply to international banks with British subsidiaries which are regulated by the Financial Services Authority.The BoE identified three main areas where banks were over-optimistic about how much capital they had.First, information from supervisors suggested some British banks would suffer bigger losses on loans than they had made provision for, according to the report.Second, it said banks had also persistently underestimated the scale of fines they would face for past misconduct, adding that external analysts had suggested further costs of 4 billion to 10 billion pounds ($7.8 billion to $31 billion) for missold payment protection insurance and the LIBOR rate-rigging scandal. Finally, the BoE criticised the "complex and opaque" system banks use to calculate the riskiness of its assets, with the amount of capital that banks estimated they needed sometimes varying threefold between banks for the same type of assets.The report also revealed muted results from the BoE's June effort to get banks to boost lending, by paving the way for up to 500 billion pounds of liquidity reserves held by the banks to be run down.But it noted that just 31 billion pounds had been released and that it was mostly used to repay debt rather than provide direct support to credit growth.The BoE cautioned that it was "too early" to judge the impact of the initiative.

US stocks and euro sell-off on Boehner comments

US stocks and the euro sold off after US House Speaker John Boehner said there had been "no substantive progress" in talks to avoid the fiscal cliff.Republican Boehner made the comments after speaking with President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, saying there was a real danger no agreement would be reached to avoid $US607 billion of automatic tax increases and spending cuts that kick in on January 1. Democrats had "yet to get serious about spending cuts," Boehner said.There was no mention of the optimism he cited 24 hours ago that gave a boost to Wall Street and was echoed around the globe.The Congressional Budget Office has warned that falling off the fiscal cliff could drive the US jobless rate back up to 9.1% by the end of 2013 and send the world's biggest economy back into recession.The dollar pared its decline against the euro, which traded recently at $US1.2967, having early touched $US1.30.US stocks did recover some ground after the selloff.The Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 0.2% and the Standard & Poor's 500 Index up 0.4%."One minute the portents for a deal on the fiscal cliff are negative, the next minute they are positive," Mike Mason, a senior trader at Sucden Financial Private Clients in London, told Reuters."This is likely to be the pattern all the way up to the deadline on January 1. Equities are sure to remain volatile and trading subdued until there is any concrete outcome to these negotiations."Economic data in the US was mixed, though the revised reading for gross domestic product in the third quarter was 2.7%, up from the 2% pace previously published.That just missed the estimate in a Bloomberg survey of 2.8% and marks an acceleration from the second quarter's 1.3% growth.Consumers, though, were subdued. Household spending rose a revised 1.4%, down from the first reading of 2%, according to the Commerce Department. Economists were hoping the revision would only be down to 1.9%.Yet the US trade deficit shrank for revised to US$US403 billion from an initial estimate of $US413.7 billion and inventories turned positive.And an index of pending home resales beat estimates by rising 5.2%, according to the National Association of Realtors, while the number of Americans applying for jobless benefits fell 23,000 to 393,000 last week, according to the US Labor Department.Stocks in the UK rallied, as did equity markets across Europe, which closed before Boehner made gloomier noises about the US fiscal cliff.The FTSE 100 advanced 1.2%, with Rio Tinto up 5.1%. Germany's DAX 30 climbed 0.8% and France's CAC 40 was up 1.5%.In the UK, Lord JusticeLeveson's long-awaited report into media ethics that followed the phone hacking scandal at Rupert Murdoch's News Corp called for a new independent media regulator to stamp out unethical behaviour.UK Prime Minister David Cameron, who himself was tarnished by associations with Murdoch's lieutenants in Britain, have a tepid welcome to the report while saying he wouldn't support new law to enshrine such a body.

NEWS,22.10.2012

Iran Policy and the 50th Anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis

The unrepentant neo-cons and backbenchers on Mitt Romney's foreign policy team, such as Dan Senor and Cofer Black, always advise their candidate to attack signs of "weakness" coming from President Obama. The Administration's announcement of direct talks between the U.S. and Iran should be welcomed as good news by those who don't wish to see yet another bloodbath in the Middle East but Romney can be counted on to condemn the diplomatic breakthrough as insufficiently hawkish. The news that Obama has chosen dialogue over saber-rattling gives Romney the opportunity to vent his criticism at the sole foreign policy debate that falls on the 50th anniversary of the night when President John F. Kennedy first made public the existence of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. Fifty years ago, President Kennedy, after being informed that Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev had deployed intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Cuba, was able to move beyond his knee jerk reaction to bomb and invade the island. Fortunately, over the course of days Kennedy tempered his response by adding statesmanship to his brinkmanship. The idea of bombing Cuba followed by a ground invasion was sidelined in favor of more incremental pressures: seeking multilateral assistance while enforcing a Naval "quarantine" of Soviet vessels to give negotiations more time.As the United States tries to assess the danger of Iran becoming a nuclear power the lessons of JFK's dealing with the Soviets over the change in the nuclear status quo is more relevant than ever.The bluster and war mongering of repeating the mantra "all options are on the table" needlessly heightens tensions and makes war more likely if it is not accompanied by face-saving ways out of the crisis. The U.S.'s adversary du jour, (in this case the fallible clerics who run the Islamic Republic of Iran), typically do not respond well to military threats of air strikes, "red lines," or "axis of evil" rhetoric (thank you David Frum). These kinds of intimidating tactics coming from a nuclear power that can lay waste to Iran, although favored by the neo-cons who brought us the disastrous war in Iraq, if devoid of any links to a pathway out of the confrontation amount to little more than bullying and belligerence. In the case of Iran, the threat of "the use of force" after years of George W. Bush's calamitous policies in the region do nothing to dissuade the Ayatollahs from continuing their nuclear enrichment program.Iran remains a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which has safeguards and allowances for the civilian uses of nuclear power. The best U.S. intelligence analyses conclude that Iran is not building an atomic bomb. If President Kennedy could offer an off-ramp from disaster to Nikita Khrushchev, who was at the time the U.S.'s most bombastic ideological foe who possessed a nuclear arsenal big enough to do serious damage, then a sitting U.S. president today can give Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (a far weaker adversary) a similar face-saving way out of the current "crisis." Through secret backchannels, Kennedy offered Khrushchev sweeteners in the form of offering to remove the U.S.'s Jupiter missiles from Turkey and pledging not to invade the island in exchange for the Soviets agreeing to take their missiles out of Cuba. Any public ultimatum ("red line") against Iran absent of private offers of concessions amounts to nothing more than war mongering. A wiser policy toward Iran more akin to the one Kennedy applied to Cuba during the missile crisis would be to take the military option "off the table," quiet down the noise level from actors in the U.S. and in the region (such as Bibi Netanyahu) who are screaming for a war, and deal with Iran on terms of mutual respect and a realist recognition of shared interests. This dual-track policy appears to be where President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton are heading. It is the only policy that can defuse the "crisis." There is no military solution. Let's not forget that in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks Iran offered to help the United States track down Al Qaeda and has assisted in stemming the drug traffic out of Afghanistan. And let's also not forget that the Reagan Administration armed the government of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the mid-1980s in an attempt (according to Reagan) to open up a "dialogue." And let's not further forget that it was the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency that in August 1953 overthrew the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh and installed the Shah Reza Pahlavi. The CIA coup d'état, organized from within the U.S. embassy in Tehran, re-wrote that nation's history denying Iran in the early 1950s what might be called today a "Persian Spring." There has never been an adequate American acknowledgement that the U.S. was responsible for propping up a dictatorship in Iran under the Shah for 25 years, which set the stage for the 1979 revolution that brought the clerics to power in the first place. The recent history of American-Iranian relations, which has been a lengthy series of underhanded and failed policies, must be taken into account. A little humility on the American side could go a long way.In October 1962, President Kennedy's sobering experience during the missile crisis led directly to his American University speech of June 1963 where he called for an end to the demonization and brinkmanship of the Cold War. The crisis also put the Atmospheric Test-Ban Treaty on the front burner of his priorities and Kennedy spent considerable political "capital" in prodding the U.S. Senate to ratify the treaty. Had Kennedy decided to bomb and invade Cuba it would have been popular with the hardliners around him and with American public opinion. But it is also highly likely that one of the 98 tactical nuclear bombs on the island would have been detonated over the heads of U.S. marines. (There had been good cause for politicians and other residents of Washington to begin readying bunkers and bomb shelters.) On October 22, 1962, in announcing the existence of the missiles President Kennedy chillingly told the world that any detonation of a nuclear device in the Western Hemisphere would be considered "an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union." Yet he understood that Khrushchev would have to brush back the hardliners inside his own government. Imposing a U.S. Navy "quarantine" of Soviet ships heading for Cuba and bringing in the United Nations and allies to help find a way out of the crisis was the least pugnacious of the military options and it bought time for negotiations. Robert F. Kennedy was sent as his brother's emissary to privately talk to the Kremlin-connected journalist, Georgi Bolshakov, and to Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin. The U.S. offered to dismantle its Jupiter missiles in Turkey and agreed not to try to topple the Castro regime. In late 1963, Kennedy even sent out feelers to the Cuban government that normalizing U.S. relations might be a possibility if Castro agreed to certain conditions, such as limiting the Soviet military presence. Although these efforts were cut short by Kennedy's assassination they illustrate that he was willing to make substantial concessions and push against the Cold War orthodoxy of the period that took as gospel that the Soviets only respected threats of massive violence.With the ongoing partisan attacks against President Obama when facing challenges in a more complicated world than existed a half century ago, along with his ill-advised escalation of drone attacks that only increase tensions and create new enemies, the last thing this country needs is to blunder itself into another misguided war. What's needed when dealing with Iran and its nuclear program is the cautious pragmatism and willingness to bend and make concessions that characterized President Kennedy's strategy 50 years ago.During the missile crisis the United States and the Soviet Union sidelined regional actors who called for military actions that would be in nobody's interest (including those demanding it). And like the crisis of 1962 the tensions with Iran in 2012 can be lessened with a greater willingness to compromise, the offering of concessions, and a recognition that war will only bring added misery and hardship to the people in that part of the world who have already endured enough. Romney will no doubt go on the offensive against Obama's new Iran initiative decrying it as "weak" and not aligned with his neo-con proclivities. The Right's echo chamber will denounce the timing of the announcement of talks with Iran as an "October Surprise." But we mustn't allow their shrill, politicized whining about sensible diplomatic overtures drown out the crucial need for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Unfortunately, neither candidate today could make the kind of speech that President Kennedy delivered in June 1963 without enduring considerable political fallout. Kennedy said in his American University address: "History teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors. So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all people to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly towards it... For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's futures. And we are all mortal .We shall  do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we must labor on not towards a strategy of annihilation but towards a strategy of peace."

 

Romney and Obama in last chance debate

President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney face off in front of the cameras for a final time this afternoon as opinion polls show their battle for the White House has tightened to a dead heat.With 15 days to go until the November 6 election, the two candidates turn to foreign policy for their third and last debate.The stakes are high. The two candidates are tied at 46% each in the Reuters/Ipsos online daily tracking poll, and the debate will likely be the last time either candidate will be able to directly appeal to millions of voters.Though few voters cite the war in Afghanistan or other national-security topics as a top concern, Obama can point to a number of successes on his watch, from the end of the Iraq war to the killing of Osama bin Laden.Romney will use worries about the prospect of a nuclear Iran and turmoil in Libya to try to amplify concerns about Obama's leadership at home and abroad."Many voters are ready to fire Obama if they see Romney as an acceptable alternative," said David Yepsen, director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Center at Southern Illinois University."Foreign policy has not been a big driver of this campaign but I think Romney could add some icing to his cake if people say, 'Hey, this guy is on top of world affairs.'"Impact of debates Presidential debates have not always been consequential, but this year they have had an impact.Romney's strong performance in the first debate in Denver on October 3 helped him recover from a series of stumbles and wiped out Obama's advantage in opinion polls.Obama fared better in their second encounter on October 16, but that has not helped him regain the lead.The Obama campaign is now playing defense as it tries to limit Romney's gains in several of the battleground states that will decide the election.Romney could have a hard time winning the White House if he does not carry Ohio, and a new Quinnipiac/CBS poll shows Obama leading by 5 percentage points in the Midwestern state.Last-chance More than 60 million viewers watched each of their previous two debates, but the television audience this time could be smaller as it will air at the same time as high-profile baseball and football games.Much of the exchange, which takes place at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida, will likely focus on the Middle East. Other topics such as trade with China and the debt crisis in Europe could allow the candidates to circle back to the economic concerns that are topmost on voters' minds.Campaigning in Canton, Ohio, Vice President Joe Biden on Monday reminded voters of Obama's pledge to pull troops out of Afghanistan in the next two years and pointed out that Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan have made no such guarantees."They said, quote, it depends. Ladies and gentlemen, like everything with them, it depends," Biden said. "It depends on what day you find these guys."Romney accuses Obama of presiding over a weakening in US influence abroad, but he has to assure voters he is a credible alternative to the president on the world stage. The former Massachusetts governor's July trip to London, Jerusalem and Poland was marked by missteps.Libya attack The two men at their second debate last week clashed bitterly over Libya, a preview of what is to come in today's debate.They argued over Obama's handling of the attack last month on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed.The Obama administration first labeled the incident a spontaneous reaction to a video made in the United States that lampooned the Prophet Mohammad.Later, it said it was a terrorist assault on the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks.This shifting account, and the fact that Obama went on a campaign trip the day after the attack, has given Romney ammunition to use at the Florida debate."The statements were either misleading by intention or they were misleading by accident. Either way, though, he's got to get to the bottom of this," Romney adviser Dan Senor said on NBC's "Today" show.'Leading from behind' Obama and his allies charge that Romney exploited the Benghazi attack for political points while officials were still accounting for the wellbeing of US diplomats.Regarding foreign policy overall, Obama's allies accuse Romney of relying on generalities and platitudes."It is astonishing that Romney has run for president for six years and never once bothered to put forward a plan to end the war in Afghanistan, for example, or to formulate a policy to go after al Qaeda," US Senator John Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 presidential nominee, wrote in a memo released by the Obama campaign on Monday.Romney has promised to tighten the screws over Iran's nuclear program and accused Obama of "leading from behind" as Syria's civil war expands.He also has faulted Obama for setting up a politically timed exit from the unpopular Afghanistan war, and accused him of failing to support Israel, an important ally in the Middle East.The Republican challenger is likely to bring up a New York Times report from Saturday that said the United States and Iran had agreed in principle to hold bilateral negotiations to halt what Washington and its allies say is a plan by Tehran to develop nuclear weapons.The 90-minute debate, moderated by Bob Schieffer of CBS, will be divided into six segments: America's role in the world; the war in Afghanistan; Israel and Iran; the changing Middle East; terrorism; and China's rise.

'Fit' Fidel Castro appears in public

Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro has reappeared in public, meeting at a Havana hotel with a Venezuelan politician - quashing swirling rumours that the former leader was on his death bed.Castro - who led Communist Cuba for almost five decades before illness sidelined him - "is very well", Venezuela's former vice president Elias Jaua said on Sunday after meeting the bearded revolutionary icon.The 86 year-old Castro "is very well, very lucid", Jaua, a loyal supporter of leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, whose government keeps the cash-strapped Cuban regime afloat with cut-rate oil and aid - told reporters.After the five-hour meeting on Saturday, Castro accompanied Jaua back to the posh Hotel Nacional, where the visitor was staying, and then posed wearing a straw farmer's hat for pictures with hotel staff."We are going to have Fidel with us for a long time," said hotel manager Antonio Martinez, who posed with Castro for a picture, in which Jaua also flashes a broad smile.Martinez said the former Cuban president was accompanied by his wife Dalia Soto del Valle during the visit to the hotel.Jaua, who is currently a candidate for Miranda state governor for Venezuela's ruling party, said he spoke with Castro about agriculture, history and international politics.Castro, who rose to power after the 1959 revolution, ceded the presidency to his younger brother Raul, 81, in July 2006 for health reasons.Castro had not been seen in public since 28 March, when Pope Benedict XVI paid a landmark visit to Cuba, and again briefly the following week on 5 April with Chilean student leader Camila Vallejo. Serious intestinal surgeryThat fuelled rumours his health had worsened, that he was dead or on his death bed - particularly since Castro also had not published one of his usually frequent editorials in official state media since 19 June.In the past five years since falling ill after serious intestinal surgery, Castro has penned about 400 editorials as well as books about the revolution, and welcomed a few international leaders in private events.Last week, he sent a letter of congratulations to medical school graduates which was picked up in state media, but he did not appear in public at the time.With rumours about Castro's health rife abroad, one of his sons, photographer Alex Castro, said last week at an exhibit in Guantanamo of pictures he took of his father after 2010 that Castro "was in good shape, doing his daily activities, exercising, reading and taking care of himself".The re-election of Chavez, 58, in Venezuela this month likely brought huge sighs of relief in Havana. For now, it can continue to count on Caracas' critical economic support, as Cuba presses its quest for its own oil to fund the Americas' only Communist regime in the future.Meanwhile, President Raul Castro, sporting his general's uniform, was out early on Sunday at a polling station to cast his ballot in one-party municipal elections, state TV showed. Fidel Castro cast his vote by absentee ballot, as those with physical ailments are allowed to do.

NEWS,21.08.2012

Israel's Posturing: Behind Netanyahu and Barak's Threats to Attack Iran

Successive Israeli governments have consistently inhibited in the past any public discussion about Iran's nuclear program and what Israel might do to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In recent weeks however, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak have been openly discussing the issue while intimating their readiness to take whatever actions necessary to eliminate the Iranian threat. The question is why Netanyahu and Barak have chosen to "advertise" their deep concerns now and why they have such an urgency to act at this particular juncture, both of which have prompted newspaper reporters and bandits to speculate about what the real intentions are behind this public exposure and what is to be expected. Meanwhile, former and current officials, including President Peres, have expressed pointed objections to taking any unilateral military strikes against Iran, insisting that if such action became necessary, it must certainly be led by the U.S. to shield Israel from being singled out and blamed for the potentially disastrous regional consequences.Having concluded that sanctions and diplomacy have failed as Iran is either technologically nearing the point of no return or achieving a zone of immunity that will make their most advanced nuclear plants at Fordo (near Qom) impregnable to air attack, the Netanyahu government has decided on a new strategy designed to achieve multiple purposes. While Israel's determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons has not changed, the new strategy is meant to strongly convey that Israel is not bluffing. Israel's groundwork for the new strategy is as follows: Israel will alert its closest ally, the U.S., alarm its European friends, credibly threaten Iran and gather more information, warn other enemies such as Hezbollah and Hamas, test the private sentiments and public reactions of the Sunni Arab states, and will finally prepare the Israeli public while laying in wait for the right moment to strike, should everything else fail.The Netanyahu government has already expressed its displeasure with the strategy the Obama administration has adopted to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Whereas many Israelis believe that President Obama's credibility is on the line and he will act militarily should it become necessary, others, including Netanyahu and Barak, are not so sure. They are concerned that Obama may eventually have to choose between preventing or containing Iran and will settle on the latter by providing Israel and other Arab allies in the region with some kind of security umbrella.Netanyahu and Barak are troubled by the fact that Obama has relied excessively on a diplomatic solution knowing full well that the Iranians are masters of playing for time. Moreover, he chose to impose gradual sanctions to which the Iranian government was able to adjust instead of inflicting real, crippling sanctions, especially after the failure of the first few sets of negotiations, which could have forced Tehran to change course. This approach, from the Israeli perspective, played into Iran's hand while engaging the P5+1 (the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China plus Germany) in futile negotiations that have never stood a chance of success.By asking the P5+1 to declare that the talks with Iran have failed, Netanyahu is alerting the U.S. that time is of the essence and challenging Obama to take more decisive actions against Iran. Netanyahu's rationale is that since Obama seeks to prevent an Israeli attack in an election year, he will be under immense pressure from his presidential rival, Mitt Romney, not only to adopt a final set of truly crippling sanctions but tobe clear about his willingness to use force against Iran before it reaches the point of no return or enters the zone of immunity.Netanyahu's message of alarm is directed against the EU, Turkey and China, which will be the most affected by the potential disruption of oil supplies should the Strait of Hormuz become imperiled. Netanyahu and Barak are convinced that the EU in particular is engaged in wishful thinking, believing that continuing diplomatic efforts coupled with stiffer sanctions will force the Mullahs to come to their senses. The EU clearly view Netanyahu as overzealous about Israel's national security, are extremely worried about an Israeli attack and are convinced that the repercussions will be catastrophic. Thus, for them, no attack should be contemplated as long as Iran is willing to continue to talk.Using the repeated Iranian existential threat against Israel, and while observing the Western powers' ineptitude in the past in dealing with the genocide in Bosnia, Sudan and now the wholesale slaughter in Syria, Netanyahu has little faith in what the EU can, or will, do to bring Iran to a halt. The EU, from Netanyahu's perspective, could have done a great deal more to cripple Iran economically but it still has yet to do so. At the same time, the EU refuses to declare Hezbollah, Iran's prime surrogate but Israel's staunchest enemy, as a terrorist organization while it continues to allow Hezbollah to freely raise tens of millions of dollars in Europe, when much of it is used for buying armaments to target Israel.The direct threat against Iran is based on Netanyahu and Barak's calculation that although public discussion about the potential attack on Iran provides Tehran more time to prepare for the worst, it will provide Israel with certain advantages. Fear of an imminent Israeli attack will force the Iranian authorities to take additional security measures to protect their nuclear facilities, which will reveal Iran's preparedness and capabilities, and expose its weaknesses and how much of its boastings of a damaging counter-attack against Israel are in fact accurate. Importantly, Israel will also be in a position to better assess the Iranian public's reaction and whether the rumors of an imminent attack will precipitate panic, which may reveal how the Iranian authorities react and pacify the public. More than anything, Israel wants Iran to take its threats seriously, which explains why Netanyahu and Barak openly stated that when it comes to Israel's national security, Israel must, in the final analysis, rely only on itself. Netanyahu's and Barak's exposé is also intended to warn all those who might think of coming to Iran's aid by engaging Israel on another front (in particular with groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas) that they should think twice before they dare to provoke Israel. By openly discussing their intentions, Netanyahu and Barak want these groups or states to assume that Israel would not have discussed such a sensitive national security matter had it not taken into full consideration their potential involvements. The message to Hezbollah is clear: there will not be a repeat of the 2006 war, Israel will break its back and that this time around no one will come to its aid considering Syria is in shambles and Iran is under intense economic pressure and too busy to deal with the potentially catastrophic effects of an Israeli attack.The other target of Israel's open discourse on attacking Iran is to test the Sunni Arabs, especially the Gulf States led by Saudi Arabia. There have been ongoing tacit discussions between Israel and the Gulf States about the potential Israeli strike and how that might affect both their public reactions and their private interests and concerns. There is no doubt that all Sunni Arab states would prefer to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons peacefully. But after failing to do so by diplomatic means, they would support an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, whether the attack is carried out by Israel, the U.S. or through a joint effort. Saudi Arabia in particular sees the conflict between Shiites verses Sunnis in terms of regional domination with a focus on the Gulf, and views Iran with nuclear weapons as a nightmarish scenario that must be prevented at all costs. Finally, Netanyahu's and Barak's message was intended for the Israeli public not only to prepare them for a potential Iranian counter-attack but to begin psychological and logistical preparations ( including the distributions of gas masks, stocking underground shelters with food and water) to avoid public panic and rally the nation around the government's prospective actions. Although the Netanyahu government is not dismissive of the voices of the Israelis who consider a unilateral attack as ill-conceived and extremely risky, Netanyahu and Barak want to demonstrate unshakable resolve in the face of an existential threat and that the public can ultimately trust their judgment. Moreover, such an exercise, even if a strike is avoided either because of the United States or because of Netanyahu's/Barak's readiness to act, will be good for Israel and good for the entire region as long as Iran never acquires nuclear weapons.Israel has time and again stated in the past that it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons or the technology to quickly assemble such arsenals. The Israelis insist that whatever repercussions arise from attacking Iran's nuclear facilities will be far less ominous than allowing Iran to obtain nuclear capabilities, which will have far more reaching geopolitical and security implications that will adversely affect every state in the region.In the final analysis, an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities may not come as soon as many predict. The strike can and may well happen but it is very unlikely that such an incredibly ominous undertaking will occur without a minimum of U.S. acquiescence, if not outright support and direct involvement. Regardless of how much Netanyahu and Barak may be sure of themselves and Israel's military capabilities, they cannot afford to make any mistakes or miscalculations because Israel's future is on the line.Yet, exactly because of that, no one should think for a moment that Israel is bluffing. Netanyahu and Barak have concluded that diplomacy has run its course and only extraordinary, crippling and immediate sanctions may still have a slim chance of success. Once Israel determines that Iran has either achieved the point of no return or is about to reach the zone of immunity and the U.S. is not prepared to take military action, Israel will attack Iran singlehandedly and no consequences of such an attack, from the Israeli perspective, will fare against such an existential threat.

China's scramble for patents

China's ambitious drive to produce millions of new patents in the next few years as part of a switch from a "made in China" to "designed in China" economic model will curtail innovation standards, a European study warned today.China is seeking to transform itself from being the world's factory floor into a global pioneer by setting ambitious state-mandated patent targets -- a goal that has already resulted in it surpassing the United States last year in patent filings.The European Union Chamber of Commerce said in a report that China filed more than 1.6 million patent applications in 2011, but only 32% met the highest threshold for patent quality - new inventions.The study noted that while China's innovation potential is "impressive", its actual innovation is "overhyped"."This explosion (of patent applications) has come with a price in terms of the quality and mix of patents. This is not in the right direction," European Chamber Secretary General Dirk Moens said.In some cases, financial incentives and performance evaluations for state-owned firms, officials and academics drive the filing of low-quality patents as they seek to meet quotas - 2 million annually by 2015 under one national plan.In addition to inventions, China also gives patents for designs and "utility models", incremental developments that can advance an existing product but rarely result in technological breakthroughs.The United States does not use utility model patents, though some developed countries, such as Germany, do.Sixty-five percent of patent applications filed by medium and large-sized Chinese state-owned enterprises in recent years have been for the lower end design or utility model patents, making them among the country's least effective innovators, the study said."One cannot drive or 'force' creativity, but only nurture it, whereas creativity leading to breakthroughs of the type that typically produce the highest quality patents at best comes in spurts," it said, noting that at least 20 countries have greater innovation potential than the world's second largest economy.But Elliot Papageorgiou, an intellectual property expert at Rouse Legal in Shanghai, said utility model patents are good for China."In developing economies, you're not going to get a new wheel, you're going to get an improved or cheaper wheel," Papageorgiou.Indigenous rules rile foreigners Experts say weak intellectual property rights (IPR) have scared off some foreign firms from transferring technology or filing patents in China. Last year, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner lamented Beijing's lax controls that made possible the "systematic stealing" of American innovations.China has said it would drop some of its "indigenous innovation" rules that have riled foreign companies who say access to government equipment and technology orders hinge on their transferring patents and other intellectual property to Chinese firms or partners.But the EU Chamber study said indigenous intellectual property ownership was still a requirement for firms to access some Chinese government financing and subsidies, with the language writ large into many of the country's more than 10 national and 150 sub-national patents target plans."The essence of the IIP (indigenous innovation policy) system, in terms of setting forth controversial IPR requirements with financial incentives, appears very much still in force," the study said.

NEWS,10.08.2012

Alleged US 'mercenary' held in Venezuela

President Hugo Chavez said Venezuelan authorities have detained a US citizen and are interrogating him, suspecting he could be a "mercenary" plotting to destabilise the country if the opposition loses the upcoming presidential election. Chavez did not identify the man on Thursday night nor detail the accusations against him. But the case has the potential to ratchet up longstanding tensions between Venezuela and the US less than two months ahead of Venezuela's presidential election.Chavez said the Hispanic man was detained on 4 August while crossing into Venezuela from Colombia. He said the man was carrying a US passport with entrance and exit stamps from countries including Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.A US state department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorised to speak publicly, said the US government as of Friday morning had not been notified of the arrest by the Venezuelan government.He said that if the detained man is in fact a US citizen, American officials expect "Venezuela will uphold its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and grant US consular officials access to any detained US citizen without delay".Opposition lawmaker Pedro Pablo Alcantara scoffed at the president's allegations that government foes would attempt to stir up trouble if Chavez is re-elected to a new six-year term.Alcantara accused the government of encouraging violence against its adversaries in the past while backing groups that have attacked opposition marches."It's the president who has promoted violence," he said.Chavez has repeatedly accused the US government of plotting against him during the past decade, though he usually has provided few specifics of such claims."He has all the appearance of a mercenary," Chavez said of the detained man, speaking during a campaign rally in the coastal state of Vargas on Thursday. "We are interrogating him."The man tore up part of a notebook in his possession when he was detained, Chavez said.Chavez suggested, without offering evidence, the American might have been recruited by government opponents to instigate violent protests if opposition presidential candidate Henrique Capriles loses the 7 October election.

From Global Pariah to Green Giant: Does Germany Hold a Key to Our Sustainable Future?

 

If you aren't scared by climate chaos predictions, you aren't paying attention. Last month Bill McKibben told us that if we use up fossil fuel reserves we'll overshoot five times over what a livable Earth can withstand. This month climate scientist James Hansen tells us the "grim picture" he painted 25 years ago "was too optimistic."So, the task of multiplying what is working to keep fossil energy in the ground seems more urgent than ever. And what is working? Within my lifetime  i.e. since the 1940se the German state, an international pariah silencing citizens and perpetrating mass murder, has become an international hero, showing a path to freedom from fossil fuels that relies on widespread citizen participation.In the early 1990s, Germany had virtually no renewable energy, so I was astonished to learn that in 2010 Germany  slightly smaller in area than Montana and hardly a Sunbelt  generated almost half the world's solar energy. How could this happen? In part the answer is Germany's innovative public policy called the Feed-in Tariff. It rewards households for becoming renewable energy producers by obligating utilities to buy electricity from installations like a solar panel or small windmill at a price guaranteeing a good return. And the approach is going global. Germany's rapid expansion of renewable energy reflects not only its state policy but also citizens mobilizing on a large scale. Consider the vision and courage of one Ursula Sladek.In the Black Forest community of Schönau, Ursula, mother of five, was deeply shaken by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident. But instead of just fighting nuclear power, she chose to create an alternative. By 1997, she and neighbors had raised the millions of euros needed to buy out the area's private power grid and turn it into a clean-energy co-op. Now with over 1,000 owners, the co-op uses and supports decentralized renewable power like solar and wind for 120,000 customers, including households and factories. It's shooting for a million customers in three years. And as of 2011, all of Germany got on board with Ursula, as it joined about a dozen countries that oppose nuclear power. Something is working in Germany. But why is it working? For me, Germany demonstrates that sane steps to carbon freedom are possible where democracy functions -- where private industry is not in control of public policy.Consider this: In a recent global study of the effectiveness of laws governing money's role in politics, on a scale of 100 Germany scored highest at 83. And the U.S.? We tied Tajikistan for the sad score of 29. Several key elements of the German system reduce the power of concentrated wealth:Since 1958, political parties have received government funding. Private donations are encouraged as well, in part by tax breaks: Individuals may deduct from taxable income half their donations below €3,000 (twice that for joint returns). Or they may claim a tax credit of €825 (€1,650 for joint returns). Private and corporate contributions are not limited but transparency laws are strict: Contributions of more than 10,000 euro per year must be disclosed. Moreover, in Germany, corporations and large private donors (who, if like the U.S., would typically represent corporate interests), don't wield the power over media messages they do here. As in most of Western Europe, Germany prohibits paid political advertising. Citizens learn about issues mainly from media interviews and discussions with politicians because "broadcasters have the mandate to inform the public on political matters...," notes a Library of Congress, Law Library summary. Over six decades, Germany's political rules have evolved to reduce three conditions -- concentrated power, secrecy, scapegoating -- proven to bring out our species' worst, whether throughout our long history or in lab experiments where we've been the guinea pigs. Rules like those above help to enhance their opposites: dispersion of power, transparency and mutual accountability. Of course, no system is perfect, and democracy has no endpoint anyway. But in this example, and so many others, we have glimpses of what works to create democracy that includes citizen voices.Bringing the lesson home, we realize that we can and we must place every urgent call to block fossil fuel exploitation and to reward renewable development within the frame of democracy itself.We can rally each other to credible steps to create real, accountable democracy now -- steps that can succeed in the foreseeable future. Since we can't wait for a Supreme Court majority that grasps that democracy depends on politics freed from corporate dominance, we must move now for legislation enabling public and/or citizen-financed campaigns so that candidates don't have to use any corporate money. The approach has worked for three state legislatures. At the same time, we can vote for those supporting measures that mandate disclosure of the sources of money in political contests: DISCLOSE Act and the Shareholder Protection Act. Among proposals to enable candidates to run for office un-beholden to corporate funders, I am working to figure out where to put my energies. If you want to know where I land, please e-mail us at infoATsmallplanetDOTorg with "money in politics" as the subject line.For me, Germany is a powerful reminder of how rapidly positive change can happen. Its dramatic transformation during my lifetime tells me that that solutions, whether to genocide or ecocide, require democracy.