Recent Posts

Search This Blog

Loading...

Search through my blogroll



Labels

Monday, October 24, 2005

The EU, France, and Globalization: Questions and lessons for a new world

News Analysis: Globalization drives a wedge into EU By Graham Bowley International Herald Tribune SUNDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2005

LONDON When European leaders gather in Britain on Thursday for an informal summit meeting to confront major economic challenges, they will confront a worsening relationship between France and the rest of the European Union that last week appeared in danger of spiraling out of control. The latest flash point came when France broke with the rest of the Union to demand continued protection for Europe's farmers from cheaper producers elsewhere. It was one of several clashes between Paris and Brussels this year as France resisted efforts to liberalize Europe's services sector, sought to weaken rules on national finances, tried to protect major companies from foreign takeovers and pushed for new quotas on Chinese textiles. The growing friction is explained by French attempts to hold back the pace of economic liberalization on the Continent in the face of intensifying global competition. This comes as the French economy is weak and the government is playing to the public's protectionist mood with presidential elections coming in less than two years. Amid a resurgence of national self-interest, the French government has come to view the European Union, and the projects that the European Commission is trying to pursue, as a threat to its old ways of life and to its standing in the world, which are coming under intense pressure from globalization. "France has not internalized a very important transition that is happening in Europe right now, which is the shift from the industrial economy to the knowledge and services economy," said Ann Mettler of the Lisbon Council, a market-oriented research group based in Brussels. "Its interest groups, which are very strong, are still trying to preserve the industrial age." French fears about the threat posed by the growth of economies beyond Europe's borders were encapsulated in the debate about the beginning of EU membership talks with Turkey, which France resisted before giving its approval. But the full picture of France's resistance to its unprotected integration in the global economy became much sharper this month when it held up trade talks at the World Trade Organization, whose goal was significantly lower farm subsidies and tariffs, mainly because of fears it would severely damage French farming. "The liberal regime within Europe, combined with the protectionist regime toward the rest of the world, worked pretty well when we could dictate the terms of trade," said Stephen Wall, a former adviser to Blair. "One of the things that we have had to realize in the age of globalization is that that is no longer the case."

Seems like there is a lot of upheaval in Europe these days and its mostly France's fault. Remember when they talked down to us about our out of control unilateralism and how we needed to pursue multilateral agreement to take down Hussein and the like? Well, it looks as if that was a case of do as I say not as I do. Turns out France is going it alone within the EU, going against the entire community to protect, well, its national interest. Don't you just love picking on the French, honestly!

In all fairness to France, the transition from an industrial economy to a service economy is a pretty difficult thing to achieve. We've been going through the same transition for the past decade or so, and even now we continue to give in here and there to the protectionist impulse.

The story does give us some great insights into Barnett's maxims that (1) "to accept globalization is to accept change" and that (2) globalization will change us more than we could ever hope to change it." If we look at the European continent as a world unto itself, and the EU as akin to the globalization that we are currently experiencing in the world at large, you can see echoes of the many issues we are facing now.

France, at first embraced the EU, and used it as a tool of its own power. As it has expanded however, France's influence has diluted as more players have a say in the system. Now, it is a pariah among the nations of Europe, rejecting the EU constitution and opposing many of the programs the EU as a whole would like to implement to move away from an industrial based economy to a services economy.

France so far has been unwilling, or unable to accept change and now it is in danger of having it forced upon it by the very system it helped to create. It is now learning, in the case of the EU, that "the system comes with rules but nor a ruler, and that while it may propose it can never impose, because the difference between the leader and the led is not merely their competing visions of power but the power of their competing visions." Clearly, in the miniverse that is the EU, France's vision is losing.

As with any analogy, the above isn't perfect and has its problems and I am not suggesting it is all encompassing or reflective of the current state of the world system as a whole. Rather, I am merely suggesting that it touches upon many issues in PNM and the ideas derived therefrom.

Moving away from that analogy the story also brings to light other issues with respect to the effect of globalization on regional trading bloc's. As the EU expands and has to confront a globalizing world it, like the states it is made up of has had to adapt to ensure it can prosper in a world of new rising powers such as India, China and Russia.

As the Core grows, the old Core members are realizing that they can no longer dictate the terms of trade to the new core or the Gap (as new core members search for resources and compete with old core members, gap countries can balance them against one another to get a better deal, this is particularly true of extractive economies; Venezuela, Iran, and even first world Canada)and hence the old policies used to sustain that system are no longer relevant in this new globalizing world order. As we have learned in the case of Iran, we can no longer isolate it as much as before (and even before it was almost impossible). Now, new Core members who depend on Iranian energy resources cannot but oppose us in any attempt to resolve the Iranian issue militarily.

That is one of the main dangers of the rising global order, how to navigate through the myriad problems left to resolve without destroying or retarding the connectivity we have worked so hard to build.

Read More...

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

More reasons to rethink our Iran strategy, Barnett revisited

Russia tells Rice it opposes sending Iran nuclear issue to U.N. By Warren P. Strobel Knight Ridder Newspapers MOSCOW - (KRT) - Russia reiterated Saturday that it opposes referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear activities, dealing a setback to the Bush administration's hopes for putting a tighter diplomatic squeeze on Tehran.

The administration's strategic ineptitude continues with regard to Iran. As this latest failed attempt to get Russia to back us in referring Iran to the Security Council demostrates, our current policy is failing miserably. Russia, China, India and even Japan are not likely to back our approach to Iran even if they back our ultimate goal of denying Iran nuclear weapons. Why? Because China, Japan and India are too dependent on Iranian oil, and Russia is trying to rebuild its influence in the region, particularly with what it sees as the strongest player in the Persian Gulf, Iran. In fact, we could learn something from Russia here. Iran is the key to the rest of the Middle East. They are the only ones with enough power to influence the region for our good or ill. It is one of the main reasons Iraq's Saddam Hussein fought a war (supported by most of the Sunni Arab world and the United States) with them after the 1979 revolution. Hussein, like the other autocracrats in the region were worried about the spread of fundamentalist from Iran to their territories. Iran still holds the key to the balance of power in the Middle East, and we must recognize that if we are going to succeed in Iraq and elsewhere. For all the bad things about Iran, it has one thing going for it. Apart from Israel, Iraq and Lebanon, it is by far one of the freest societies in the region. Sure the Mullahs control all political power, but the society itself is far more capable of criticizing them than say anyone in Saudi Arabia, or Syria (though this too is changing in Syria even if just a bit). One of the best things we can do to kill the theocratic regime, which its own people no longer feel represents them, is to engage it and get it to open to the rest of the world. To do so we need to make some hard choices and come to a modus vivendi with them.

Thomas Barnett has argued as much in various venues ranging from his blog, to his articles for Esquire Magazine. He is right. "Iran is the one regional power that can still menace the Gulf militarily. Everyone else there operates in Tehran's shadow." (Esquire, 2005) The article on Russia above, and various others like it regarding both India's and China's reluctance to back us on the Iran issue should tell us as much. The reason, well Barnett can argue it better than I can and does so in the form of an open article to the President in Esquire:

Both countries [India and China] have recently cut huge oil and gas deals with Tehran. You know you want India and China to feel secure about their energy flow, and you know Iran's simply too big a player on both counts for either country to pass up. Plus, India considers itself both a major Gulf security player and Iran's natural mentor, while China's emerging alliance with Tehran (not to mention its ties with Pakistan) should be exploited for all it's worth. New Dehli and Beijing want to stabilize the Islamic arc of crisis as much as you do.

We've already moved in that direction with Syria. Forbes reports that the

US had offered President Bashar al-Assad a deal to end his regime's isolation if it agreed to a list of concessions.... Under the deal, The Times said Washington wanted Damascus to cease alleged recruiting, funding and training of volunteers to take part in the insurgency in Iraq.... The US also asked for Syria to stop interfering in neighbouring Lebanon, cooperate fully with a UN probe into the Feb 14 killing of ex-premier Rafiq Hariri, and guarantee that any members of the regime named as suspects would stand trial. In return, the United States would establish full and friendly relations with the country."

Sure, Syria has reportedly refused the offer, dubbed the Libya deal because it is similar to the deal accepted by Libya to end its international isolation. As pressure mounts on Syria in coming days, with the two reports on the Hariri murder probe expected to point the finger at Syria and high officials in the country, they are bound to change their tune. In fact, they've left open the possibility of further negotiations with the US to achieve a better deal.

We have to pursue a similar deal with Iran. We can offer them and end to international isolation, and full diplomatic relations, possible accession to the WTO, and go as far as offering to recognize them as a nuclear power. In return, we can ask them to recognize Israel, get Hizbollah to dismantle and cease its support of that and other terrorist organizations throughout the Muslim world. We share mutual interests with Iran, as Zarqawi's incessant calls for the murder of Shiites continues to remind us on a daily basis, we both want to halt the spread of Sunni fundamentalism, because we are both its targets. In fact, Shiite Iran is far more of a target than even we are.

I'm throwing this idea out there, it is not my idea but rather Tom Barnett's as can be seen from the article and blog postings I've linked above. At a time when we need to rethink our strategy in the Muslim world, we would do well to listen to all the ideas that are out there. As President Bush likes to say, all options are on the table. I just happen to think that Barnett's so far is the better of all other alternatives.

Read More...

Sunday, October 16, 2005

A defeat for the Iraqi Constitution is a victory for Iraq

Sunni Turnout Is High In Vote on Iraqi Charter Attacks by Insurgents Largely Halt During Referendum By Ellen Knickmeyer and Omar Fekeiki Washington Post Foreign Service Sunday, October 16, 2005; Page A01

BAGHDAD, Oct. 15 -- Sunni Arab voters turned out in force for Iraq's constitutional referendum Saturday as insurgents largely suspended attacks, granting Sunnis a chance to try to defeat the U.S.-backed charter and giving much of the country a rare day of peace that belied the deep fractures exposed by the vote. Voting en masse for the first time since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Sunni Arabs cast ballots in large numbers, according to electoral officials and witnesses. Turnout in areas populated by the country's Shiite majority and ethnic Kurds, whose political leaders drafted the proposed constitution, was described by officials as low.

For U.S., a Hard Road Is Still Ahead in Iraq

By Glenn Kessler Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, October 17, 2005; Page A10

For the Bush administration, the apparent approval of Iraq's constitution is less of a victory than yet another chance to possibly fashion a political solution that does not result in the bloody division of Iraq.

It may seem counterintuitive, but today I am hoping that Iraqi Sunnis will defeat the constitution. Okay, before everyone panics, or thinks that I have been taken in by the propaganda on occupation, or that I have jumped off the deep end, let me state my reasons for wanting the Sunnis to defeat the new constitution which Kurds and Shiites have worked so hard to craft. Actually, that is part of the reason why I want the Sunnis to defeat the constitution, it was crafted mostly by Shiites and Kurds, with little, if any, Sunni input. Something as important as a constitution has to be crafted by all the parties who are going to be affected by it. Yes, I know, the Sunnis chose not to participate in the last election and that is why they had no true representation in the consitutional committee. However, if we want to stabilize Iraq and be able to begin withdrawing our troops then we have to bring the Sunnis into the political fold. Yesterday's referendum on the constitution is but the first step in that process. If Sunnis are able to defeat the constitution through the ballot box, they will have achieved something that the Sunni insurgents have been unable to do through their violent campaign. A defeat of the new constitution would give Sunnis a sense that there are alternatives to the violence they have employed or been supportive of.

The defeat of the constitution by the Sunnis will signal to them and the rest of Iraqis that minorities have rights, and that any government that wants to get anything done in the country, has to take them into account. If Sunnis realize the power that the ballot box gives them, they are more likely to support the political process and to begin drawing down their forces. While not all will put down their weapons, many might and that will help us in defeating the current Sunni insurgency in Iraq. The defeat of the constitution will also give moderates within the Sunni camp more power to move the community away from insurgency and toward support of the political process. We cannot defeat the insurgency on our own, as long as Sunnis support it. To do so, we need Sunnis to work with us as informants, translators, soldiers, government employees, etc. As Tom Friedman likes to say, "it takes a village." As is plainly seen from how peaceful Iraq was during the election with very few, random attacks, the Sunnis are signalling that if they can have some power in the new government, they will stop their rebellion. It is telling, that of the two suicide bombing thwarted, these were going to be committed by two women, a Saudi and a Jordanian. That tells us, that without Iraqi support, the foreigners who are coming into Iraq to fight against American forces, do not have the networks, or means to carry out many operations. We need to change the dynamic and get Iraqi Sunnis on board, this is just the beginning.

If the constitution is defeated, then a new election will be held to elect a new interim government, and a new drafting committee. The Sunnis now realize how big a mistake they made in refusing to participate in the last election. This time, you can bet that they will participate en masse to ensure their representation. At the end of the process, we will finally have a parliament, and a drafting committee representative of Iraq. This also means that the Iran backed Dawa and SCIRI will have less power and that can only be a good thing. The problem that remains is figuring out how much patience Kurds and Shiites will have to stay the course. As long as Sistani tells Shiites to continue with the political process, the Shiites will do so, except maybe for Sadr. The Kurds have everything to gain, so they will likely remain engaged in the process, as long as progress is being made.

A defeat for the constitution will likely be a defeat for the administration, which wants it to pass so that it can claim victory in Iraq and begin drawing down our forces there. However, this is no time for the administration to let its own personal politics dictate the agenda. The best way to show Iraqis, Sunni, Shia, Kurd, Turkmen and others that the US is committed to ending the occupation once they can achieve a modus vivendi among themselves and establish a constitution that will enshrine it in law, is to allow Iraq's political process to run its course. Drafting a constitution is not an easy thing, we must remember that it took us two constitutions to get it right, and even then it took us over 200 years to fully implement and recognize the rights and responsibilities enshrined in it. Even now, it is still a work in progress. We can't expect faster results from anyone else, particularly an Iraq which had been held together by an Iron fist, and Iraq with a myriad of identities and ethnic rivalries. The process will be long and ardous, but it will be worth it in the end.

UPDATE: Does the approval of the Iraqi constitution mean that we have failed? No. It just means the road to a new Iraq is likely to be harder in the long run, than if the constitution had been rejected. That said, however, the referendum did give Sunnis a taste of the power they can have at the ballot box. Hopefully this will empower enough of the moderates within the Sunni camp so that they can move enough Sunnis to ward a political solution and away from the violent insurgency currently underway in Iraq.

All is not yet lost. The elections for a new parliament are coming this December. Judging by the high turnout in Sunni areas, they will again venture forth to ensure that they are represented in the new government. Thanks to all the backstage deals that went on into the last days before the constitutional referendum Sunnis know that their next chance to impact the new constitution is in December. They will not make the same mistake of boycotting the elections again.

A positive development for Iraq, yes, but the road is still long and the challenges that remain, arduous.

Read More...