Aiming at Global Disarmament by 2030

February 17, 2013 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IDN

By Ramesh Jaura | IDN-InDepth NewsAnalysis

2013-peace-proposal_small

[SGI President drafting 2013 Peace Proposal | Credit: SGI]

BERLIN (IDN) – An eminent Buddhist leader Daisaku Ikeda is calling for an “expanded nuclear summit” in 2015 to solidify momentum toward a world free from nuclear weapons and become the launching point for a larger effort for global disarmament aiming toward the year 2030.

With this in view, he hopes that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and forward-looking governments will establish an action group to initiate before year’s end the process of drafting a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC) outlawing nuclear weapons, which are not only inhumane but also swallow some $105 billion year after year.

“A key factor . . . will be the stance taken by those countries which have relied on the extended deterrence of nuclear-weapon states, the so-called nuclear umbrella,” writes Ikeda, who heads Soka Gakkai International (SGI), a Tokyo-based lay Buddhist organization spanning the globe.

SGI President Ikeda notes with great satisfaction that signatories to the statements so far, urging putting a halt to proliferation and calling for abolition of atomic weapons of mass destruction, “include not only countries belonging to Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZs) and neutral countries, but also Norway and Denmark, which are members of NATO and thus come under that organization’s nuclear umbrella. And yet these two countries have not only signed these statements but have played a key role in their drafting.”

On the other hand, Japan, which also relies on the U.S. nuclear umbrella, has refrained from signing some of the important statements, he adds and implores Tokyo to “join with other countries seeking the prohibition of nuclear weapons as inhumane and work for the earliest realization of a world free from the threat of these weapons”.

In his 2013 Peace Proposal ‘Compassion, Wisdom and Courage: Building a Global Society of Peace and Creative,’ Ikeda explores “the prospects for constructing a global society of peace and creative coexistence looking toward the year 2030″.

Originally inspired by second Soka Gakkai President Josei Toda’s 1957 anti-nuclear weapons declaration, Ikeda publishes a peace proposal every year which casts a close look at the interrelation between core Buddhist concepts and the diverse challenges global society faces in the effort to realize peace and human security. He has also made proposals touching on issues such as education reform, the environment, the United Nations and nuclear abolition.

The 2013 Peace Proposal comes in run-up to two significant events this year: The Conference on the Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons organized by the Norwegian Foreign Ministry on March4-5 in Oslo – to be preceded by a civil society forum for a global ban on nukes, and a high level meeting in September of the UN General Assembly on nuclear disarmament.

Ikeda’s 2013 Peace Proposal states that the huge annual aggregate expenditure on nuclear weapons globally underlines “the enormity of the burden placed on societies simply by the continued possession of these weapons”. It adds: “If these financial resources were redirected domestically to health, social welfare and education programs or to development aid for other countries, the positive impact on people’s lives and dignity would be incalculable.”

Backdrop

The backdrop to the latest peace proposal is that since the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), there has been a growing, if still nascent, movement to outlaw nuclear weapons based on the premise that they are inhumane.

The Final Document of the Review Conference notes a “deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons” and reaffirms “the need for all States at all times to comply with applicable international law, including international humanitarian law.”

This ground breaking statement was followed by a resolution by the Council of Delegates of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in November 2011, strongly appealing to all states “to pursue in good faith and conclude with urgency and determination negotiations to prohibit the use of and completely eliminate nuclear weapons through a legally binding international agreement.”

Subsequently, at the first session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2015 NPT Review Conference held in May 2012, sixteen countries led by Norway and Switzerland issued a joint statement on the humanitarian dimension of nuclear disarmament, stating that “it is of great concern that, even after the end of the Cold War, the threat of nuclear annihilation remains part of the 21st century international security environment.”

They stressed: “it is of utmost importance that these weapons never be used again, under any circumstances. . . . All States must intensify their efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons and achieve a world free of nuclear weapons.” In October 2012, this statement, with minor revisions, was presented to the First Committee of the UN General Assembly by thirty-five member and observer states.

Ikeda refers to important new research on the effects of nuclear war on the environment announced in April2012 in the report ‘Nuclear Famine’. Issued by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), the study predicts that even a relatively small-scale nuclear exchange could cause major climate change and that the impact on countries far-distant from the combatant nations would result in famine affecting more than a billion people.

According to Ikeda, the SGI’s efforts to grapple with the nuclear weapons issue are based on the recognition that the very existence of these weapons represents the ultimate negation of the dignity of life.

“It is necessary to challenge the underlying inhumanity of the idea that the needs of states can justify the sacrifice of untold numbers of human lives and disruption of the global ecology. At the same time, we feel that nuclear weapons serve as a prism through which to bring into sharper focus ecological integrity, economic development and human rights – issues that our contemporary world cannot afford to ignore. This in turn helps us identify the elements that will shape the contours of a new, sustainable society, one in which all people can live in dignity.”

Three proposals

With this in view, the SGI President has tabled three concrete proposals:

First, to make disarmament a key theme of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Specifically, he proposes that halving world military expenditures relative to 2010 levels and abolishing nuclear weapons and all other weapons judged inhumane under international law be included as targets for achievement by the year 2030. In the proposal I issued on the occasion of the Rio+20 Conference in June 2012, Ikeda urged that targets related to the green economy, renewable energy and disaster prevention and mitigation be included in the SDGs, and I believe that disarmament targets should also be taken into consideration.

The International Peace Bureau (IPB), the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and other civil society organizations are currently advocating the global reduction of military spending, and the SGI supports this out of the awareness that disarmament is humanitarian action.

Second, to initiate the negotiation process for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, with the goal of agreement on an initial draft by 2015: “To this end, we must engage in active and multifaceted debate – cantered on the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons – to broadly shape international public opinion,” says Ikeda.

Third, to hold an expanded summit for a nuclear-weapon-free world: The G8 Summit in 2015, the seventieth anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would be an appropriate opportunity for such a summit, which should include the additional participation of representatives of the United Nations and non-G8 states in possession of nuclear weapons, as well as members of the five existing NWFZs – Antarctic Treaty, Latin American NWFZ (Tlatelolco Treaty), South Pacific NWFZ (Rarotonga Treaty), Southeast Asia NWFZ (Bangkok treaty), and African NWFZ (Pelindaba Treaty) – and those states which have taken a lead in calling for nuclear abolition, explains the SGI President.

“If possible, Germany and Japan, which are the scheduled G8 host countries for 2015 and 2016 respectively, should agree to reverse that order, enabling the convening of this meeting in Hiroshima or Nagasaki,” adds Ikeda.

In past peace proposals, he urged that the 2015 NPT Review Conference be held in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a vehicle for realizing a nuclear abolition summit. He still hopes that such a meeting can be held.

“Nevertheless, the logistical issues involved in bringing together the representatives of almost 190 countries may dictate that the meeting be held at the UN Headquarters in New York as is customary. In that event, the G8 Summit scheduled to be held several months after the NPT Review Conference would provide an excellent opportunity for an expanded group of world leaders to grapple with this critical issue.” argues Ikeda.

In this regard, he feels encouraged by President Barack Obama’s speech at Hankuk University in Seoul on March 26, 2012: “My administration’s nuclear posture recognizes that the massive nuclear arsenal we inherited from the Cold War is poorly suited to today’s threats, including nuclear terrorism. . . .But I believe the United States has a unique responsibility to act– indeed, we have a moral obligation. I say this as President of the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons.”

This, of course, restates the conviction he first expressed in his April 2009 Prague speech. President Obama then went on to say: “Most of all, I say it as a father, who wants my two young daughters to grow up in a world where everything they know and love can’t be instantly wiped out.”

Ikeda says: “These words express a yearning for the world as it should be, a yearning that cannot be subsumed even after all political elements and security requirements have been taken fully into consideration. It is the statement of a single human being rising above the differences of national interest or ideological stance. Such a way of thinking can help us ‘untie’ the Gordian Knot that has too long bound together the ideas of national security and nuclear weapons possession.”

He adds: “There is no place more conducive to considering the full significance of life in the nuclear age than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This was seen when the G8 Summit of Lower House Speakers was convened in Hiroshima in 2008. The kind of expanded summit I am calling for would inherit that spirit and solidify momentum toward a world free from nuclear weapons. It would become the launching point for a larger effort for global disarmament aiming toward the year 2030.” [IDN-InDepthNews – February 12, 2013]

2013 IDN-InDepthNews | Analysis That Matters

This article should not be republished or redistributed without the permission of the original author or copyright holder.


Filed Under: Analysis, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons Tagged With:

Is Uzbekistan’s Economy Going into a Tailspin?

February 11, 2013 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IPS

Kitty Stapp

TASHKENT, Feb 11 (EurasiaNet) – Uzbekistan has introduced sweeping new banking and import regulations that appear designed to keep hard currency from leaving the country.Observers say residents and entrepreneurs should expect a bumpy ride in the coming months, as the cumbersome new measures are expected to drive up prices for basic goods and encourage an expansion of the shadow economy.

At the beginning of February, new rules regulating foreign currency exchange basically made it impossible for Uzbeks to get their hands, legally, on hard currency. Under the new rules, residents can only trade Uzbek sums for virtual hard currency loaded onto plastic banking cards for use abroad or online, not cash.

At the same time, authorities began arresting the currency traders who operate in a thriving black market, where the U.S. dollar fetches approximately 40 percent more than banks offer in exchange for sums.

While the exchange regulations received widespread attention, on Jan. 30 customs authorities also quietly introduced new import rules requiring mountains of paperwork. According to the State Customs Committee, importers must now submit "preliminary" customs declarations for all imported goods 30 days in advance.

Along with the preliminary declaration, importers are also required to procure certificates showing goods’ compliance with Uzbekistan’s strict and oft-changing hygienic, conformity and veterinary standards. The new steps add more paperwork to an already burdensome process.

And in Uzbekistan – routinely classified as one of the most corrupt countries on the planet; Transparency International ranks it tied for 170th out of 174 countries surveyed in its most recent Corruption Perceptions Index – paperwork often gives authorities a chance to find errors, perceived or real, and solicit bribes.

Officially, the new customs regulations stated aim is to "further fundamentally improve the business environment and provide greater freedom to entrepreneurship" and to "liberalize" foreign trade. But with the regulations announced so suddenly, after no public discussion, few are taking authorities at their word.

Instead, some regional media outlets have suggested authorities are trying to keep hard currency from leaving the country; others speculate that authorities are protecting the business interests of a well-connected individual or family (not unheard of in Uzbekistan).

Either way, analysts say it is difficult to imagine Uzbekistan’s limited domestic manufacturing base offering substitutes of sufficient quantity and quality to offset the expected price fluctuations as goods disappear from store shelves.

Import restrictions in Uzbekistan are hardly news: In 2000, Tashkent banned individuals from importing goods for resale. In 2009, the maximum value of goods that could be imported duty-free for personal consumption was reduced to 10 dollars per person.

These rules turned travel abroad for the average Uzbek into a troublesome experience. Long lines are now routine at border crossings, as customs officers sift through bags to identify items subject to customs duties or seizure (or another chance to solicit a bribe).

Because high import tariffs already make consumer goods in Uzbekistan expensive, many Uzbeks have long preferred to shop in neighbouring countries such as Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. This practice is growing increasingly difficult under the existing regulations.

Unsurprisingly, when it comes to facilitating cross-border trading, the World Bank recently ranked Uzbekistan as the worst performer out of 185 countries surveyed in its Doing Business report for 2013.

Coupled with the latest foreign currency restrictions, analysts believe the new import regulations aim to prevent Uzbekistan’s foreign exchange and gold reserves from dwindling. (By limiting imports, the idea is the authorities are limiting the outflow of precious foreign cash and gold. Most analysts consider current account statistics unreliable).

Tashkent does not publish data on its reserves, or what share of its export earnings are channeled into replenishing reserves. But given the government’s reluctance to borrow, the restrictions on the circulation of hard cash suggest Tashkent is having trouble balancing the books.

"Coming on the back of the recent changes to currency regulations, one reason for the import restrictions is likely to be that the government is seeking to protect the country’s foreign-exchange reserves," Anna Walker, a Central Asia analyst at the London-based Control Risks consultancy, told EurasiaNet.org.

"It also probably reflects a long-standing policy of encouraging import-substituting industrialization, though this policy has failed to foster a dynamic, domestic industrial sector that produces goods capable of competing with imports."

Walker doubts the Uzbek government can achieve its economic goals by administrative fiat alone.

"Given the prevalence of imported goods in most sectors, it is highly unlikely that domestically produced goods will be able to substitute for imports. The government’s attempts to attract foreign investment in sectors other than natural resources have been largely unsuccessful, and the domestic manufacturing sector does not have the capacity to fill the gap left by the new import restrictions," Walker added.

The stifling import and currency regulations often force Uzbek entrepreneurs to operate in the shadows. Privately, many confess they can only survive by bribing tax and customs officials.

One entrepreneur, a jeweler, who agreed to talk to EurasiaNet.org on condition of anonymity, said he thought any new import restrictions were done for one reason only: “To prevent the outflow of foreign currency from the country."

The new restrictions are likely to backfire, driving up prices and pushing more entrepreneurs into the shadow economy, Walker said: "The immediate result is likely to be an increase in prices, as the availability of goods diminishes, as well as growth in the shadow economy as consumers and retailers attempt to get round the restrictions.”

While there has not yet been a visible impact on the prices for essentials in the capital, Tashkent, the restrictions have started hurting supplies. One shopkeeper told EurasiaNet.org that he was having trouble sourcing chocolate and candy. While other items were still in stock, he explained, his local suppliers have stopped accepting and delivering orders.

Editor’s note: Murat Sadykov is the pseudonym for a journalist specialising in Central Asian affairs.

This story was originally published by EurasiaNet.org.

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2013.

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the written permission of IPS – Inter Press Service. Republication of this material without permission from IPS, the copyright holder, constitutes a violation of United States and international copyright laws and may result in legal action.


Filed Under: Analysis, Economic Policy, Economy, Finance, Transparency Tagged With: , , ,

Arms Aid to Fragile States Can Backfire

February 6, 2013 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IDN

By Eva Weiler | IDN-InDepth NewsReport

STOCKHOLM (IDN) – The need for security forces in a fragile state to be adequately trained and equipped is recognized as a precondition for stability and development. However, supplying arms to security forces in fragile states can contribute to armed conflict and instability, warns a new report by the eminent Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)

"The risks associated with supplying arms and ammunition to fragile states include the risk that the arms will be diverted to actors seeking to undermine stabilization efforts; the risk that the arms will contribute to the renewal or intensification of armed conflict; and the risk of corruption in the transaction," argues the study Transfers Of Small Arms and Light Weapons to Fragile States: Strengthening Oversight And Control.

The report notes that a number of European Union, NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) states have undertaken risk mitigation measures, sometimes in cooperation with recipients as part of security sector reform (SSR) programmes.

These measures include supporting multilateral notification systems for arms transfers; increasing control and oversight of the delivery of arms and ammunition; ensuring good standards for stockpile management, marking on import and surplus destruction; and improving the recipient states’ standards in arms procurement.

But the challenge for the international community is to ensure that fragile states receive the arms that they require, while limiting the negative impacts on conflict dynamics, stabilization efforts and governance, cautions the report co-authored by Mark Bromley, Lawrence Dermody, Hugh Griffiths, Paul Holtom and Michael Jenks.

The paper focuses on international transfers of conventional arms supplied to the national security forces of eight fragile states in the period 2002-12: Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Iraq, Liberia, Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone, Somalia and South Sudan. While many of these states were affected by armed conflict during this period, this factor did not determine their inclusion in this study, authors of the report say.

Although Afghanistan and Iraq are the most notable examples of the risks associated with the supply of arms and ammunition to nascent security forces in fragile states, similar issues have been highlighted in the six other states. The paper identifies lessons learned from these cases for application in ongoing and future efforts to support security forces in fragile states such as Libya and Mali.

The study further outlines the risks entailed in supplying arms and ammunition to fragile states, using examples from the eight case study countries. In many of the examples, member states of the European Union (EU), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or the Organisation for Economic Co operation and Development were providing financial and technical support for SSR programmes at the time the arms transfers took place, finds the report.

"However, EU, NATO and OECD states are often unable to directly supply equipment due to constraints imposed by their national laws and regulations or their lack of appropriate materiel. As a result, the supply of arms, ammunition and military equipment is often carried out by states that pay less attention to the risks of diversion or misuse and are therefore more ready to issue an export licence. In other cases, the problems associated with accessing and delivering materiel has meant that transfers can involve private suppliers, brokers or transport providers that have also been involved in transfers to embargoed destinations," says the report. It explains that those EU, NATO and OECD states that do supply arms and ammunition to security forces in fragile states also take measures to mitigate risks.

Risk mitigation

The authors also examine risk-mitigation measures that have been used in several of the eight cases studied, noting their strengths and weaknesses, and consider ways to build on lessons learned.

Overcoming the legacies of conflict while providing equipment and training for national security forces was a common challenge found in all the fragile states examined in the study. "There were also evident dilemmas of choosing when to deliver arms and ammunition to nascent security forces so as not to contribute directly to conflict dynamics, and of avoiding providing items that risk being misused or diverted after delivery," notes the report.

For each arms transfer, an overarching question was whether it would contribute to or threaten security. If states that are providing military equipment, training or other forms of support for a fragile state’s security sector have troops on the ground in the fragile state, these troops can provide oversight and perhaps control over the delivery and subsequent use of the arms.

However, the study confesses that in many cases such close oversight of the delivery process is neither practically feasible nor politically desirable. It therefore says: "For states that are interested in assisting the stabilization processes in fragile states, and can therefore also be considered to be potential suppliers of arms and ammunition, finding ways to limit the risk that a transfer will contribute to conflict, instability or poor governance is paramount."

This entails making difficult decisions to meet urgent needs and requires access to reliable and up-to-date information when making risk assessments and confidence that the right elements are contained in the procedures for making such assessments.

Steps that can be taken to mitigate risks of misuse or diversion after delivery include: (a) training programmes; (b) clauses in delivery agreements imposing conditions on storage or the supplier directly providing assistance in safe storage; (c) clauses in delivery agreements requiring destruction of surpluses; and (d) assistance in calculating the quantities of arms and ammunition that should be delivered relative to the recipient’s legitimate security needs.

Most of the examples presented in the report highlight the need for multilateral measures on the supply side to minimize the risk that arms transfers will contribute to conflict, instability and poor governance. The notification system connected with certain UN arms embargoes and the sharing of information by some major arms suppliers via the Wassenaar Arrangement are two existing examples.

However, these practices could be strengthened for states that are recognized as having high risks of conflict or instability. But such an approach impinges on the national sovereignty of the recipient state and so is sensitive, as shown by the responses of sections of the governments of the DRC and Somalia to the UN arms embargo notification system.

"Therefore, where possible, suppliers should consider not only sharing information among themselves but also consulting with fragile states to exchange information on recipient holdings, storage conditions and needs. Information on export licences granted and denied, shipments made and, where applicable, brokering and transit could be exchanged between suppliers and between suppliers and recipients in a timely manner for high-risk cases," urges the study.

It adds: Steps could also be taken to strengthen and implement nascent recipient state information-exchange mechanisms, particularly those attached to the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Convention on Small arms and light weapons (SALW) and the Kinshasa Convention. Although particularly sensitive, sharing information on watch lists of brokers and transport providers could also help limit diversion risks. Providing assistance on such issues to recipient states could also help to eliminate some of the concerns identified above, argues the report. [IDN-InDepthNews – February 4, 2013]

2013 IDN-InDepthNews | Analysis That Matters

This article should not be republished or redistributed without the permission of the original author or copyright holder.


Filed Under: Analysis, Geopolitics, Security Tagged With: , ,

Davos Puts Protests Behind

February 6, 2013 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IPS

Ray Smith

DAVOS, Feb 05 (IPS) – Barbed wire and safety fences are dismantled, the police and army are withdrawn and freedom of movement is restored. The 43rd annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) ended last month with negligible protests against the ‘global leaders’.Every year in late January, the Swiss mountain town Davos is temporarily turned into a fortress. On the streets, policemen, soldiers and bodyguards outnumber unarmed citizens by far.

More than 2,500 ‘global leaders’ met in Davos this year “to improve the state of the world.” as the WEF claims. It’s difficult to make much sense of this year’s motto ‘Resilient Dynamism’. Nevertheless, a lot was discussed, much optimism spread but no decisions taken; at least in front of the cameras.

Even though temperatures were frosty, sunshine reigned at this year’s annual meeting. At least from the business perspective, the global economic crisis is receding. “The worst is behind us. The optimism for recovery is there,” Axel Weber, chairman of the board of directors of the scandal-ridden bank UBS proclaimed.

Meanwhile Davos mayor Tarzisius Caviezel couldn’t stop raving about the WEF’s economic importance for Europe’s highest city: “The pictures broadcast throughout the world are invaluable advertising for Davos.”

Indeed, visual publicity was much worse a decade ago – trashed fast food restaurants, broken windows, a martial police presence, clouds of tear gas, peaceful protesters beaten and showered by water cannons.

This year, barbed wire was cleverly covered by large white canvas. The security personnel’s only challenge was to guide the countless SUVs and limousines through the town’s narrow streets.

A decade ago, thousands of protesters challenged the ‘global leaders’, threatening to shut down the World Economic Forum. It wasn’t just about expressing alternative opinions in Davos, but about chasing the rich and powerful out of town. “Wipe out WEF” was their slogan.

In past years the police did everything possible to keep protesters away from Davos, and put up with riots in other Swiss cities. Whoever tried to travel to Davos was stopped; trains and coaches were blocked in the lowlands.

About 50 people joined a rally in Davos. Rolf Marugg, secretary of the local Green Party was pleased, though he had expected more. “It’s important that we as locals protest against the meeting, the order of the globalised economy and the often dirty doings of the WEF participants,” Marugg said.

Pointing at the WEF’s rather vague motto, the Green politician said that the world doesn’t need dynamism and resilience but a slowdown and change. “The current crisis proves that those self-appointed global leaders’ only ability is to drive economy, society and the environment against the wall. ‘Resilient Dynamism’ therefore only means to keep up the current crisis system by any means possible.”

Over the last few years, small demonstrations are tolerated in Davos; they no longer constitute a threat. The rally went almost unnoticed. Additionally, Greenpeace temporarily shut down a Shell gas station, criticising the company for planning to drill for oil in the Arctic. In another token protest, three activists approached the congress centre with smoke flares to protest against the exploitation of women in the global economy.

A decade ago going up to Davos in late January was on every left-wing activist’s agenda. David Böhner, now in his forties, was a leading figure in Switzerland’s anti-globalisation movement. “Our protest was fundamentally anti-capitalist and directed against the increasingly powerful multinational corporations,” he said.

“Any social movement needs some kind of point of reference. In our case, the World Economic Forum provided a suitable projection screen.” At that time, no meeting of the G8, the European Union or the WTO was safe from resistance protests.

Böhner didn’t travel to Davos this year. “The demonstrations against the WEF don’t interest me any more.” The political capacity to ignite has long gone, he said, and a ritualised form of protest carries little potential.

It was in the early 2000s that opposition was loudest and most radical. Even though the authorities were quick to deflect from political content by nurturing a debate on violence at the protests, it was then when the activists’ arguments were most heard.

“Another major reason for the decline of the anti-WEF movement surely was the police repression,” David Böhner added. The turning point was in 2004, when 1,082 demonstrators were held in the freezing cold in the town Landquart, 40 kilometres from Davos, after violently being pulled out of a train by the police.

The authorities succeeded, because disputes flared up within the movement. Mobilising for demonstrations in Davos became senseless, unwise and unattractive. In the following years, increasingly smaller rallies were held in other Swiss cities.

Meanwhile, the WEF facilitated media access and invited ‘civil society leaders’ to their debates to counter critique. The Open Forum to run parallel to the WEF was invented.

But despite its polished image, the World Economic Forum remains a dubious platform for politicians and business leaders to consult behind closed doors, far from any accountability. The official programme is just one side of the coin.

On behalf of the World Economic Forum, Nicholas Davis argues that if every meeting was made public, nothing would get decided. “Some conversations – over delicate or sensitive issues – frankly have to be held behind closed doors. Our aim is to be as open as possible without jeopardising our mission to improve the state of the world.”

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2013.

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the written permission of IPS – Inter Press Service. Republication of this material without permission from IPS, the copyright holder, constitutes a violation of United States and international copyright laws and may result in legal action.


Filed Under: Analysis, Diplomacy, Economic Crisis, Economic Policy Tagged With: ,

India Sails Into Troubled South China Sea

February 4, 2013 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IPS

Richard Heydarian

MANILA, Feb 04 (IPS) – With territorial tensions in the South China Sea entering a new phase of confrontation, there are signs of growing Indian involvement in regional affairs.Aside from its anxieties over China’s expanding naval capabilities, India has direct economic and strategic interests in Southeast Asia. For many years, India’s state-run Natural Gas Corp. (ONGC) has been involved in joint ventures with TNK Vietnam and Petro Vietnam, conducting exploratory/offshore hydrocarbon projects in the disputed waters of South China Sea.

Meanwhile, India has also been expanding its strategic ties with the booming economies of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), hoping to raise bilateral trade to as much as 200 billion dollars in the next decade.

As ASEAN’s major dialogue partner, India has repeatedly underscored its commitment to the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, cautioning against rising threats to maritime security.

During the recently-concluded ASEAN-India Summit, many Southeast Asian states, in response to China’s provocative actions, have sought greater role for and involvement of India in ensuring regional stability and deterring Chinese aggressive posturing.

"While the centre of the global economy is shifting eastward, the Indian and Pacific oceans have been and will become even more important in providing the vital sea routes for trade and commerce,” Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono declared during the summit.

Both India and the ASEAN seem to share growing concerns over China’s increasing maritime assertiveness and naval capabilities.

November of last year – when Chinese (paramilitary) vessels allegedly harassed the Vietnamese Binh Minh 02 seismic survey vessel in the hydrocarbon-rich blocks where India’s ONGC is directly invested – marked a turning point in India’s disposition towards the South China Sea disputes.

“Not that we expect to be in those waters very frequently, but when the requirement is there for situations where the country’s interests are involved, for example ONGC Videsh, we will be required to go there and we are prepared for that,” Indian navy chief Admiral D.K Joshi declared in response to the incident, warning China against further provocations.

His comments coincided with a new round of Sino-Indian negotiations over long-standing border disputes, which sparked a war back in 1962 and have embittered bilateral ties since then.

Recent years have witnessed a precipitous escalation in regional maritime disputes, pitting China – which claims almost all features in the South China Sea and continues to prefer bilateral dispute-settlement mechanisms – against Southeast Asian states such as Philippines and Vietnam.

However, last year marked a further deterioration in regional security, with ASEAN failing to adopt a common position on establishing a binding regional Code of Conduct (CoC) to settle maritime disputes.

The situation worsened when the new Chinese leadership engaged in a series of provocative actions, ranging from the issuance of a new Chinese passport, featuring the full extent of Beijing’s territorial claims across Asia, to the recent announcement by Hainan authorities to search and intercept foreign vessels straddling China’s claimed maritime territories, and the new Chinese official map featuring territories within Vietnam’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

In response, the Philippines and Vietnam sought deeper strategic and defence cooperation with sympathetic Pacific powers such as the U.S. and India. Vietnam, Philippines, and Taiwan formally protested against China’s passport design, while the ASEAN bloc expressed deep concerns over new maritime regulations by Chinese provincial authorities in Hainan.

There is also the bigger issue of India-China rivalry. Traditionally, the Indian Navy (IN) has focused on patrolling and safeguarding the country’s interests in the immediate waters stretching from the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean and the Strait Malacca. Yet, China’s rapid rise as a regional naval powerhouse has encouraged continental rival India to speed up its naval modernisation and develop an expeditionary outlook.

Between 2000 and 2012, the IN’s share of annual military expenditures has increased from 15 to 19 percent, while joint exercises with other regional allies, especially the U.S. Pacific Command, have intensified accordingly. An armada of new aircraft carriers, modern French submarines, indigenously designed nuclear submarines, and state-of-the-art aircraft are slated to boost the IN in coming years.

With one of Asia’s most formidable navies, dwarfing all of those in the ASEAN, India’s new naval arms race with China has gained even greater significance in light of rising frictions in the strategic, hydrocarbon-rich waters of South China Sea. Back in 2011, Chinese forces even challenged an IN ship that was patrolling off the coast of Vietnam.

The U.S. pivot to the Asia-Pacific region has been followed by renewed strategic-military commitments with regional partners, but the Philippines and Vietnam are also eagerly seeking India’s muscle to deter China.

“I hope that India supports ASEAN and China in full implementation of the declaration on the conduct of parties in the South China Sea and ASEAN Six-Point Principle on the South China Sea…” Vietnam’s Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung emphasized during the ASEAN-India summit.

In fact, the summit’s concluding ‘vision statement’ underscored, in the most unequivocal terms, the importance of maritime security: “We (ASEAN and India) are committed to strengthening cooperation to ensure maritime security and freedom of navigation and safety of sea lanes of communication for unfettered movement of trade in accordance with international law, including UNCLOS."

Although India has historically stood up to China over territorial disputes as well as the Tibetan issue, in addition to its expressed commitment to defend energy investments in the disputed waters and challenge China’s new passport design, India has actually struck a moderate tone in numerous official pronouncements.

India is not a direct party to the disputes and a bulk of its strategic interests still lie in the Indian Ocean, while its booming bilateral trade with China – hovering above 70 billion dollars annually – means that it has little appetite for risking direct confrontation with Beijing in behalf of ASEAN.

"There are fundamental issues there (South China Sea) that do not require India’s intervention," India’s External Affairs Minister Salman Kurshid stated in relation to the maritime disputes during the ASEAN-India summit. "(The disputes) need to be resolved between the countries concerned."

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2013.

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the written permission of IPS – Inter Press Service. Republication of this material without permission from IPS, the copyright holder, constitutes a violation of United States and international copyright laws and may result in legal action.


Filed Under: Analysis, Asia, Geopolitics Tagged With: ,

It’s All About Israel

February 3, 2013 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IPS

hagel_hearing-629x418

Senator Chuck Hagel at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Service Committee Jan. 31, 2013. Credit: DoD Photo by Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo

Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Feb 02 (IPS) – If former Defence Secretary-designate Sen. Chuck Hagel’s lacklustre performance at his confirmation hearing Thursday heartened neo-conservatives and other hawks opposed to his nomination, those who argued that the Israel lobby has been exerting too great an influence on U.S. foreign policy were ecstatic.Indeed, Stephen Walt, the Harvard international relations professor who co-authored the "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", issued a special thanks to the Senate Armed Services Committee that held the hearing on his foreignpolicy.com blog Friday, suggesting that controversial 2007 book should sell like hotcakes after what he called “the Hagel circus".

“I want to thank the Emergency Committee for Israel, Sheldon Adelson, and the Senate Armed Services Committee for providing such a compelling vindication of our views,” wrote Walt, who, among other things, has been accused of anti-Semitism for writing a book that criticised the allegedly excessive influence the Israel lobby wields over U.S. foreign policy and the public debate that surrounds it.

As evidence, Walt cited the number of mentions of Israel and its most powerful regional foe, Iran, received in the course of Hagel’s eight-hour ordeal – 166 and 144, respectively, according to a compilation by the Internet publication, Buzzfeed.

By comparison, he noted, the epidemic of suicides among U.S. troops – a necessary concern for any incoming Pentagon chief – was addressed only twice.

In fact, the degree to which Israel and the threat posed to it by Iran dominated the hearing was somewhat understated by Buzzfeed. The full transcript revealed that Israel was brought up no less than 178 times, followed closely by Iran with 171 mentions.

Those numbers compared with a grand total of five mentions of China, the central focus of the Obama administration’s much ballyhooed “pivot” from the Middle East to the Asia/Pacific; one mention (by Hagel himself) of Japan, Washington’s closest Asian ally whose territorial dispute with China has recently escalated to dangerous levels; and one mention of South Korea, Washington’s other major treaty ally in Northeast Asia.

Similarly, NATO, Washington’s historically most important military alliance – and one with which it fought a successful air war in Libya last year and is currently fighting its 12th year in Afghanistan – warranted a total of five mentions.

“It is extraordinary that, in an eight-hour hearing, as little attention was devoted as it was to issues such as China and NATO, which ought to be near the top of the concerns for any secretary of defence of the United States,” said Paul Pillar, a former top CIA analyst who served as the National Intelligence Officer for the Near and South Asia from 2000 to 2005.

“The emphasis on Israel and Iran – which, in American politics, has become for the most part an Israel issue – demonstrates that the senators were far less concerned with the strategic questions that the secretary of defence should be focused on and much more interested in trying to defeat a nominee who has strayed from political orthodoxy, especially on issues related to Israel,” he told IPS.

Hagel, a decorated Vietnam War veteran and former Republican senator from Nebraska, has come under sustained attack from neo-conservatives – who still exercise a preponderant influence on the Republican Party’s foreign policy views despite the general unpopularity of the Iraq war which they championed – since he was first rumoured to be Obama’s top choice to succeed Leon Panetta as Pentagon chief in mid-December.

The anti-Hagel attacks have been carried out by a number of groups, such as the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI), that have refused to disclose the identity of their donors.

The New York Times reported Sunday that billionaire Sheldon Adelson, the single biggest contributor to the Republican presidential campaign last year and a staunch supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was involved in the campaign, by far the most expensive and organised ever mounted against a cabinet nominee.

Initially joined in their attacks by some leaders of the more-mainstream and bipartisan Israel lobby, they charged, among other things, that Hagel was anti-Semitic (in part because he had used the phrase “Jewish lobby” on one occasion) and hostile to Israel.

Conversely, they complained, he has been too sympathetic toward Palestinians, too eager to engage Iran and other Israeli foes diplomatically, and too averse to using military force, particularly against Iran if negotiations over its nuclear programme fail.

On these issues, they argued in a mantra subsequently adopted by half a dozen Republican senators, Hagel was “out of the mainstream” or even “far to the left of” Obama himself.

In fact, Hagel’s views on the Middle East and the use of military force, in particular, not only largely reflect those of the administration and, according to public-opinion polls, of a war-weary electorate, but also of most of the foreign-policy elite. Dozens of retired top-ranked diplomatic, intelligence, and military officials, as well as former Cabinet officers from both Republican and Democratic administration have rallied to Hagel’s defence in recent weeks.

But those “mainstream” views are not reflected in Congress, where the Israel lobby has long wielded its greatest influence.

While its main institutions, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), declared their neutrality on the nominee after his formal nomination by Obama earlier this month, they worked with sympathetic senators from both parties and their staffers to ensure that particular questions would be asked that would elicit reassuring answers with respect to both supporting Israel and preventing Iran from achieving a nuclear bomb by any means necessary.

The effort – which was supplemented by angry prosecutorial performances by several senators, notably John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and Ted Cruz, closely associated with neo-conservatives – largely worked, as Hagel recanted or softened some of his more-provocative previous statements to the disappointment of many of his supporters.

But, in some respects, the effort, as suggested by Walt, succeeded too well, simply because it demonstrated quite dramatically to the interested public how completely Israel dominates the foreign-policy agenda, at least on Capitol Hill.

After all, the U.S. remains the world’s one superpower with interests in every country. Its defence budget – at well over half a trillion dollars this year — is greater than the combined budgets of the 10 next-most powerful militaries.

Yet Israel was mentioned more often in the hearing, according to IPS’s tally, than the following countries or entities combined: Iraq (30), Afghanistan (27), Russia (23), Palestine or Palestinian (22), Syria (18), North Korea (11), Pakistan (10), Egypt (9), China (5), NATO (5), Libya (2), Bahrain (2), Somalia (2), Al-Qaeda (2), and Mali, Jordan, Turkey, Japan, and South Korea (once each).

Several key regional powers with which Washington has been trying hard to build or already enjoys strong defence relationships – notably India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia – were not mentioned even a single time. Vietnam was mentioned 41 times but exclusively in relation to Hagel’s wartime service there or his work as a senior official in the Veterans Administration.

“They were not asking questions that had any relevance to the tasks facing the secretary of defence, in terms of either the military or budgetary challenges we face,” noted Amb. Chas. Freeman (ret.), whose appointment early in the Obama administration to head the National Intelligence Council (NIC) provoked such a furious campaign by neo-conservatives and key Israel lobby figures that he felt compelled to withdraw his name from consideration.

“So there was no serious discussion of defence or larger strategic issues,” he told IPS. What was there was a lot of grandstanding about whether or not the nominee was politically correct.”

*Jim Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.lobelog.com.

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2013.

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the written permission of IPS – Inter Press Service. Republication of this material without permission from IPS, the copyright holder, constitutes a violation of United States and international copyright laws and may result in legal action.


Filed Under: Analysis, Foreign Affairs, Politics, United States Tagged With: , ,

Ending ‘Doormat Politics’ In Somalia

February 3, 2013 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy

By Abukar Arman*

“More than ever, foreign policy is economic policy. The world is competing for resources and global markets.” John Kerry

Considering the positive trend of the past eighteen months, Somalia is en route to recovery, and, in due course, to re-engineer a better state from the ground up. The caveat being: in the long term, this could be another squandered opportunity as long as ‘doormat politics’ shapes Somalia’s political landscape.

By doormat politics I mean the combination of systematic self/foreign-inflicted aggressions and exploitations suffered by the nation and the subsequent desperation, hopelessness, chronic dependency, and indignation.

From the cold war proxy geopolitical mortal games, to the iron fist of the military government, to the ruthless militias/warlordism of the civil war, to the moral menace of religious extremism, to the hostile intervention of neighboring countries and the paranoia-driven global war on terror, Somalia has been under the exploitative schemes and the brutal authority of various external and internal actors. By and large, throughout these periods, the nation was used either as a camouflage to advance clan-based exclusive rights or a gambit for zero-sum expedience.

Mutual Interest and Mutual Respect

Today, Somalia is at the threshold of a new era; an era of bilateral relationships of mutual interest and respect. However counterintuitive it may seem, a new image of Somalia is gradually coming into formation.

Aside from its coveted long and strategic coast, Somalia is a country with untapped energy and other natural resources and massive rebuilding needs. Many recognize its potential lucrative emerging market.

And, as US, China, Europe, and India continue their scramble in Africa for resources and food security, cultivating bilateral relationship with Somalia as a strategic gateway to sub-Saharan Africa becomes a geopolitical necessity. This, needless to say, provides Somalia an opportunity to expand its horizon and cultivate diverse friendships.

Recently, a number of old friends were compelled to emerge out of their diplomatic ambivalence since the Republic of Turkey has raised the bar and reassumed its full diplomatic relationship with Somalia and opened its embassy in Mogadishu at a time when it was still being considered the most dangerous city in the world. Like China, Turkey has successfully been establishing good footing in Africa based on its method of engagement- soft power.

“What Africa needs is not pity, but fairness and opportunity. Developing partnerships based on respect, equality and mutual interest will go a long way in overcoming the vicious circle of exploitation, poverty and underdevelopment in Africa” writes Turkish Columnist Ibrahim Kalin in Today’s Zaman.

Somali/US Relations

On January 17th President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud met with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to reactivate the bilateral relationship between Somalia and United States. Though the State Department welcomed “the great strides toward stability Somalia has made over the past year”—an effort in which the US played a key role—it made no commitment to change its Dual-Track Policy and globally dreaded “Drone Diplomacy”. These are the two sides of a single counter-terrorism based policy toward Somalia that has been undermining the legitimacy of the very central government that US has officially recognized and established bilateral relationship with.

Sustainable bilateral relations between Somalia and the US would remain a political mirage as long as the US policy toward Somalia continues to be driven by counter-terrorism expediency and its diplomatic gestures are delivered by drone strikes! Pressure would soon be mounting against both nations as this policy is getting under intense scrutiny and is the subject of a new documentary called Dirty Wars that recently premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and is expected to hit the theatres in March.

“We cannot allow the extraordinary good we do to save and change lives to be eclipsed entirely by the role we have had to play since September 11th, a role that was thrust upon us,” said John Kerry, the new Secretary of State. Whether or not these words would prove prophetic per the foreign policy of President Obama’s second term would remain to be seen.

Challenges and Opportunities of Economic Growth

Statehood is not sustainable without steady revenue and economic growth and this should not be a shock to a nation emerging out of the ruins of its bloody history and hampered by chronic poverty with roughly seventy percent of its youth being unemployed and nearly two million of its population being internally and externally displaced.

Somalia needs a fresh start. However, as this just resuscitated state is struggling to find its political, social, religious, and economic balance, bill collectors are lining up. Granted, there is nothing illegal about that. However, a few issues must be illuminated:

Even though it is still considered a “Pre-Decision-Point country”, Somalia is qualified for debt cancelation under the IMF/World Bank Heavily Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) initiative.

It might even qualify to legitimately invoke “The Odious Debt Doctrine” (a precedent set by the US) if and where it is necessary. The rationale driving this legal doctrine is that loans not made in good faith to non-democratic governments with questionable legitimacy that then use these monies against their public interests, or to oppress their citizens, or for embezzlements and other corrupt overtly corrupt motives, cannot be transferred to democratically elected governments that may succeed them. Regardless, there is a good chance that these international financial institutions would do what’s right.

That said, a more profoundly complex issue than dealing with these institutions is dealing with Hedge Funds profiteers who purchased some of Somalia’s old debts while the state was on its death bed, hence the name Vulture Funds. This would have to be won legally in the courts. Think Congo.

Processes and Sacrifices of Transformation

It behooves the current government to appoint a Debt Audit and Asset Recovery Commission that includes economists, international lawyers, members of the Parliament and civil societies.

Moreover, it should deliberately avoid any decision that would put this recovering state in a position to be held as ransom for generations to come. This includes aid monies that the state is chronically dependent on. After all, as the old adage goes: “He who pays the piper calls the tune”. Somalia now has too many pipers playing too many tunes, all at once; a classic political cacophony of a sort.

The good news is that the current government already has alternative ways of generating state revenues such taxation, postal services, licensing the telephone gateway, licensing banking, licensing commercial fishing, leasing agricultural lands, etc. in its priority.

The Somali people have resiliently rejected the permanency of failure. They have been responding with an overwhelming stream of repatriation and investments. By and large there is a popular march toward the light at the end of the tunnel. However, the process is not yet complete and hazardous pitfalls along the way still present detrimental challenges. So, the current momentum must be guided with vision, maintained with prudence, and guarded with vigilance. There are valuable lessons to be learned from the magically disappearing $ billions in South Sudan and Haiti. This indeed underscores, among other things, the importance of having in place effective policies of checks and balances, also the apparatus and the capacity to invest these funds into viable projects of critical nature.

So, the prospect of ending doormat politics in Somalia is reasonably high as the world continues to change and the political awareness of the average citizens continues to rise. However, as it is a two-engine phenomenon, it is utterly naïve to count on it before the Somali people come to the realization that in the dark pages of history this lamentation is scripted in blood – if only we were united!

© Copyright Abukar Arman, 2013. All rights reserved.

This article should not be republished or redistributed without the permission of the original author or copyright holder.

* Abukar Arman is a Somali diplomat whose political analysis is widely published. On Twitter: @AbukarArman


Filed Under: Africa, Analysis, Peace, Politics Tagged With:

Daunting Development Challenges Ahead

December 28, 2012 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IDN

By Richard Johnson

IDN-InDepth NewsReport

PARIS (IDN) – Despite development successes over the past 20 years and the progress of many emerging economies, inequality is increasing in all countries and 1.4 billion people still live in absolute poverty. This gloomy situation was acknowledged by development ministers from industrial and emerging economies, who met in London on December 4 and 5 for the High Level Meeting (HLM) of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC), which comprises 24 of the 34-nation Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

A communique emerging from the meeting points out there is unequivocal evidence of absolute poverty having been halved, and progress achieved on all Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), agreed at a summit in September 2000 at the turn of the millennium. Economic growth has been a key factor in reducing absolute poverty, in the success stories of many

Yet daunting challenges persist: 1.4 billion people are mired in absolute poverty; food insecurity affects 850 million people, and 1.3 billion of the world’s people – including many women – have no access to electricity. Social inequalities are increasing in all countries – developed, emerging and developing – and are a growing concern given the threat they pose to social, political and economic stability, the ministers agreed.

The HLM also recognised important risks. The world’s population will reach 9 billion people in 2050 which, when coupled with changing consumption patterns, is estimated to require a 70% increase in food production by 2050. Within that same timeframe, global GDP may quadruple.

Given current trends and policies, this will result in an 80% increase of primary energy consumption which will impact on climate change and, as a consequence, global health, water management, food security, and poverty reduction prospects – and the protection of natural capital for future generations.

"Sustainable development and green growth are key approaches to address these challenges, and participating governments welcomed the Rio +20 commitment to integrate sustainable development goals in the post-2015 agenda," the development ministers stressed in a communique.

They also recognised that the context for development co-operation has now irrevocably changed. Shifting global wealth is breaking down the former division between North and South.

Co-operation among South-South partners, as well as triangular co-operation, is complementing North-South co-operation, thereby increasing the scope, reach and effectiveness of the international development assistance system. Likewise, civil society and the private sector are playing an increasingly important role as partners in development co-operation.

To address these challenges and opportunities, the ministers said, a new and ambitious global partnership has been established. They expect the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation – launched at the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness from November 29 to December 1, 2011 in Busan. South Korea – to pave the way forward by providing a forum of equal partners with shared principles and differentiated but well-defined commitments.

"This Partnership will enable all providers and partners to focus on results at the country level in support of both national and global goals. For too long a lack of coordination, the fragmentation of efforts and failure to honour country ownership have inhibited the pursuit of goals to which all are committed. The Global Partnership offers a space within the international community to discuss these matters as full and equal partners," the communique stated.

Summarizing the outcomes, DAC Chair J. Brian Atwood stated: "This high-level meeting was a reflection of the changing world of development co-operation: DAC members and developing countries working in tandem with civil society, the private sector and other partners; strong support for a UN-led process for determining development goals; and innovative finance for development at a time of constrained budgets."

The ministers committed to make the effort to connect different agendas – MDGs, financing for development, development effectiveness and policy coherence for development – and thereby ensure that these vital elements are more in sync in the cause of development progress. They recognised that this broader agenda engages a larger set of partners who can contribute in different ways to development progress.

They also recognised that the international community is at an historic juncture. Work on post-2015 development goals will define development co-operation for years to come. In fact the agenda for the meeting provided for briefings by members of the United Nations (UN) High Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, providing important insights from their contributions.

ODA

According to the communique, the ministers engaged in forward-thinking on development finance and the importance of official development assistance (ODA) and other flows that impact on development. They set out below their views and agreed on next steps regarding each of these important topics.

In their discussions about the future of ODA the ministers and agencies agreed that it must be directed to where it is most needed and can best catalyse other flows. They asked the DAC to work with the UN system together with the IMF and the World Bank on proposals for new measures of total official support for development, including defining what constitutes ODA.

With a view to ensuring that ODA is directed to where it is most needed and where it can catalyse other flows and promote accountability, the DAC will:

- Elaborate a proposal for a new measure of total official support for development.

- Explore ways of representing both “donor effort” and “recipient benefit” of development finance.

- Investigate whether any resulting new measures of external development finance (including any new approaches to measurement of donor effort) suggest the need to modernise the ODA concept.

- Undertake this work in close collaboration with other interested international agencies, in particular the United Nations, and also the IMF and World Bank, while engaging others in this exercise. A first report should be completed in 2013.

According to the communique, DAC members discussed the reporting of ODA loans in light of multiple views on the interpretation of "concessional in character" in relation to such loans. They agreed about a number of key principles that ODA measurement should meet. These are that ODA reporting should:

- Withstand a critical assessment from the public;

- Avoid creating major fluctuations in overall ODA levels;

- Be generally consistent with the way concessionality is defined in multilateral development finance;

- Maintain the definition of ODA, and only attempt to clarify the interpretation of loans that qualify as ODA;

- Prevent notions that ODA loan schemes follow a commercial logic: this includes the principle that financial reflows should be reinvested as development resources.

In this spirit, they agreed to: transparency regarding the terms of individual ODA loans; ensure equal treatment of all DAC members; establish, as soon as possible, and at the latest by 2015, a clear, quantitative definition of "concessional in character", in line with prevailing financial market conditions.

They also agreed to recognise development loans extended at preferential rates – whether "concessional in character" under a future post-2015 definition or not – as making an important contribution to development.

Post-2015 development goals

Participating governments in the London meeting committed to keep their focus on achieving the existing MDGs. "These unique development goals have rallied the global community behind a common vision that has had lasting impact on the lives of hundreds of millions of people. The establishment of a common global development agenda has been an immensely important force for galvanising support, mobilising resources, focusing efforts and making it possible to assess progress," the communique stated.

The ministers pledged to go forward, and agreed to:

- Focus their efforts on achieving the MDGs by 2015, and to work together with partners and new providers to enhance effectiveness, improve co-ordination of development activities and apply innovative methods to reach these goals.

- Strongly support the High Level Panel and the UN-led process to define a successor set of goals and a framework around which the global community can unite. This process should be inclusive of all partners, not donor-driven. Participating governments were greatly encouraged to hear of the active participation of all regions and of both state and non-state actors in this endeavour. They expressed support for goals that would expand and amplify the overall development impact of the current set of goals, including measurable targets for the global partnership as expressed in MDG8.

- Recognise that global goals were vital in establishing a common accountability agenda for development, and that national goals should be owned by all members of society and reflect the context of a particular country, its state of development and the particular needs of society as determined through the full participation of citizens.

- Recognise the importance of supporting enhanced goals for the future. Participating governments focused on the centrality of poverty reduction, with many expressing support for its eradication. They expressed concern about evidence of growing inequality, and acknowledged the special needs of fragile states.

- Support, in line with the agreement reached at the Rio +20 UN conference on sustainable development, the full integration of the sustainability dimension in the new set of goals, as essential in any development context.

- Emphasise that human rights principles will be important in developing any set of viable goals and the means for achieving them. Development of these goals should also take account of the role of democratic institutions, human security and references to the quality of life as a complementary measure to traditional benchmarks such as national income measures.

- Express the hope that, like their predecessors, future goals will be clearly defined, realistic, politically salient and measurable.

The London High Level Meeting was attended also by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme and other UN representatives, the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and co-Chairs of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation. Invited high-level representatives from Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa were also present as observers to this meeting. [IDN-InDepthNews – December 19, 2012]

2012 IDN-InDepthNews | Analysis That Matters

This article should not be republished or redistributed without the permission of the original author or copyright holder.


Filed Under: Analysis, Development, Diplomacy, Poverty Tagged With: , ,

IAEA Data on Sensitive Iranian Stockpile Mislead News Media

November 21, 2012 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IPS

Gareth Porter

Nov 20 () – News stories on the latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report suggested new reasons to fear that Iran is closer to a “breakout” capability than ever before, citing a nearly 50-percent increase in its stockpile of 20-percent enriched uranium and the installation of hundreds of additional centrifuges at the Fordow enrichment installation. But the supposedly dramatic increase in the stockpile of uranium that could theoretically be used to enrich to weapons grade is based on misleading figures in the Nov. 16 IAEA report. The actual increase in the level of that stockpile appears to be 20 percent.

The coverage of the completion of the installation of 2,800 centrifuges at Fordow, meanwhile, continued the media practice of ignoring the linkage between large numbers of idle centrifuges and future negotiations on the Iranian nuclear programme.

The latest round of media coverage of the Iran issue again highlights the failure of major news outlets to reflect the complexity and political subtleties of the Iranian enrichment programme.

The IAEA report created understandable confusion about the stockpile of uranium enriched to 20-percent – also called 20 percent LEU (low enriched uranium). It does not use the term “stockpile” at all. Instead, it says Iran produced 43 kg of 20-percent enriched uranium during the three months since the August report and cited a total of 135 kg of 20-percent uranium now “in storage”, compared with only 91.4 kg in August.

Based on those figures, Reuters suggested that Iran might already be two-thirds of the way to the level of 200-250 kg that “experts say” could be used to build a bomb. The Guardian’s Julian Borger wrote that Iran was enriching uranium at a pace that would reach the Israeli “red line” in just seven months.

But analysis of the figures in the last two reports shows that the IAEA total for 20-percent LEU “in storage” actually includes 20-percent LEU that has been sent to the Fuel Plate Fabrication Plant in Esfahan for conversion to powder for fuel plates to be used by Iran’s medical reactor but not yet converted.

The November IAEA report includes the information that, as of Sep. 26 – six weeks after the data in the August report were collected – the total amount of 20-percent LEU fed into conversion process in Esfahan stood at 82.7 kg.

That figure is 11.5 kg more than the total of 71.25 kg fed into the conversion process as of the August report.

The difference between the two indicates that 11.5 kg had been taken out of the stockpile and sent to the Fuel Plate Fabrication Plant at Esfahan during September 2012.

In another indicator of the difference between the IAEA’s “in storage” figure and the actual stockpile size, the current IAEA report gives the figure of 73.7 kg of 20-percent LEU from the Fordow facility "withdrawn and verified” by the IAEA over the entire period of such enrichment. That total is 23.7 kg higher than the total of 50 kg from Fordow “withdrawn and verified” given in the August report.

A total of 23.7 kg of 20-percent LEU was evidently taken out of the stockpile available for higher level enrichment and sent for conversion to powder for fuel plates during the last quarter.

The current IAEA report nevertheless uses the same overall total of 96.3 kg of 20-percent LEU fed into the conversion process that it used in the August report.

Subtracting the 23.7 kg additional uranium “withdrawn and verified” by the IAEA during the quarter from the total 20-percent enriched uranium production of 43 kg during the quarter reduces the amount added to the stockpile of 20-percent LEU to 19.3 kg.

Adding the 19.3 kg to the August total of 91.4 kg gives a total for the stockpile of 110.7 kg – a 20-percent increase over the August level rather than the nearly 50-percent increase suggested by news stories.

The IAEA declined to respond to the substance of an IPS e-mail query citing the apparent inconsistencies in the data presented in the last two reports. IAEA Press Officer Greg Webb said in an e-mail that safeguards department officials who had been sent the query “reply that the report is clear and accurate as it stands".

However, the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, D.C., which normally supports everything in IAEA reports, said in a Nov. 16 commentary that the current report “does not make it clear if Iran has sent additional near 20 percent LEU hexafluoride to the Esfahan conversion site after August 2012.”

The Washington think tank added, “However, it if did, the near 20 percent LEU remains in the form of hexafluoride.” The comment implied that the IAEA may have included 23.7 kg of 20-percent enriched uranium sent to the Fuel Plate Fabrication Plant during the quarter as being “in storage”.

The IAEA report also said Iran had halted its conversion of 20-percent LEU for fuel plates during the quarter, although it did not indicate how long the halt might last.

Reuters cited that halt as “another potentially worrying development”. But in light of the actual level of the stockpile, that halt could simply reflect the fact that Tehran is content to keep the figure from rising too far above 100 kg.

The spokesman for the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Affairs Committee, Hossein Naqavi, said Oct. 6 that Iran was taking “a serious and concrete confidence-building measure” by converting some of the 20-percent LEU into powder for fuel plates.

More surprisingly, an Israel official leaked to an Israeli daily that Iran was believed to have consciously avoided allowing its stockpile of 20-percent enriched uranium to go much beyond 110 kg by diverting much of it for conversion to fuel for its scientific research reactor.

Citing “defense sources”, Ha’aretz military correspondent Amos Harel wrote Oct. 9 that the Israeli policymakers had new information they considered “highly reliable” that each time new production of 20-percent enriched uranium could have brought the total above 130 kg, Iran had “diverted 15 or 20 kg to scientific use".

Harel indicated that the new information was the justification for the Israeli position that the threat of Iranian threat of a breakout capability had receded for many months.

Media coverage of the addition of the last of 2,800 centrifuges added to Fordow enrichment facility over the past year played up the idea that the centrifuges could become operational at any time. “They can be started any day,” a “senior diplomat” from an unnamed country was quoted by Reuters as saying.

The fact that half of those centrifuges have not been put into operation was treated as a mystery. The Los Angeles Times said, “For unknown reasons, Iran has not begun feeding uranium hexafluoride gas into more than half of the machines….”

None of the stories mentioned the obvious connection between Iran’s continuing to add centrifuges but not putting them into operation and its maneuvering for a deal with the United States.

Iran has been suggesting both publicly and privately throughout 2012 that it is open to an agreement under which it would halt all 20-percent enrichment and agree to other constraints on its enrichment programme in return for relief from harsh economic sanctions now levied on the Iranian economy.

Iranian strategists evidently view the unused enrichment capacity at Fordow facility as an incentive for the United States and the P5+1 to seek such an agreement.

*Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2012.

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the written permission of IPS – Inter Press Service. Republication of this material without permission from IPS, the copyright holder, constitutes a violation of United States and international copyright laws and may result in legal action.


Filed Under: Analysis, Energy, Middle East, Nuclear Weapons Tagged With: , ,

Brazil Emerging as Key Player at U.N.

November 9, 2012 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IPS

Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Nov 08 (IPS) – When a U.N. member state agrees to hold an international conference in its capital, the host country is not only offered the privilege of chairing the mega meeting but also given pride of place as the keynote opening speaker.But for the last 67 years, since the inception of the United Nations, Brazil has continued to hold the number one slot on opening day of the General Assembly sessions, a position which rightly belongs to the host country, the United States, which remains the second speaker cast in stone.

As a result of this longstanding tradition – with no logical explanation even from the United Nations – President Dilma Rousseff became the first woman, since the founding of the world body, to open the annual high-level debate of world leaders at the General Assembly in September.

She was immediately followed by U.S. President Barack Obama.

Over the last decade, going back to the presidency of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva ending in 2010, Brazil has participated in nine U.N. peacekeeping missions; hosted important multilateral conferences (in particular the Rio+20 summit last June); actively contributed to discussions on U.N. reform; worked to strengthen the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC); and encouraged a greater role for the U.N. in the promotion of economic and social development.

Brazil is also a founding member of the 132-member Group of 77, the largest single coalition of developing countries at the United Nations, and is the 10th largest contributor to the U.N.’s regular budget, with 38 million dollars for the latest fiscal year.

Described as one the world’s newly emerging powers, Brazil plays a key political and economic role in two of the most powerful international coalitions: IBSA (India, Brazil, South Africa) and BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).

Professor Candido Antonio Mendes de Almeida, president of the Forum of Rectors of Rio de Janeiro, told IPS Brazil’s role in the world community is closely linked with the emergence of BRICs, and "out of the classical peripheries and with a growing influence in Africa, especially in the Portuguese-speaking countries".

"The permanent seat in U.N.’s Security Council will occur as an inevitable consequence," said Mendes de Almeida, author of over 30 books and secretary-general of the Academy of Latinity.

Along with India, Germany and Japan, Brazil is part of the Group of Four (G-4), and one of the front runners for a permanent seat in the Security Council, outpacing Argentina, another potential contender from Latin America.

"At the same time, a full new Brazilian approach in Latin America appears with the stern condemnation of the coup d’état in Paraguay, a counter play to the anti-American escalade of the Bolivarian states, and a full new bilateral expanding trade with Argentina," said Mendes de Almeida, who has participated in several international conferences as a Brazilian delegate or a special guest.

The G-4 has continued to work closely to achieve the goal of "a more representative, democratic and transparent Security Council, in line with the current geopolitical realities".

The Group believes that reform is long overdue and that a longer delay may affect the capacity of the Security Council to deal with new challenges and hinder the effectiveness and legitimacy of its decisions.

"Brazil is confident the reform of the Security Council is perfectly achievable and that a positive result can be obtained in the near future," a spokesman for the Brazilian Mission to the United Nations told IPS.

"It is our hope the intergovernmental negotiations in the General Assembly (currently underway) will gain momentum in the coming months and that this can lead to concrete results on the main aspects of the reform."

As a non-permanent member, Brazil has served 10 times on the Security Council.

And as of last month, Brazil has contributed 2,220 troops and police personnel to nine U.N. peacekeeping missions, in Western Sahara, Haiti, Cyprus, Lebanon, Abyei (Sudan), Liberia, South Sudan, Timor-Leste and Cote d’Ivoire.

The largest contributions are to peacekeeping missions in Haiti (1,894 troops) and Lebanon (268 troops).

Although IBSA has been seeking to foster South-South cooperation and strengthen economic and trade relations among developing nations, it played a more active role when all three countries, by a coincidence, served simultaneously as non-permanent members in the Security Council in 2011.

Faced with the unprecedented challenges posed by the Arab Spring, and in the context of global economic crisis, IBSA developed a very close dialogue in the Security Council.

The three countries also articulated a strong common position on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and the role of the Security Council.

This stance was expressed both in the IBSA Tshwane Declaration (2011) and in the first ever joint-statement delivered by the group in the General Assembly debate in 2011 on the Palestinian question.

Meanwhile, the IBSA Facility for Poverty and Hunger Alleviation (IBSA Trust Fund) supports projects in Palestine (Gaza and the West Bank), Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, Timor Leste, Laos, Vietnam, Sudan and South Sudan.

On Syria, the IBSA common position in July-August 2011 led to a joint demarche to the Syrian government, based on a clear condemnation of violence against civilians; a call for an end to all violence and true engagement in a meaningful, Syrian-led political dialogue conducive to full respect for human rights and basic freedoms.

As Rousseff told the General Assembly, "There is no military solution to the Syrian crisis. Diplomacy and dialogue are not just our best option: they are the only option."

While Brazil has moved closer to achieving some of the U.N.’s development goals, including hunger and poverty alleviation, universal primary education, combating HIV/AIDS and environmental sustainability, it has lagged behind in one key goal: gender empowerment.

As a Brazilian diplomat reminded delegates last month, for the first time in the country’s history, a woman president took office. Still, he admitted, women continue to be largely underrepresented in decision-making positions.

Although women make up about 52 percent of all Brazilian voters, only 10 percent of legislators are women. And of the 38 ministries, only 10 are headed by women.

But he assured that Rousseff has made it her priority "to enhance the participation of women in top decision-making levels".

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2012.

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the written permission of IPS – Inter Press Service. Republication of this material without permission from IPS, the copyright holder, constitutes a violation of United States and international copyright laws and may result in legal action.


Filed Under: Analysis, Foreign Affairs, Geopolitics, Latin America, Politics Tagged With:
«Older Posts