Category Archives: Politics

Economic, Financial Markets, Government, Politics, Russia

G20 warns that the global economic crisis is not yet over…

WORLD ECONOMY

At the end of the G20 last week, the leading group of nations said that the crisis in the global economy is far from over and more needs to be done to stimulate growth and create jobs around the world.

In a statement issued at the end of their summit in St Petersburg, Russia, G20 leaders welcomed a recovery in the developed world but warned of risks facing emerging markets.

The communique said:

… Despite our actions, the recovery is too weak, and risks remain tilted to the downside.

It listed ‘the main challenges’ facing the global economy, including ‘persistently high unemployment’ particularly among the young, financial stress in Europe and high levels of government debt.

The G20 also called for the withdrawal of emergency stimulus measures in countries such as the United States to be ‘carefully calibrated and clearly communicated’ to minimise volatility on the financial markets.

Speculation that the U.S. Federal Reserve is about to start reducing the level of support for the U.S. economy has plunged a number of emerging economies into turmoil.

The G20 is made up of developed countries and emerging markets accounting for 90 per cent of global output and two-thirds of the world’s population.

Standard
Foreign Affairs, Government, Middle East, Politics, Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States

G20 and America’s defining moment…

WATERSHED MOMENT

The G20 summit that ended in St Petersburg yesterday failed to produce any kind of agreement on the Syrian crisis. The chasm and bridge separating the United States and Russia on Syria is as wide as it has ever been. Yet, few such gatherings in recent years have offered a truer picture of how and where the real balance of global power lies. A genuine watershed in international affairs may at last have arrived; replacing a vestige of what has been referred to of late as the ‘Arab Spring’ – a term synonymous with upheaval and chaos spreading through many Islamic states.

Related:

The two-day gathering in St Petersburg have confirmed many things. It underscored, for example, just how determined Vladimir Putin is in reasserting Russia on the world stage. It displayed quite clearly, too, that a mercantilist China will do nothing to unsettle its economic interests, and in the process laid bare Europe’s total inability to act on its own.

A senior Kremlin official was reported to have said that no one pays any attention to Britain, a ‘small island’. But could the same not be said of the rest of the EU? Germany, for instance, Europe’s economic powerhouse, is notable only for its deafening silence. France, eager to push a military agenda in punishing the Assad regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons, is unwilling to do so without America’s lead. Other G20 participants wring their hands in aghast and disbelief at what is happening in Syria, but most are keen to shriek away from any involvement. At a moment of high international drama, it leads us back – as it invariably does – to the United States and its role in the world.

It shouldn’t have required a Kremlin official to point out Britain’s diminished influence in the world; the empire ended more than half-a-century ago. But, like it or not, with the United Nations no more than a fractious and divided talking shop, the U.S. is the closest thing we have to a global policeman. No country, it has been argued, has the right to behave as such, and America’s actual ability to change history, for all its military might and superpower status, is sometimes exaggerated – not least by itself. We need to look no further than the sorry state of Iraq, a decade after George W Bush’s invasion, to provide clarity to the argument. In any major crisis, however, all eyes turn to Washington, as they are now in Syria as the regime is accused of violating a ban on the use of chemical weapons. Syria is a signatory against the banned use of such weapons, and yet here we have a paralysed UN Security Council that is powerless to enforce an international binding treaty.

With a vote in Congress on the use of U.S. military force in Syria to be held on the 9th September, the next few days will be decisive. Britain’s role on the world stage has been diminished given the veto in the House of Commons last week, but for President Obama the stakes are vastly higher. On Syria, Mr Obama’s approach has been feckless. First, he declared that Assad must go without saying how, and then laid down his ‘red lines’ over the use of chemical weapons. Later, he announced his decision to use force, and more recently has passed the buck to Congress on Capitol Hill. Deep down, many will suspect that he would prefer to stay well out of Syria given what has happened in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Syria is ablaze and arguably much more contentious than anything the United States has dealt with in the past 30-years. Mr Obama’s uncertainty in how to proceed in Syria is resonating in all corners of the world.

If present indications are anything to go on, the House of Representatives could well follow the House of Commons in opposing military action. If so, a definitive moment will have arrived. Unlike David Cameron, Obama will either defy his legislature and go ahead with strikes, or he will acquiesce, and there will be no military response. If military action is taken off the table, not only would Barack Obama’s presidency be gravely weakened at home, but in the eyes of the world so too would the credibility of America as a global policeman. Either way, a watershed is at hand.

Standard
Britain, France, Government, Politics, Syria, United States

Syria: America’s change of political tack…

BARACK OBAMA’S DECISION TO CONSULT CONGRESS ON SYRIA

The parliamentary defeat for the Government in the House of Commons – last week – over Syria, has led many to comment over the long shadow of Iraq, of poor party management by the whip’s office, and, in some quarters, of the perfidious anti-war sentiments of those MPs who rebelled against the Government’s motion. But, with the majority of the British public opposed to military action, the result that so humiliated the prime minister was simply transparent politics and democracy at work: a far cry from that which materialised when Britain joined the U.S. in toppling Saddam Hussein from power in the Iraq war.

As events in Washington over the last few days make plain, the consequences of the British veto are only just beginning to be felt. Over the past week the US had been preparing for retributive air strikes, but the equivocation of the American President was evident enough. It had been left to Secretary of State John Kerry to fulminate against the ‘moral obscenity’ of chemical weapons, while Mr Obama talked in measured terms of a ‘limited and tailored operation’ and a ‘shot across the bow’. London’s embarrassing climb-down for the prime minister could have been met with White House declarations that the US would not be deterred. But whether that bravado would have proved sustainable has now been countered by a President who insists the decision must be ratified by Congress first, even though the President had already made up his mind to take military action.

In the immediate term, America’s change of political tack is significant enough. Mr Obama has been keen to stress that the proposed action (‘limited in duration and scope’ but still enough to ‘hold the Assad regime accountable’) is not time dependant. The president talks now of a ‘surprise’ punitive strike, an answer perhaps that the operational advantages of an early strike has already been lost.

The political and legal climate will not get any easier as time moves on. Russia’s pro-Assad stance, and Moscow’s insistence of a veto-able UN resolution, along with the G20 gathering in St Petersburg this week, is surely testament to the difficulties that lie immediately ahead.

President Obama is far from assured on the support he needs. For one, Congress is not due to reconvene until the 9th of September – with the President having a week to persuade reluctant US lawmakers to support intervention. And, with the American public as equally ‘war weary’ as they are in Britain, and the dynamics of Capitol Hill unfavourable, Barack Obama may find himself in a similar humbling situation to David Cameron.

Regardless of the outcome, the President’s decision to consult Congress has far-reaching implications. As Commander-in-Chief, the President’s powers to commit the US to war will be open to interpretation. Seeking explicit legitimacy from legislators speaks volumes about his concern at the legal basis for action in Syria. A sense of isolation imploded upon by an ambivalent public and a crucial ally lost, means the constitutional balance of the US has changed with Mr Obama choosing to put the matter to a vote. Future presidents may be forced to follow his example as precedent becomes set.

The repercussions go further still. The pro-interventionist French President is also now facing demands to hold a parliamentary vote on Syria. The effects of the British decision in the House of Commons last week are spreading fast and wide.

Standard