Η «Λέσχη του Παρισιού» δέχθηκε να διαπραγματευτεί το χρέος της Αργεντινής, ύψους 7,5 δισ. δολαρίων, χωρίς τη μεσολάβηση του Διεθνούς Νομισματικού Ταμείου, όπως ζητούσε επίμονα το Μπουένος Άιρες.
«Η Λέσχη του Παρισιού δέχτηκε τη θέση της Αργεντινής να διαπραγματευτεί το χρέος χωρίς την παρέμβαση του ΔΝΤ», ανέφερε σε διάγγελμα της, πρόεδρος της χώρας, Κριστίνα Κίρχνερ.
«Δεν θα υπάρξουν επιτροπές, τράπεζες, εταιρείες, ούτε σύμβουλοι», τόνισε.
Η επιστολή που έστειλε η «Λέσχη του Παρισιού» για το θέμα αυτό, «μιλά για ρεαλιστική διαπραγμάτευση και εμείς συμφωνούμε», είπε και προσέθεσε:
«Οι συνθήκες και οι προθεσμίες πληρωμής πρέπει να είναι ρεαλιστικές, ώστε να μας επιτρέψουν να συνεχίσουμε να στηρίζουμε την οικονομική δραστηριότητα, περιλαμβάνοντας και την κοινωνία. Το μοντέλο αυτό είναι ο μοναδικός τρόπος για να πληρωθεί το χρέος».
Η «Λέσχη του Παρισιού» είχε κατ' επανάληψη υποστηρίξει ότι ο μοναδικός τρόπος για να ρυθμίσει η Αργεντινή το χρέος της ήταν να υποταχθεί στους όρους του ΔΝΤ, κάτι όμως που η κυβέρνηση της χώρας αρνιόταν να κάνει.
Στις 2 Νοεμβρίου, ο υπουργός Οικονομικών, Αμάντο Μπουντού, είχε επαναλάβει την άρνηση της χώρας του να διαπραγματευτεί με το ΔΝΤ, τερματίζοντας τις εικασίες περί αναστροφής του κλίματος μετά το θάνατο του πρώην προέδρου, Νέστορ Κίρχνερ, ο οποίος το 2005 είχε διώξει το διεθνή οικονομικό οργανισμό από την Αργεντινή, καθώς το ΔΝΤ θεωρήθηκε υπεύθυνο για την οικονομική κρίση στην οποία βυθίστηκε η χώρα το 2001.
Geopolitical Research Institute(GRI)/Εταιρεία Γεωπολιτικών Ερευνών(ΕΓΕ)
Τρίτη 16 Νοεμβρίου 2010
«Η µοίρα της Ευρώπης παίζεται στην Ελλάδα»
Τους ανησυχεί το ελληνικό πρόβληµα που είναι και ευρωπαϊκό, τους ανησυχεί και η εµµονή πολλών _ στη Γαλλία και εδώ _ στη µαρξιστική σκέψη. Τα δύο «κακά παιδιά» της Γαλλίας διηγήθηκαν στο Γαλλικό Ινστιτούτο της Αθήνας πώς ένα sms τούς έκανε να συγγράψουν το βιβλίο τους
Τον απασχολείπολύ η Ελλάδα τον Μπερνάρ - ΑνρίΛεβί. Τη θεωρεί σήµερα «εργαστήρι της Ευρώπης», πιστεύειότι «εδώστην Ελλάδα παίζεται σήµερατο µέλλον της Ευρώπης». Και κοιτάζει µε κριτική διάθεση τααντίπαλα στρατόπεδα. «Από τη µία έχετε µια άρχουσα τάξη που δεν πληρώνει φόρους. Από την άλλη µια αρχαϊκή µαρξιστική Αριστερά που τροµάζει. Αυτά είναι πολύ σηµαντικά θέµατα για όλους µας. Για τους Ελληνες, βέβαια, είναι ζητήµατα ζωής και θανάτου».
Αυτά από τον φιλόσοφο, συγγραφέα, δηµοσιογράφο,κινηµατογραφιστή Λεβί, έναναπό τουςπιο γνωστούς εκτός συνόρων γάλλους διανοουµένους. Με τηνπλούσια κώµη τουκαι το πολύ επικοινωνιακό στυλ. Σίγουρα ούτε αυτός,ούτε οΜισέλΟυελµπέκ, οπιο πολυµεταφρασµένος γάλλος πεζογράφος αυτήτη στιγµή, είναι ακριβώς αυτό που θα ονοµάζαµε αριστεροί. Τον Ουελµπέκ, που ήρθε µαζί µε τον Λεβί στην Αθήνα, µε νωπότον κότινο τουΒραβείου Γκονκούρ για το τελευταίο του µυθιστόρηµα – κότινος πουυπόσχεται εκατοντάδες χιλιάδες πωλήσεις –, τον απασχολεί λιγότεροτο ελληνικό ζήτηµα και περισσότερο η κακήκατάσταση της λογοτεχνικής κριτικής στη Γαλλία. Θεωρεί ότι το επίπεδοτων γάλλων διανοουµένωνείναι σχετικά καλό, αλλά δεν συµφωνεί και πολύ µε τον Λεβίπου θεωρεί ότι η δηµόσια συζήτηση στηΓαλλία εκτός από ζωντάνια διαθέτει και ποιότητα. Με την αργόσυρτη και χαµηλής έντασης φωνή του, την ιδιαίτερη άρθρωσή του και το απλανές βλέµµα όταν σκέφτεται, λέει: «Η εµµονή πολλών στη µαρξιστική σκέψηµού είναι επώδυνη». Ταυτόχρονα, µε ένα ύφος αλα Γούντι Αλεν, προσθέτει: «Τώρα τελευταία παίρνουν τις ιδέεςµου στα σοβαρά. Αυτό είναι ανησυχητικό! Θεωρούσα πάντα ότι είµαι εξαιρετικόςπαρατηρητής. Αλλά το να έρχονται τώρα και να ζητούν τιςπροτάσεις µου, µεδεδοµένο το πώς είµαι, πώς είναι οχαρακτήρας µου, αυτότο θεωρώ ανησυχητικό. Φαίνεταιότι τα πράγµατα δεν πάνε καλά καιο κόσµος δεν ξέρει προς τα πού να στραφεί».
Τον απασχολείπολύ η Ελλάδα τον Μπερνάρ - ΑνρίΛεβί. Τη θεωρεί σήµερα «εργαστήρι της Ευρώπης», πιστεύειότι «εδώστην Ελλάδα παίζεται σήµερατο µέλλον της Ευρώπης». Και κοιτάζει µε κριτική διάθεση τααντίπαλα στρατόπεδα. «Από τη µία έχετε µια άρχουσα τάξη που δεν πληρώνει φόρους. Από την άλλη µια αρχαϊκή µαρξιστική Αριστερά που τροµάζει. Αυτά είναι πολύ σηµαντικά θέµατα για όλους µας. Για τους Ελληνες, βέβαια, είναι ζητήµατα ζωής και θανάτου».
Αυτά από τον φιλόσοφο, συγγραφέα, δηµοσιογράφο,κινηµατογραφιστή Λεβί, έναναπό τουςπιο γνωστούς εκτός συνόρων γάλλους διανοουµένους. Με τηνπλούσια κώµη τουκαι το πολύ επικοινωνιακό στυλ. Σίγουρα ούτε αυτός,ούτε οΜισέλΟυελµπέκ, οπιο πολυµεταφρασµένος γάλλος πεζογράφος αυτήτη στιγµή, είναι ακριβώς αυτό που θα ονοµάζαµε αριστεροί. Τον Ουελµπέκ, που ήρθε µαζί µε τον Λεβί στην Αθήνα, µε νωπότον κότινο τουΒραβείου Γκονκούρ για το τελευταίο του µυθιστόρηµα – κότινος πουυπόσχεται εκατοντάδες χιλιάδες πωλήσεις –, τον απασχολεί λιγότεροτο ελληνικό ζήτηµα και περισσότερο η κακήκατάσταση της λογοτεχνικής κριτικής στη Γαλλία. Θεωρεί ότι το επίπεδοτων γάλλων διανοουµένωνείναι σχετικά καλό, αλλά δεν συµφωνεί και πολύ µε τον Λεβίπου θεωρεί ότι η δηµόσια συζήτηση στηΓαλλία εκτός από ζωντάνια διαθέτει και ποιότητα. Με την αργόσυρτη και χαµηλής έντασης φωνή του, την ιδιαίτερη άρθρωσή του και το απλανές βλέµµα όταν σκέφτεται, λέει: «Η εµµονή πολλών στη µαρξιστική σκέψηµού είναι επώδυνη». Ταυτόχρονα, µε ένα ύφος αλα Γούντι Αλεν, προσθέτει: «Τώρα τελευταία παίρνουν τις ιδέεςµου στα σοβαρά. Αυτό είναι ανησυχητικό! Θεωρούσα πάντα ότι είµαι εξαιρετικόςπαρατηρητής. Αλλά το να έρχονται τώρα και να ζητούν τιςπροτάσεις µου, µεδεδοµένο το πώς είµαι, πώς είναι οχαρακτήρας µου, αυτότο θεωρώ ανησυχητικό. Φαίνεταιότι τα πράγµατα δεν πάνε καλά καιο κόσµος δεν ξέρει προς τα πού να στραφεί».
Δευτέρα 15 Νοεμβρίου 2010
Argentina. Defy the Creditors and Get Away with It
The recent death of Néstor Kirchner has been perceived as a great loss, not only to Argentina but to the region and the world. In May 2003, Kirchner took the reins of a country crushed by its most severe economic crisis and riddled by massive debt. His audacious and successful face-off with the International Monetary Fund showed the world that a country could defy the IMF and live to tell about it, and contributed to the ensuing loss of the Fund’s influence in other countries of Latin America and beyond.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 November 2010
From
Manille (Philippines)
Tools
Print
Send
Countries
Argentina
IMF
Themes
Economic globalisation
Former Argentine President Nestor Kirchner and his wife President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner gesture to supporters during a parade in Buenos Aires. The unexpected death on 27 October 2010 of Nestor Kirchner deprived not only Argentina of a remarkable, albeit controversial leader. It also took away an exemplary figure in the Global South when it came to dealing with international financial institutions.
Kirchner defied the creditors. More importantly, he got away with it.
The Collapse
The full significance of Kirchner’s moves must be seen in the context of the economy he inherited on his election as Argentine president in 2003. The country was bankrupt, having defaulted on $100 billion of its debt. The economy was in a depression, its gross domestic product having declined by over 16 percent that year. Unemployment stood at 21.5 percent of the work force, and 53 percent of Argentines had been pushed below the poverty line. What was once the richest country in Latin America in terms of per capita income plunged below Peru and parts of Central America.
Argentina’s crisis stemmed from its faithful adherence to the neoliberal model. The financial liberalization that served as the proximate cause of the collapse was part and parcel of a broader program of radical economic restructuring. Argentina had been the poster child of globalization, Latin-style. It brought down its trade barriers faster than most other countries in Latin America and liberalized its capital account more radically. It followed a comprehensive privatization program involving the sale of 400 state enterprises — including airlines, oil companies, steel, insurance companies, telecommunications, postal services, and petrochemicals – a complex responsible for about seven percent of the nation’s annual domestic product.
In the most touching gesture of neoliberal faith, Buenos Aires adopted a currency board and thereby voluntarily gave up any meaningful control over the domestic impact of a volatile global economy. This system tied the quantity of pesos in circulation to the quantity of in-coming dollars. This policy, as the Washington Post writer Paul Blustein observed, handed over control of Argentina’s monetary policy to Alan Greenspan, the U.S. Federal Reserve chief who was on top of the world’s supply of dollars. This was, effectively, the dollarization of the country’s currency.
The U.S. Treasury Department and its surrogate, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), either urged or approved of all of these measures. In fact, even with financial liberalization called into question in the wake of the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, then-Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers extolled Argentina’s selling off of its banking sector as a model for the developing world: “Today, fully 50 percent of the banking sector, 70 percent of private banks, in Argentina are foreign-controlled, up from 30 percent in 1994. The result is a deeper, more efficient market, and external investors with a greater stake in staying put.”
Riots at banks were commonplace, and foreign financial institutions and the IMF were popularly blamed for the crisis. As the dollar rose in value, so did the peso, making Argentine goods non-competitive both globally and locally. Raising tariff barriers against imports was not an option owing to the technocrats’ commitment to the neoliberal tenet of free trade. Instead, borrowing heavily to fund the dangerously widening trade gap, Argentina spiraled into debt. The more it borrowed, the higher the interest rates rose as international creditors grew increasingly alarmed. Money began leaving the country. Foreign control of the banking system facilitated the outflow of much-needed capital by banks that became increasingly reluctant to lend, both to the government and to local businesses.
Backed by the IMF, the neoliberal government nevertheless continued to keep the country in the straitjacket that the peso-dollar currency board arrangement had become. As George Soros observed, Argentina “sacrificed practically everything on the altar of maintaining the currency board and meeting international obligations.”
The crisis unfolded with frightening speed in late 2001, forcing Argentina to go to the IMF for money to service its mounting debt. After earlier providing loans, the IMF refused its pupil this time, leading to the government’s $100 billion debt default. Businesses collapsed, people lost jobs, capital left the country, and riots and other forms citizen unrest toppled one government after another.
Kirchner’s Gamble
President Néstor Kirchner at his swearing-in ceremony, 25 May 2003. When Kirchner won the elections for the presidency in 2003, he inherited a devastated country. He saw the choice as debt or resurrection, putting the interests of the creditors first or prioritizing economic recovery. Kirchner offered to settle Argentina’s debts but at a steep discount. He would write off 70-75 percent, repaying only 25-30 cents to the dollar. The bondholders screamed and demanded that the IMF discipline Kirchner. Kirchner repeated his offer and warned the bondholders that this was a one-time offer that they had to accept or lose the rights to any repayment. He told the creditors that he would not tax poverty-ridden Argentines to pay off the debt and invited them to visit his country’s slums to “experience poverty first hand.” Faced with his determination, the IMF stood by helplessly and a majority of the bondholders angrily accepted his terms.
Indeed, Kirchner played hardball not only with the creditors but with the IMF. He told the Fund in early 2004 that Argentina would not repay a $3.3 billion installment due the IMF unless it approved a similar amount of lending to Buenos Aires. The IMF blinked and came up with the money. In December 2005, Kirchner paid off the country’s debt to the IMF in full and booted the Fund out of Argentina.
For over two decades, since the Third World debt crisis in the early 1980s, developing country governments had considered defying the creditors. There had been a few quiet defaults on payments, but Kirchner was the first to publicly threaten the lenders with a unilateral haircut and make good on that promise. Stratfor, the political risk analysis firm, pointed out the implications of his high-wire act: “If Argentina walks away from its private and multilateral debts successfully—meaning it doesn’t collapse economically when it is shut out of international markets after repudiating its debt—then other countries might soon take the same path. This could finish what little institutional and geopolitical relevance the IMF has left.”
And indeed, Kirchner’s act contributed to the erosion of the credibility and power of the Fund in the middle of this decade.
Recovery
Argentina did not collapse. Instead, it grew by a remarkable 10 percent per year over the next four years. This was no mystery. A central cause of the high rate of growth was the financial resources that the government reinvested in the economy instead of sending outside as debt service. Kirchner’s historic debt initiative was accompanied by other moves to throw off the shackles of neoliberalism: the adoption of a managed float for the Argentine peso, domestic price controls, export taxes, sharply increased public spending, and caps on utility rates.
Kirchner did not confine his reforms to the domestic sphere. He undertook high-profile initiatives with other progressive leaders in Latin America, such as the sinking of the Washington-sponsored Free Trade of the Americas and efforts to bring about greater economic and political cooperation. Emblematic of this alliance was Venezuela’s $2.4 billion purchase of Argentine bonds, which enabled Argentina to pay off all of the country’s debt to the IMF.
Kirchner and Presidents Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, and Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil, in a 2006 summit in Brasilia. Along with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Lula of Brazil, Evo Morales of Bolivia, and Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Kirchner was one of several remarkable leaders that the crisis of neoliberalism produced in Latin America. Mark Weisbrot, who captured his continental significance, writes that Kirchner’s moves “have not generally won him much favor in Washington and in international business circles, but history will record him not only as a great president but also as an independence hero of Latin America.”
Share this
Walden Bello
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 November 2010
From
Manille (Philippines)
Tools
Send
Countries
Argentina
IMF
Themes
Economic globalisation
Former Argentine President Nestor Kirchner and his wife President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner gesture to supporters during a parade in Buenos Aires. The unexpected death on 27 October 2010 of Nestor Kirchner deprived not only Argentina of a remarkable, albeit controversial leader. It also took away an exemplary figure in the Global South when it came to dealing with international financial institutions.
Kirchner defied the creditors. More importantly, he got away with it.
The Collapse
The full significance of Kirchner’s moves must be seen in the context of the economy he inherited on his election as Argentine president in 2003. The country was bankrupt, having defaulted on $100 billion of its debt. The economy was in a depression, its gross domestic product having declined by over 16 percent that year. Unemployment stood at 21.5 percent of the work force, and 53 percent of Argentines had been pushed below the poverty line. What was once the richest country in Latin America in terms of per capita income plunged below Peru and parts of Central America.
Argentina’s crisis stemmed from its faithful adherence to the neoliberal model. The financial liberalization that served as the proximate cause of the collapse was part and parcel of a broader program of radical economic restructuring. Argentina had been the poster child of globalization, Latin-style. It brought down its trade barriers faster than most other countries in Latin America and liberalized its capital account more radically. It followed a comprehensive privatization program involving the sale of 400 state enterprises — including airlines, oil companies, steel, insurance companies, telecommunications, postal services, and petrochemicals – a complex responsible for about seven percent of the nation’s annual domestic product.
In the most touching gesture of neoliberal faith, Buenos Aires adopted a currency board and thereby voluntarily gave up any meaningful control over the domestic impact of a volatile global economy. This system tied the quantity of pesos in circulation to the quantity of in-coming dollars. This policy, as the Washington Post writer Paul Blustein observed, handed over control of Argentina’s monetary policy to Alan Greenspan, the U.S. Federal Reserve chief who was on top of the world’s supply of dollars. This was, effectively, the dollarization of the country’s currency.
The U.S. Treasury Department and its surrogate, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), either urged or approved of all of these measures. In fact, even with financial liberalization called into question in the wake of the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, then-Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers extolled Argentina’s selling off of its banking sector as a model for the developing world: “Today, fully 50 percent of the banking sector, 70 percent of private banks, in Argentina are foreign-controlled, up from 30 percent in 1994. The result is a deeper, more efficient market, and external investors with a greater stake in staying put.”
Riots at banks were commonplace, and foreign financial institutions and the IMF were popularly blamed for the crisis. As the dollar rose in value, so did the peso, making Argentine goods non-competitive both globally and locally. Raising tariff barriers against imports was not an option owing to the technocrats’ commitment to the neoliberal tenet of free trade. Instead, borrowing heavily to fund the dangerously widening trade gap, Argentina spiraled into debt. The more it borrowed, the higher the interest rates rose as international creditors grew increasingly alarmed. Money began leaving the country. Foreign control of the banking system facilitated the outflow of much-needed capital by banks that became increasingly reluctant to lend, both to the government and to local businesses.
Backed by the IMF, the neoliberal government nevertheless continued to keep the country in the straitjacket that the peso-dollar currency board arrangement had become. As George Soros observed, Argentina “sacrificed practically everything on the altar of maintaining the currency board and meeting international obligations.”
The crisis unfolded with frightening speed in late 2001, forcing Argentina to go to the IMF for money to service its mounting debt. After earlier providing loans, the IMF refused its pupil this time, leading to the government’s $100 billion debt default. Businesses collapsed, people lost jobs, capital left the country, and riots and other forms citizen unrest toppled one government after another.
Kirchner’s Gamble
President Néstor Kirchner at his swearing-in ceremony, 25 May 2003. When Kirchner won the elections for the presidency in 2003, he inherited a devastated country. He saw the choice as debt or resurrection, putting the interests of the creditors first or prioritizing economic recovery. Kirchner offered to settle Argentina’s debts but at a steep discount. He would write off 70-75 percent, repaying only 25-30 cents to the dollar. The bondholders screamed and demanded that the IMF discipline Kirchner. Kirchner repeated his offer and warned the bondholders that this was a one-time offer that they had to accept or lose the rights to any repayment. He told the creditors that he would not tax poverty-ridden Argentines to pay off the debt and invited them to visit his country’s slums to “experience poverty first hand.” Faced with his determination, the IMF stood by helplessly and a majority of the bondholders angrily accepted his terms.
Indeed, Kirchner played hardball not only with the creditors but with the IMF. He told the Fund in early 2004 that Argentina would not repay a $3.3 billion installment due the IMF unless it approved a similar amount of lending to Buenos Aires. The IMF blinked and came up with the money. In December 2005, Kirchner paid off the country’s debt to the IMF in full and booted the Fund out of Argentina.
For over two decades, since the Third World debt crisis in the early 1980s, developing country governments had considered defying the creditors. There had been a few quiet defaults on payments, but Kirchner was the first to publicly threaten the lenders with a unilateral haircut and make good on that promise. Stratfor, the political risk analysis firm, pointed out the implications of his high-wire act: “If Argentina walks away from its private and multilateral debts successfully—meaning it doesn’t collapse economically when it is shut out of international markets after repudiating its debt—then other countries might soon take the same path. This could finish what little institutional and geopolitical relevance the IMF has left.”
And indeed, Kirchner’s act contributed to the erosion of the credibility and power of the Fund in the middle of this decade.
Recovery
Argentina did not collapse. Instead, it grew by a remarkable 10 percent per year over the next four years. This was no mystery. A central cause of the high rate of growth was the financial resources that the government reinvested in the economy instead of sending outside as debt service. Kirchner’s historic debt initiative was accompanied by other moves to throw off the shackles of neoliberalism: the adoption of a managed float for the Argentine peso, domestic price controls, export taxes, sharply increased public spending, and caps on utility rates.
Kirchner did not confine his reforms to the domestic sphere. He undertook high-profile initiatives with other progressive leaders in Latin America, such as the sinking of the Washington-sponsored Free Trade of the Americas and efforts to bring about greater economic and political cooperation. Emblematic of this alliance was Venezuela’s $2.4 billion purchase of Argentine bonds, which enabled Argentina to pay off all of the country’s debt to the IMF.
Kirchner and Presidents Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, and Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil, in a 2006 summit in Brasilia. Along with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Lula of Brazil, Evo Morales of Bolivia, and Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Kirchner was one of several remarkable leaders that the crisis of neoliberalism produced in Latin America. Mark Weisbrot, who captured his continental significance, writes that Kirchner’s moves “have not generally won him much favor in Washington and in international business circles, but history will record him not only as a great president but also as an independence hero of Latin America.”
Share this
Walden Bello
Οι ΗΠΑ ζυγίζουν το... βάρος των συμμαχιών
Αντίβαρο στην Κίνα επιδιώκει να δημιουργήσει η ηγεσία των ΗΠΑ με τη σύσφιγξη της εμπορικής συνεργασίας με την Ινδία κατά την επίσκεψη του προέδρου τους, Μπαράκ Ομπάμα, στη χώρα. Ομως, η συμμαχία ενέχει μεγάλο ρίσκο για τους Αμερικανούς, καθώς στην προσπάθειά τους να καταστήσουν την Ινδία στρατηγικό σύμμαχό τους στην περιοχή, προκαλούν τη δυσαρέσκεια της πακιστανικής ηγεσίας, που κατηγορείται ότι καλύπτει τις αντάρτικες οργανώσεις στο Αφγανιστάν οι οποίες έχουν καταφύγει στο Πακιστάν.
Οι συμφωνίες που υπογράφτηκαν για το εμπόριο στη συνάντηση του Ομπάμα με τον Ινδό πρωθυπουργό, Μανμοχάν Σινγκ (φωτογραφία), συμβάλλουν μεν στην αύξηση των εξαγωγών αμερικανικών προϊόντων στην Ινδία, αλλά δεν ήταν τόσο σημαντικές όσο εκείνες που είχαν συναφθεί επί του πρώην προέδρου των ΗΠΑ, Τζορτζ Μπους, με σημαντικότερες εκείνες της συνεργασίας στον πυρηνικό τομέα και στην άμυνα, σε σημείο που η Ινδία είναι σήμερα η πρώτη χώρα στον κόσμο στη διεξαγωγή κοινών πολεμικών ασκήσεων με τις ΗΠΑ. Σε αντάλλαγμα για τις συμφωνίες, ο Ομπάμα φρόντισε να προωθήσει τη φιλοδοξία της Ινδίας να γίνει μόνιμο κράτος-μέλος του Συμβουλίου Ασφαλείας (ΣΑ) του ΟΗΕ.
Η Κίνα με τη σιωπή της για τις τελευταίες αμερικανοϊνδικές συμφωνίες και με την κατανόηση που δείχνει για το ρόλο που θέλει να παίξει η Ινδία στο ΣΑ φαίνεται να υιοθετεί μια προσεκτική στάση απέναντί της, αποφεύγοντας να προκαλέσει τριβές. Αλλωστε, τα κινεζικά προϊόντα παραμένουν πιο ανταγωνιστικά από εκείνα της Ινδίας και οι Αμερικανοί επιχειρηματίες εξακολουθούν να επενδύουν κυρίως στην Κίνα και όχι στην Ινδία.
Ο «άσος» των Πακιστανών
Αντίθετα, η ηγεσία των ΗΠΑ φαίνεται ότι έχει επιδεινώσει τις σχέσεις της με την ηγεσία του Πακιστάν, το οποίο έχει ιστορική έχθρα με την Ινδία, με την οποία παραλίγο να έρθει σε πόλεμο τουλάχιστον τρεις φορές για τον έλεγχο του Κασμίρ. Η πακιστανική ηγεσία ανακοίνωσε ότι είναι βαθιά απογοητευμένη από τη στήριξη του Ομπάμα στην προοπτική να αποκτήσει η Ινδία μόνιμη θέση στο ΣΑ. Τι θα μπορούσε να σημαίνει αυτή η ανακοίνωση; Σύμφωνα με την αμερικανική επιθεώρηση «Foreign Policy», η προσέγγιση της Ινδίας από τον Ομπάμα θα μπορούσε να του κοστίσει τον πόλεμο στο Αφγανιστάν.
Η πακιστανική κυβέρνηση κατηγορείται ότι υποθάλπει τους Αφγανούς αντάρτες, προσφέροντας φιλοξενία στο πακιστανικό έδαφος στις τρεις σημαντικότερες οργανώσεις τους, με πρώτη τους Ταλιμπάν. Οι οργανώσεις αυτές αποτελούν άσο στο μανίκι των Πακιστανών στις διαπραγματεύσεις τους, με τις ΗΠΑ να εξασφαλίσουν μεγαλύτερη συνεργασία στους τομείς της άμυνας και των πυρηνικών. Η πακιστανική ηγεσία είχε κατηγορηθεί από την αφγανική ηγεσία ότι θα ήταν προς το συμφέρον της να αποκτήσουν ξανά οι αντάρτες την εξουσία. Αντίθετα, ο πιο πιστός σύμμαχος της αφγανικής κυβέρνησης δεν είναι οι ΗΠΑ, αλλά η Ινδία, η οποία έχει προσφέρει οικονομική βοήθεια ύψους 1,2 δισεκατομμυρίων δολαρίων στο Αφγανιστάν από το 2001 μέχρι σήμερα, αποτελεί τον έκτο μεγαλύτερο δωρητή της χώρας και διαθέτει, πέρα από την πρεσβεία στην Καμπούλ, τέσσερα προξενεία. Επομένως, το Αφγανιστάν μετατρέπεται σε πεδίο σύγκρουσης συμφερόντων μεταξύ Πακιστάν και Ινδίας.
Η αμερικανική ηγεσία καλείται να ισορροπήσει σε ένα τεντωμένο σχοινί, ικανοποιώντας τόσο το Πακιστάν όσο και την Ινδία, για να εκπληρώσει το στόχο της στην περιοχή. Η λύση, σύμφωνα με Αμερικανούς αναλυτές, είναι να προσφέρει μεν περισσότερη βοήθεια προς την πακιστανική κυβέρνηση, όπως, για παράδειγμα, να συνάψει συμφωνία για πυρηνική συνεργασία, όπως έπραξε με την Ινδία, υπό τον όρο, όμως, ότι το Ισλαμαμπάντ θα συνεργαστεί με τα αμερικανικά στρατεύματα στην αντιμετώπιση των Αφγανών ανταρτών που καταφεύγουν στο Πακιστάν και στις ακραίες ισλαμικές οργανώσεις που δραστηριοποιούνται στη χώρα και κατηγορούνται ότι έχουν εξαπολύσει επιθέσεις στην Ινδία. Παράλληλα, οι ΗΠΑ θα πρέπει να ευνοήσουν τις ινδικές επενδύσεις στο Αφγανιστάν.
http://www.agelioforos.gr/default.asp?pid=7&ct=9&artid=67243
Οι συμφωνίες που υπογράφτηκαν για το εμπόριο στη συνάντηση του Ομπάμα με τον Ινδό πρωθυπουργό, Μανμοχάν Σινγκ (φωτογραφία), συμβάλλουν μεν στην αύξηση των εξαγωγών αμερικανικών προϊόντων στην Ινδία, αλλά δεν ήταν τόσο σημαντικές όσο εκείνες που είχαν συναφθεί επί του πρώην προέδρου των ΗΠΑ, Τζορτζ Μπους, με σημαντικότερες εκείνες της συνεργασίας στον πυρηνικό τομέα και στην άμυνα, σε σημείο που η Ινδία είναι σήμερα η πρώτη χώρα στον κόσμο στη διεξαγωγή κοινών πολεμικών ασκήσεων με τις ΗΠΑ. Σε αντάλλαγμα για τις συμφωνίες, ο Ομπάμα φρόντισε να προωθήσει τη φιλοδοξία της Ινδίας να γίνει μόνιμο κράτος-μέλος του Συμβουλίου Ασφαλείας (ΣΑ) του ΟΗΕ.
Η Κίνα με τη σιωπή της για τις τελευταίες αμερικανοϊνδικές συμφωνίες και με την κατανόηση που δείχνει για το ρόλο που θέλει να παίξει η Ινδία στο ΣΑ φαίνεται να υιοθετεί μια προσεκτική στάση απέναντί της, αποφεύγοντας να προκαλέσει τριβές. Αλλωστε, τα κινεζικά προϊόντα παραμένουν πιο ανταγωνιστικά από εκείνα της Ινδίας και οι Αμερικανοί επιχειρηματίες εξακολουθούν να επενδύουν κυρίως στην Κίνα και όχι στην Ινδία.
Ο «άσος» των Πακιστανών
Αντίθετα, η ηγεσία των ΗΠΑ φαίνεται ότι έχει επιδεινώσει τις σχέσεις της με την ηγεσία του Πακιστάν, το οποίο έχει ιστορική έχθρα με την Ινδία, με την οποία παραλίγο να έρθει σε πόλεμο τουλάχιστον τρεις φορές για τον έλεγχο του Κασμίρ. Η πακιστανική ηγεσία ανακοίνωσε ότι είναι βαθιά απογοητευμένη από τη στήριξη του Ομπάμα στην προοπτική να αποκτήσει η Ινδία μόνιμη θέση στο ΣΑ. Τι θα μπορούσε να σημαίνει αυτή η ανακοίνωση; Σύμφωνα με την αμερικανική επιθεώρηση «Foreign Policy», η προσέγγιση της Ινδίας από τον Ομπάμα θα μπορούσε να του κοστίσει τον πόλεμο στο Αφγανιστάν.
Η πακιστανική κυβέρνηση κατηγορείται ότι υποθάλπει τους Αφγανούς αντάρτες, προσφέροντας φιλοξενία στο πακιστανικό έδαφος στις τρεις σημαντικότερες οργανώσεις τους, με πρώτη τους Ταλιμπάν. Οι οργανώσεις αυτές αποτελούν άσο στο μανίκι των Πακιστανών στις διαπραγματεύσεις τους, με τις ΗΠΑ να εξασφαλίσουν μεγαλύτερη συνεργασία στους τομείς της άμυνας και των πυρηνικών. Η πακιστανική ηγεσία είχε κατηγορηθεί από την αφγανική ηγεσία ότι θα ήταν προς το συμφέρον της να αποκτήσουν ξανά οι αντάρτες την εξουσία. Αντίθετα, ο πιο πιστός σύμμαχος της αφγανικής κυβέρνησης δεν είναι οι ΗΠΑ, αλλά η Ινδία, η οποία έχει προσφέρει οικονομική βοήθεια ύψους 1,2 δισεκατομμυρίων δολαρίων στο Αφγανιστάν από το 2001 μέχρι σήμερα, αποτελεί τον έκτο μεγαλύτερο δωρητή της χώρας και διαθέτει, πέρα από την πρεσβεία στην Καμπούλ, τέσσερα προξενεία. Επομένως, το Αφγανιστάν μετατρέπεται σε πεδίο σύγκρουσης συμφερόντων μεταξύ Πακιστάν και Ινδίας.
Η αμερικανική ηγεσία καλείται να ισορροπήσει σε ένα τεντωμένο σχοινί, ικανοποιώντας τόσο το Πακιστάν όσο και την Ινδία, για να εκπληρώσει το στόχο της στην περιοχή. Η λύση, σύμφωνα με Αμερικανούς αναλυτές, είναι να προσφέρει μεν περισσότερη βοήθεια προς την πακιστανική κυβέρνηση, όπως, για παράδειγμα, να συνάψει συμφωνία για πυρηνική συνεργασία, όπως έπραξε με την Ινδία, υπό τον όρο, όμως, ότι το Ισλαμαμπάντ θα συνεργαστεί με τα αμερικανικά στρατεύματα στην αντιμετώπιση των Αφγανών ανταρτών που καταφεύγουν στο Πακιστάν και στις ακραίες ισλαμικές οργανώσεις που δραστηριοποιούνται στη χώρα και κατηγορούνται ότι έχουν εξαπολύσει επιθέσεις στην Ινδία. Παράλληλα, οι ΗΠΑ θα πρέπει να ευνοήσουν τις ινδικές επενδύσεις στο Αφγανιστάν.
http://www.agelioforos.gr/default.asp?pid=7&ct=9&artid=67243
Κυριακή 14 Νοεμβρίου 2010
America conducts subversive activities in friendly territories
The United States found itself embroiled in a major spy scandal. As many as five countries caught the Americans illegally spying on their citizens.
Nobody would think it was strange if we were talking about the citizens of Russia, China, Iran, Syria and Venezuela. With these five countries, everything is clear: U.S. officials constantly refer to them as those presenting threats to the national security. But this time the U.S. was caught by quite friendly countries of Northern Europe - Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Finland and Sweden.
The scandal erupted earlier this month. On November 3, Norwegian television channel TV2 released a report which stated that over ten years, a group of Americans have been doing surveillance on 15 to 20 Norwegian subjects - mostly participants of various kinds of rallies. Potential terrorists and other undesirable persons were photographed, and the information was sent to Washington.
The report stated that the purpose of the surveillance was supposedly to prevent terrorist attacks against U.S. embassies. Nordic Governments were not informed of such actions.
The spokesman of the U.S. State Department, Philip Crowley, on November 11 said that the Norwegian authorities have been notified about a covert operation. "We are implementing the program throughout the world and are vigilant against people who can keep track of our embassies, as we understand that our diplomatic missions are a potential target," he explained.
0
SharePrint version Font Size Send to friend However, the Scandinavians were not satisfied with this comment. A representative of the American embassy was called to the Norwegian Foreign Ministry for an explanation, but no clear answers were provided. It turns out that the surveillance was conducted without the knowledge of the Norwegian authorities.
If it was limited to Norway, this episode could have been considered an isolated case. Yet, after the Norwegians, Denmark spoke about the surveillance of its citizens. Local newspaper Politiken wrote that all American embassies have groups of employees leading external surveillance of suspicious persons in order to address threats to the U.S. security. It has been suggested that Denmark was hardly an exception.
Former head of the Danish security service PET Jorgen Bonniksen said that he had never heard of such groups: "If this is true, then we have to deal with illegal intelligence operations in Denmark. On Danish territory such operations can be conducted by PET, and PET only," he stressed.
The current head of PET, Jakob Scharf, made it clear: if illegal activity is determined, "of course, we will take action." Justice Minister of Denmark Lars Barfoeda has been summoned for an explanation to the Folketing (parliament). The U.S. Embassy in Copenhagen, as well as in Oslo, provided no clear comments.
Followed by Norwegians and Danes, Swedes brought up the illegal activities of American agents. According to the Minister of Justice of Sweden Beatrice Ask, people connected with the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm have been spying on people on the Swedish territory since 2000. The Minister stated that it "is not yet known whether in this case Swedish law was violated." She did not rule out that the objects of the surveillance actually might have been people who pose a threat to the U.S. security.
On his part, head of the local security police Anders Danielsson directly accused the U.S. of violating international norms. He said that the U.S. did not bother to inform the Swedish authorities of their intentions. "The Swedish security police (SÄPO) did not give the U.S. a permission to engage in activities that are contrary to Swedish law," he said.
Representatives of the U.S. embassy were quick to say that "they have nothing to hide" and that they have notified the Swedish authorities about their actions. However, Sweden is the third country which had been "made aware." Could the Scandinavian countries have entered into a conspiracy to defame the United States?
When we talk about three countries at once, it looks like a trend. Following its neighbors, Finland grew concerned as well. Local security police SUPO originally said it had not found anything illegal in the activities of the U.S. Embassy in Helsinki. However, they immediately proceeded to a more detailed verification. Apparently, the Finns also did not believe the assurances of the Americans.
Only the small Iceland with the population of 320 thousand with no army is lacking to complete the picture. On November 11 it was revealed that the islanders also have questions for the U.S. Local authorities immediately declared that they suspected members of the American Embassy in Reykjavik in espionage. The diplomatic mission is being verified.
This is a stunning picture. The U.S. did not even consider it necessary to inform its allies of its actions on their territory, as if they were colonies. In fact, Denmark, Iceland and Norway joined NATO and, consequently, they entered the circle of the closest allies of the U.S. Finland and Sweden are not members of the North Atlantic alliance, but are working with it very closely. That's how Americans value their allies.
However, Washington seems to have confused Scandinavians with Poland, Lithuania and Romania. These countries have repeatedly been suspected of placing secret CIA prisons on their territories. The authorities of these states have been blindly following in the footsteps of American politics in the past two decades. This is not true about rich countries of Northern Europe. Given the national pride of the Scandinavians, they are unlikely to forgive the Americans the dismissive attitude.
Denmark is the only country that followed the U.S. without asking questions. Sweden and Finland harshly condemned the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Norway was among the first to withdraw its troops from Iraq, as well as (unlike Americans) has signed an agreement with Russia on the delimitation of the Arctic shelf. Even little Iceland allowed itself to contradict the States when it refused to extradite the late chess player Robert Fisher, who was facing a jail term at home.
The explanation of the incident with the need to combat terrorism, of course, can be taken into account. Radical Islamists are making themselves visible in Denmark and Sweden, as well as Norway and Finland. Yet, the United States could have informed the local security forces of their suspicions as these countries also have qualified staff. And as for surveillance of Icelanders - it is simply ridiculous. They have fewer than a hundred of Muslims, let alone Islamists.
The author of numerous books on the work of intelligence Alexander Kolpakidi commented on the behavior of the U.S. agents in the Nordic countries for Pravda.ru.
"There is nothing surprising here. U.S. intelligence services have always behaved that way around the globe. Virtually all countries of the world, including the members of European Union and NATO, have secret CIA tracking stations. This is not the first scandal of this kind. For example, several years ago, the Greek police found one of these stations having mistaken it for a terrorist base. When the attack began, "terrorists" opened a furious fire, killing a police officer.
Why is America conducting subversive activities in foreign territories, including, apparently friendly countries? This is because in an era of the global crisis, the U.S. changed its strategy. If before it had adhered to the concept of the "golden billion" according to which the good life was allowed to a limited group of countries, mainly Western countries, but now it has changed the strategy to the "golden million," which implies that the good life is the exclusive privilege of the U.S. ".
Sergei Balmasov
Vadim Trukhachev
Pravda.Ru
Nobody would think it was strange if we were talking about the citizens of Russia, China, Iran, Syria and Venezuela. With these five countries, everything is clear: U.S. officials constantly refer to them as those presenting threats to the national security. But this time the U.S. was caught by quite friendly countries of Northern Europe - Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Finland and Sweden.
The scandal erupted earlier this month. On November 3, Norwegian television channel TV2 released a report which stated that over ten years, a group of Americans have been doing surveillance on 15 to 20 Norwegian subjects - mostly participants of various kinds of rallies. Potential terrorists and other undesirable persons were photographed, and the information was sent to Washington.
The report stated that the purpose of the surveillance was supposedly to prevent terrorist attacks against U.S. embassies. Nordic Governments were not informed of such actions.
The spokesman of the U.S. State Department, Philip Crowley, on November 11 said that the Norwegian authorities have been notified about a covert operation. "We are implementing the program throughout the world and are vigilant against people who can keep track of our embassies, as we understand that our diplomatic missions are a potential target," he explained.
0
SharePrint version Font Size Send to friend However, the Scandinavians were not satisfied with this comment. A representative of the American embassy was called to the Norwegian Foreign Ministry for an explanation, but no clear answers were provided. It turns out that the surveillance was conducted without the knowledge of the Norwegian authorities.
If it was limited to Norway, this episode could have been considered an isolated case. Yet, after the Norwegians, Denmark spoke about the surveillance of its citizens. Local newspaper Politiken wrote that all American embassies have groups of employees leading external surveillance of suspicious persons in order to address threats to the U.S. security. It has been suggested that Denmark was hardly an exception.
Former head of the Danish security service PET Jorgen Bonniksen said that he had never heard of such groups: "If this is true, then we have to deal with illegal intelligence operations in Denmark. On Danish territory such operations can be conducted by PET, and PET only," he stressed.
The current head of PET, Jakob Scharf, made it clear: if illegal activity is determined, "of course, we will take action." Justice Minister of Denmark Lars Barfoeda has been summoned for an explanation to the Folketing (parliament). The U.S. Embassy in Copenhagen, as well as in Oslo, provided no clear comments.
Followed by Norwegians and Danes, Swedes brought up the illegal activities of American agents. According to the Minister of Justice of Sweden Beatrice Ask, people connected with the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm have been spying on people on the Swedish territory since 2000. The Minister stated that it "is not yet known whether in this case Swedish law was violated." She did not rule out that the objects of the surveillance actually might have been people who pose a threat to the U.S. security.
On his part, head of the local security police Anders Danielsson directly accused the U.S. of violating international norms. He said that the U.S. did not bother to inform the Swedish authorities of their intentions. "The Swedish security police (SÄPO) did not give the U.S. a permission to engage in activities that are contrary to Swedish law," he said.
Representatives of the U.S. embassy were quick to say that "they have nothing to hide" and that they have notified the Swedish authorities about their actions. However, Sweden is the third country which had been "made aware." Could the Scandinavian countries have entered into a conspiracy to defame the United States?
When we talk about three countries at once, it looks like a trend. Following its neighbors, Finland grew concerned as well. Local security police SUPO originally said it had not found anything illegal in the activities of the U.S. Embassy in Helsinki. However, they immediately proceeded to a more detailed verification. Apparently, the Finns also did not believe the assurances of the Americans.
Only the small Iceland with the population of 320 thousand with no army is lacking to complete the picture. On November 11 it was revealed that the islanders also have questions for the U.S. Local authorities immediately declared that they suspected members of the American Embassy in Reykjavik in espionage. The diplomatic mission is being verified.
This is a stunning picture. The U.S. did not even consider it necessary to inform its allies of its actions on their territory, as if they were colonies. In fact, Denmark, Iceland and Norway joined NATO and, consequently, they entered the circle of the closest allies of the U.S. Finland and Sweden are not members of the North Atlantic alliance, but are working with it very closely. That's how Americans value their allies.
However, Washington seems to have confused Scandinavians with Poland, Lithuania and Romania. These countries have repeatedly been suspected of placing secret CIA prisons on their territories. The authorities of these states have been blindly following in the footsteps of American politics in the past two decades. This is not true about rich countries of Northern Europe. Given the national pride of the Scandinavians, they are unlikely to forgive the Americans the dismissive attitude.
Denmark is the only country that followed the U.S. without asking questions. Sweden and Finland harshly condemned the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Norway was among the first to withdraw its troops from Iraq, as well as (unlike Americans) has signed an agreement with Russia on the delimitation of the Arctic shelf. Even little Iceland allowed itself to contradict the States when it refused to extradite the late chess player Robert Fisher, who was facing a jail term at home.
The explanation of the incident with the need to combat terrorism, of course, can be taken into account. Radical Islamists are making themselves visible in Denmark and Sweden, as well as Norway and Finland. Yet, the United States could have informed the local security forces of their suspicions as these countries also have qualified staff. And as for surveillance of Icelanders - it is simply ridiculous. They have fewer than a hundred of Muslims, let alone Islamists.
The author of numerous books on the work of intelligence Alexander Kolpakidi commented on the behavior of the U.S. agents in the Nordic countries for Pravda.ru.
"There is nothing surprising here. U.S. intelligence services have always behaved that way around the globe. Virtually all countries of the world, including the members of European Union and NATO, have secret CIA tracking stations. This is not the first scandal of this kind. For example, several years ago, the Greek police found one of these stations having mistaken it for a terrorist base. When the attack began, "terrorists" opened a furious fire, killing a police officer.
Why is America conducting subversive activities in foreign territories, including, apparently friendly countries? This is because in an era of the global crisis, the U.S. changed its strategy. If before it had adhered to the concept of the "golden billion" according to which the good life was allowed to a limited group of countries, mainly Western countries, but now it has changed the strategy to the "golden million," which implies that the good life is the exclusive privilege of the U.S. ".
Sergei Balmasov
Vadim Trukhachev
Pravda.Ru
Italy seeks bigger role in Turkish defense market
Italy, which already is selling attack helicopters and a military satellite to Turkey, wants to further boost its role in the Turkish defense market. European aircraft maker Eurofighter Consortium wants to sell 40 Eurofighter Typhoon 2020 jets to the Turkish Air Force, according to officials
ΠΡΟΕΙΔΟΠΟΙΗΣΗ ;
Απίστευτα λόγια από τον Τζιντορούκ ο οποίος υποστήριξε πως οι Τουρκικές Ένοπλες Δυνάμεις (TSK) μη μετέχοντας στην δεξίωση έδωσαν ένα σιωπηλό τελεσίγραφο ! Ο Τζιντορούκ είπε πως ο στρατός ετοιμάζει πραξικόπημα και απείλησε.
Ο πρόεδρος του Δημοκρατικού κόμματος Χουσαμετίν Τζιντορούκ δήλωσε : ¨Η συμπεριφορά των αξιωματικών σε σχέση με την αλλαγή στο έγγραφο της Πολιτικής Εθνικής Ασφάλειας και με την μη συμμετοχή των Τουρκικών Ενόπλων Δυνάμεων στην δεξίωση για την Δημοκρατία, αποτελεί μια σιωπηλή αντίσταση. Ο στρατός απέστειλε ένα σιωπηλό τελεσίγραφο. Η οπισθοδρόμηση για την οποία κάνει λόγο το Κόκκινο Βιβλίο, έγινε εξουσία στην Τουρκία.
Πρέπει να το κατανοήσουμε αυτό. Δεν νομίζω πως ο Τουρκικός στρατός θα αρκεστεί σε κάτι τέτοιο για αυτήν την ιστορία.
…………………………………..
Η Τουρκία αντιμετωπίζει κίνδυνο αλλαγής καθεστώτος¨.
Ο πρόεδρος του Δημοκρατικού κόμματος Χουσαμετίν Τζιντορούκ δήλωσε : ¨Η συμπεριφορά των αξιωματικών σε σχέση με την αλλαγή στο έγγραφο της Πολιτικής Εθνικής Ασφάλειας και με την μη συμμετοχή των Τουρκικών Ενόπλων Δυνάμεων στην δεξίωση για την Δημοκρατία, αποτελεί μια σιωπηλή αντίσταση. Ο στρατός απέστειλε ένα σιωπηλό τελεσίγραφο. Η οπισθοδρόμηση για την οποία κάνει λόγο το Κόκκινο Βιβλίο, έγινε εξουσία στην Τουρκία.
Πρέπει να το κατανοήσουμε αυτό. Δεν νομίζω πως ο Τουρκικός στρατός θα αρκεστεί σε κάτι τέτοιο για αυτήν την ιστορία.
…………………………………..
Η Τουρκία αντιμετωπίζει κίνδυνο αλλαγής καθεστώτος¨.
Εγγραφή σε:
Αναρτήσεις (Atom)