BPM- Euro-Americas Zone: Americas Micro Analysis

Showing posts with label Americas Micro Analysis. Show all posts

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Zone 3- Micro Analysis:Cyber Warfare- Tomorrow’s Battles?-

Week #104 – Dated 23rd to 29th January 2010

China’s Google Controversy

In a recent hard hitting speech the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized China's

policies on Internet administration and insinuated that China restricts Internet freedom. The remarks follow the unfolding Google controversy where in a most recent development Google has announced to end censorship and possibly pull out of China.

The issue revolves around a series of events the latest of which involves alleged ‘highly sophisticated and targeted attack’ on Google corporate infrastructure ‘originating from China’. Further investigation apparently revealed that "a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists,”. Where the Chinese government has not directly been accused in these allegations, the implied responsibility is quite obvious. The shifting policies herald a major change for Google, which had originally abided by Chinese laws requiring some politically and socially sensitive issues to be blocked from search results in the country.

The Chinese Government has issued a stinging response to criticism that it is jamming the ‘free flow of words and ideas’ on the internet, accusing the US of damaging relations between the two countries by foisting its ''information imperialism'' on China.

Cyber warfare has increasingly attracted attention at the diplomatic front in the twenty first century. Issues of regulation of the World Wide Web as well as offensive attacks on sensitive government information have been in the spotlight as has been highlighted in this most recent incident.

China, a stringent enforcer of censorship and regulation argues that all nations including the United States, that has in its opinion hypocritically projected a higher moral argument in the matter, takes necessary measures to administer the Internet according to its own laws and regulations. It cites events in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks when the U.S. Congress approved the Patriot Act to grant its security agencies the right to search telephone and e-mail communications in the name of anti-terrorism.

Russia too has been highlighted as another active entity in international cyber warfare. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates noted in a Foreign Affair’s article last year that Russia employed a relatively crude but brutally effective conventional offensive in Georgia which was augmented with a sophisticated cyber attack and a well-coordinated propaganda campaign.

The recent threat assessment reports of the US intelligence also highlight the evolving arenas of warfare and the US efforts to counter attacks. Reportedly the U.S. offensive cyber war capabilities have been focused on getting into Chinese government and military computers outfitted with less secure operating systems like those made by Microsoft Corp.

In the meanwhile China has developed more secure operating systems meant for government and military systems, hoping to make Beijing's networks impenetrable to U.S. military and

intelligence agencies. Officials described it as a growing war in cyberspace which they allege is often guised as civilian hackers on government payrolls.

Internet's domain name systems too are a vital resource of the digital age. Because of an historical accident, a California-based nonprofit organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), oversees the administration of generic suffixes (such as .com or .info). Many countries believe such important functions should not be in the hands of a private-sector body. Many nations are wary that the U.S. government, which created the Internet, is ICANN's ultimate supervisor. They believe that the Internet, as a global resource, should be managed by the international community rather than by a single country, no matter how well intentioned. Hence the debate seeking a modified global regulatory system continues.

At present according to Mr. Coleman, a computer security specialist consultant to the office of the director of national intelligence and U.S. Strategic Command- China, the United States and Russia are matched equally in this new type of warfare. According to another analyst Mark Hosenball the U.S. government isn't that worried about all-out cyber warfare from China or Russia at all. He opines that it would not be in these nations’ economic interests. The primary concern at present is the threat of a nongovernmental actor such as Al Qaeda developing the required expertise. Such an evolved battle would be one in which, Gates notes, "The United States cannot kill or capture its way to victory".

In June last year, Defense Secretary Gates issued an order to establish a new military cyber command dedicated to coordinating the Pentagon's efforts to defend its networks and conduct cyber warfare. The command was expected to be fully operational by October this year. In this stead the Secretary of Defence decisively notes that the Pentagon has to do more than modernize its conventional forces, “it must also focus on today's unconventional conflicts -- and tomorrow's.”

Discussion Question:

Is the potential threat for global cyber warfare involving rogue non governmental actors well founded?

________________________________________________________
Business and Politics in the Muslim World (BPM)refers to the project entitled, "Globalized Business and Politics: A View from the Muslim World.' The blog development project has been undertaken and jointly developed by the Gilani Research Foundation and BPM as a free resource and social discussion tool.
Please Preview your comments before posting.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Zone 3- Micro Analysis: ‘Hugo Chavez- Venezuela’s Controversial Leader’

Week #100 – Dated Dec. 27th-Jan. 2nd 2009-10’

During the 1980s and 1990s, Venezuela was deteriorating at a rapid pace where its GDP plummeted around 40 percent. In a state of widespread unrest, Chávez then a lieutenant colonel led a military coup in February 1992 against the government.

Although the coup failed and Chávez spent the next two years in prison, his bold defiance catapulted him onto the national political stage and launched his career. Over the years he has survived an attempted coup, a roll back election, a second term in office and after having initially lost a referendum to introduce constitutional change expanding his influence, Chavez later won another vote in 2009 that eliminated term limits barricading his entry in the next elections.
On entering politics Chávez's combative style and straight-talking populist charisma served well in a country marked by pervasive discontent. His fierce indictment of the old political order and his promise of a "revolution" held wide appeal among poor Venezuelans. Unlike the "out of touch" politicians, Chávez projected a sincere concern for those living in poverty which meant around three-quarters of the population.
Chávez's political project, as one analyst notes, has been an eclectic blend of populism, nationalism, militarism, and, socialism, combined with a "Bolivarian" emphasis on South American unity. Chávez’s proponents project him as a popular leader in a system of "Participatory democracy," focused on empowering and mobilizing Venezuelans. Harris Whitbeck a CNN correspondent notes that to his most ardent backers in Venezuela and among the international left, Chávez is a hero driven by humanitarian impulses to redress social injustice and inequality

-- problems long neglected by a traditional political class intent on protecting its own position while denying the masses their rightful share of wealth and meaningful political participation. He is bravely fighting for Latin American solidarity and standing up to the overbearing United States. With charisma and oil dollars, he is seizing an opportunity to correct the power and wealth imbalances that have long defined Venezuelan and hemispheric affairs.
Critics however view Chavez as having despotic tendencies, a most recent exemplar of charismatic, populist leadership that emerged from the severe crises of the past two decades in Latin America. Although opinions differ on whether Chávez's rule should be characterized as authoritarian or democratic, a vast majority agrees that in contrast to his predecessors, Chávez has made the welfare of the Venezuelan poor his top priority. The Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz has noted, "Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez seems to have succeeded in bringing education and health services to the barrios of Caracas, which previously had seen little of the benefits of that country's rich endowment of oil". The renowned political scientist Noam Chomsky has also voiced his interest in Chávez’s policies commenting that many are quite constructive. He also says that the Venezuelan president seems to have the overwhelming support of the people in his country. “He has gone through six closely supervised elections,” a significant observation. Even The Economist has written that "Chávez's brand of revolution has delivered some social gains."
In Venezuela the poor receive free health care and education. Some analysts observe that the opposition's lack of success stems from its past unwillingness even to recognize, let alone devise solutions to, the deep social problems that Chávez has identified. Chávez's government, meanwhile, has undertaken important social programs and launched workers' cooperatives in urban slums. Venezuela's oil wealth too has made massive expenditures possible providing food, education, and medical care to underserved populations, which have undeniably had some effect. Even the Colombian magazine Semana, generally critical of Chávez, named the Venezuelan president "man of the year" for having "modified the political map

of the subcontinent, distributed his oil wealth in every direction, challenged the United States, and gone from being perceived as a tropical clown to the Latin American leader with the greatest political influence."
Arguing the other side Whitbeck notes that to his opponents -- the embattled domestic opposition and many in Washington -- Chávez is a power-hungry dictator who disregards the rule of law and the democratic process. He is on a catastrophic course of extending state control over the economy, militarizing politics, eliminating dissent, cozying up to rogue regimes, and carrying out wrong-headed social programs that will set Venezuela back. He is an authoritarian whose vision and policies have no redeeming qualities and a formidable menace to his own people, his Latin American neighbors, and U.S. interests.
Many argue that the "Chávez is good for the poor" hypothesis is inconsistent with the facts. Francisco Rodríguez notes that Chávez's political success does not stem from the achievements of his social programs or from his effectiveness at redistributing wealth. Rather, through a combination of luck and manipulation of the political system, Chávez has faced elections at times of strong economic growth, and driven by an oil boom bigger than any since the 1970s. Coined as Cháveznomics, the economists Rudiger Dornbusch and Sebastian Edwards have characterized such policies as "the macroeconomics of populism." Populist macroeconomics is invariably characterized by the use of expansionary fiscal and economic policies and an overvalued currency with the intention of accelerating growth and redistribution.
Regardless of whether the conditions of Venezuela's poor have marginally improved or marginally worsened under Chávez, his "Bolivarian Revolution", critics argue, is hardly a sustainable model for Venezuela's or the region's predicament. Its approach is fundamentally clientelistic, perpetuating dependence on state patronage rather than promoting broad-based development. Random land-reform measures and occasional confiscations of private property have had less of an economic than a political and symbolic rationale. Further more Venezuela’s oil dependence is cited by the critics as a trend in striking continuity with previous governments, yet another example of Venezuela's "oil curse" undermining sustainable policy.
In the international front Chavez’s Firebrand comments have colored his persona in the world arena. He is a staunch Cuban ally and has been a vocal supporter of Iran and Palestine against Israel. In September 2006, Chavez’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly, in which he referred to then US President George W Bush as "the devil", was met with applause. In November 2007 Chavez fell out with Spain after a run-in with King Juan Carlos during the final session of Ibero-American summit in Santiago. Last year however, Chavez congratulated Barack Obama on his election victory and has indicated he is ready to "start a process of

rapprochement" with the US.
Chavez's opponents say he has undercut Venezuela's democracy by systematically concentrating power in his own hands. Some of the measures in support of this argument, which Chavez insists are meant only to uphold the laws, include:
- Refusal to renew licenses of dozens of critical radio stations and a television channel. A controversial law punishing journalists for writing ‘harmful’ material has also been introduced.
- Slashed budgets after opposition candidates captured five governorships and Venezuela's two biggest cities in elections.
- Nearly 400 politicians put under investigation for corruption, hence barred from running for office.
Public opinion despite having declined still depicts substantially high support for the controversial Latin American Leader. According to a recent Gallup survey President Hugo Chavez's popularity among Venezuelans has waned in recent years. Less than half of Venezuelans (47%) in August 2009 said they approved of Chavez' job performance however the number is still substantially higher then the 35% who voiced disapproval. Nevertheless the polarity of views both domestically and internationally regarding Hugo Chavez continues to fuel the debate.

Discussion Question:

In your opinion whose case holds’s greater weight, Chavez’s proponents or his critics?

16. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/57418/kurt-weyland/will-chavez-lose-his-luster
17. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63220/francisco-rodr%C3%83%C2%ADguez/an-empty-revolution

_______________________________________________________
Business and Politics in the Muslim World (BPM)refers to the project entitled, "Globalized Business and Politics: A View from the Muslim World.' The blog development project has been undertaken and jointly developed by the Gilani Research Foundation and BPM as a free resource and social discussion tool.
Please Preview your comments before posting.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Zone 3- Micro Analysis: ‘The Copenhagen Climate Summit- a Success or a Debacle?’

Week # 99 – Dated 20th-26th Dec. 09’

United Nations Climate Change Conference Dec 7th- 18th 2009

On the 19th of Dec. 2009, delegates from 192 countries passed a motion at the United Nations Copenhagen Climate Conference bringing the Summit back from the brink of collapse. The motion simply notes a loose deal

aimed at limiting temperature rises to less than 2C, with out any specific binding emissions targets. Delegates agreed to ‘recognize’ the US-brokered deal, which was arranged between five key nations including China, India and Brazil but failed to secure unanimous support. The Copenhagen summit could not conclude negotiations under the Bali Action Plan (BAP) and the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty that is currently in operation to deal with climate change issues. It is now proposed to be completed by the end of 2010.

Initially a row between China and the US, the world’s two largest emitters, effectively paralyzed the summit. The fundamental dispute between the two was over the monitoring of states’ progress on curbing their emissions. While the US pressed for strong independent verification and monitoring of each country’s progress China opposed the notion as infringement of its national sovereignty.

After eight draft texts Barack Obama and Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, were the principle participants to broker the political agreement. The proposed deal quotes ‘recognition’ of the scientific case for limiting emissions to 2C annually, a less ambitious target than the previous 1.5C limit, which was a disappointment for African and other vulnerable countries including low-lying and island nations, fearful of being engulfed by rising sea levels.

Meanwhile the earlier 2050 goal of reducing global CO2 emissions by 80% was also dropped. Scientists say even a 2C limit will require cutting greenhouse gases by at least 50 % by 2050. However a legally-binding target for developed countries was removed in favor of allowing rich countries to set their own targets, with which they will come forward by February. Developing countries have, for the first time, been asked to "take action" to cut emissions.

The US-BASIC deal was brokered following meetings between the US President Barack Obama, the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Brazilian President Lula Da Silva and South African President Jacob Zuma, aiming to provide $30bn a year for poor countries to adapt to climate change from next year to 2012, and $100bn a year by 2020.The agreement also set up a forestry deal

aiming to significantly reduce deforestation in return for cash

.

The pact lacking unanimity was primarily opposed by Cuba, Sudan, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela, Tuvalu and Costa Rica. However Japan, Norway, African nations with the European Union nations came out in support of the proposal. Earlier this week however the European Union sought to shift much of the blame for the outcome of the summit on the US and China, the world's two largest emitters of carbon dioxide. Sweden, the current EU presidency holder, described the Copenhagen agreement as a disaster for the environment, while German Chancellor Angela Merkel was slightly more optimistic, commenting that the accord was something that "now needed to be built upon". UN Secretary Genral Ban Ki-moon also noted that the pact was an important beginning with ‘an immediate operational effect’.

In the aftermath of the conference developed and developing nations have traded blows over who was to blame for the weak deal. On a pessimistic world front one analyst notes that Britain accused China of hijacking the proceedings, while Brazil attacked the perceived lack of commitment shown by Washington. In turn, India harangued Australia for being an "ayatollah of the single track," and small island nations like Tuvalu accused rich nations of blatant disregard for their plight.

Critics warn the ‘Copenhagen Accord’ is full of holes and lacks a timetable. Meanwhile environment agencies have branded the deal ‘toothless and a failure’. The pact has no reference to a legally binding agreement which also lacks any detailed framework on controversial carbon markets. Emerging nations are now to monitor their own efforts on climate change and report to the UN

every two years.

The Proponents of the deal argue that it would at least get the money flowing with the $10bn (£6bn) a year "fast start" funding for the poorest and most vulnerable countries to protect themselves from the impact of drought and floods caused by global warming over the

next three years. By 2020 the world is to "mobilize" $100bn a year through a "Copenhagen Green Climate Fund", which will also help poorer countries halt deforestation and switch to greener technology. The accord has also kept the Kyoto Protocol sacrosanct as future negotiations will be based on its basic principles. It binds the developed countries to take deeper cuts in carbon emissions and provide financial and technical support to the developing countries to enable them to reduce their carbon emissions.

A

meeting of all UN members' climate change negotiators is planned to be held in Bonn in June, and their annual conference is due in Mexico in December. The TIME Magazine notes that, “if Copenhagen was tough, Mexico City (COP16 in December 2010) will be a lot more so, because there, countries will be tasked with filling in details sketched in the Copenhagen Accord” – but, as the toughness of the negotiations only demonstrate that climate policy has moved beyond hot air into economic reality – “It’s going to get harder, and that’s a good thing”.

Discussion Questions:

o Do you think the Copenhagen summit fell short of its potential?

o In your opinion does the global public opinion hold strength to push for more credible commitments in the coming year?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2009/dec/07/copenhagen-climate-change-summit-carbon-emissions-data-country-world

Monday, January 4, 2010

Zone 3- Micro Analysis- ‘Lisbon Treaty- Streamlining the European Union’

Week # 97, Dated4th – 11th Dec. 09’

The Treaty of Lisbon (initially known as the Reform Treaty) is a treaty that was signed by the European Union (EU) member states on 13 December 2007, and entered

into force on 1 December 2009. It amends the Treaty on European Union (TEU, Maastricht; 1992) and the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC, Rome; 1957).[1]
Prominent changes included more qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers, increased involvement of the European Parliament in the legislative process through extended co decision with the Council of Ministers, the elimination of the pillar system and the creation of a long-term President of the European Council and a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to present a united position on EU policies. The Treaty also made the Union's human rights charter, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, legally binding. [2]

Under the Lisbon Treaty[3]:

Top jobs
A politician is chosen to be President of the European Council for two and a half years, replacing the current system where presidency is

rotated between member states every six months. Belgian Prime Minister, Herman van Rompuy has been chosen by the EU leaders to be the first permanent European Council President.
The post of the EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy combines the former

roles of EU Foreign Policy chief and External Affairs Commissioner. The job of foreign affairs supremo has gone to the EU Trade Commissioner, Baroness Catherine Ashton from the UK.
Charter of Fundamental Rights

The Lisbon Treaty makes the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights a legally-binding document. The Charter lists the human rights recognized by the European Union.
Citizens’ Initiative

Under the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission is obliged to consider any proposal signed by at least one million citizens from a number of member states.
National parliaments to get ‘yellow card’ facility
All proposals for EU legislation will have to be sent to national parliaments. If enough national parliaments object to a proposal, the Commission can decide to maintain, amend or withdraw it.
Smaller commission
The European Commission is the EU’s executive arm; it put forwards legislation and ensures that EU policies are correctly implemented.
The 27 commissioners of the EC will be reduced to 18 members from 2014 onwards, with membership rotating every five years, i.e. only two-thirds of member states will have their own commissioner at any one time, and each country will lose its commissioner for five years at a time.
Areas of EU competence

It establishes joint competence in the areas of space and energy. It also gives the EU the role of supporting competence in several new fields including health, education, tourism, energy and sport.
Redistribution of voting weights between member states

Within those areas to be decided by qualified majority voting, the current rules require the support of a little over 72% of member states for a law to be passed. Under the new system due to come into effect from 2014, a vote can be passed if it is backed by 55% of member states, and secondly, if these countries represent 65% of the EU’s population. It can also be passed if less than four countries oppose it. The changes mean that it will be easier to pass legislation, and more difficult to block it. Countries with smaller populations will have less chance of blocking legislation.
Shift from unanimity to majority voting

The Lisbon Treaty will see an increase in the number of policy areas to be decided by a majority vote at the Council, rather than by unanimity. There are some notable exceptions that will still require unanimous decisions, including taxation and defence.

One area where the unanimity veto will give way to qualified majority voting is Justice and Home Affairs, covering issues such as asylum, immigration, criminal law, border controls and police cooperation.
Changes to Common Security and Defence Policy

The Lisbon Treaty provides for the progressive framing of a common defence policy for the European Union, which will nonetheless respect the neutrality of member states. It also allows the European Council to change decision-making from unanimity to majority voting in a number of areas, excluding military and defence. However such changes will themselves require unanimous decisions.

Arguments for and against the Lisbon Treaty: [4]

For
· The Lisbon Treaty clarified the power of the EU and the role of the nation state.
· Changes to Qualified majority voting QMV made the voting system fairer for all members and decision-making more democratic.
· The Treaty safeguards citizens' fundamental rights.
· The EU is more likely to pass legislation, even with twenty-seven or more members.
· With the longer-term presidency, individual nation states are less able to pursue specific interests as the leadership is acting in the interests of EU, giving focus and direction.
Against
· It gives the unelected EU Commission greater say over foreign and home affairs. This challenges the principle that sovereign states should have control over these important policy areas.
·
Nations like the UK are no longer able to use a veto to block future changes in an increasing number of areas, potentially even those in which they have negotiated an opt-out.
· The treaty made the EU an international actor in its own right, separate from, and superior to, it’s Member States. It turns what was an international agreement into something more like a single state.
· Changes did not address the EU's democratic deficit - the Commission remains

answerable solely to the European Council and not directly to any EU citizens, as does the new President.
· The European Court of Justice ECJ gained jurisdiction in a range of areas, including the power to dictate the fundamental rights of all EU citizens, with precedence over long-established national institutions.

For now the pre-existing system, whereby an EU nation assumed the rotating presidency for a six-month period, is being retained. In the new year Spain is to assume the rotating presidency from Sweden. This however does not extend to the EU summits and foreign ministers' meetings, when EU Council president Van Rompuy and foreign policy High Representative Baroness Ashton will be in the chair.

Bibliography/ Related Links:
http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/index_en.htm
http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/FSTREAT/TR6.htm
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2773
http://eurolinknews.com/2008/04/25/the-lisbon-treaty-for-dummies-25408
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6901353.stm
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e9a41976-ef35-11de-86c4-00144feab49a.html
http://www.mysinchew.com/node/33278
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8367589.stm
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/c/c9/20091108160404%21Lisbon-ratification.gif
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon
[2] Ibid
[3] http://eurolinknews.com/2008/04/25/the-lisbon-treaty-for-dummies-25408
[4] http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/FSTREAT/TR6.htm

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Zone 3- Micro Analysis- Nicaragua- Another Regressing Latin American Democracy? W # 90

Week # 90, Dated 17th-24th Oct. 09’

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega's allies in the Supreme Court lifted a ban on reelection last week, raising fears that Nicaragua might return to the kind of entrenched power that Ortega took up arms to defeat in 1979. He led the 1979 Sandinista uprising that ousted the regime of US-backed dictator Anastasio Somoza, after 45 years of oppressive rule.

On 19th Oct. the nation's Supreme Court said a ban on presidents and

vice presidents’ seeking a second term was "unenforceable." Nicaragua's constitution, amended since 1995, allows only one presidential term at a time and a maximum of two non-consecutive terms. Ortega, who served as president from 1985-1990, recently returned to power in 2006 after a 16 year hiatus.

Many are terming the unfolding events as a constitutional coup. Unable to get the 56 legislative votes needed to reverse the reelection ban – and believed to be too unpopular to muster enough support for a popular referendum as leftist ally Hugo Chavez has done in Venezuela, Ortega Instead took his petition to lift a ban on consecutive terms to six pro-Sandinista judges who make up the constitutional branch of the Nicaraguan Supreme Court. They agreed with his argument that the prohibition on a second term violated his rights.

Internationally the United States has strongly condemned the development in Nicaragua. The US Sen. John Kerry (D) Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Ortega's "manipulation" of the Supreme Court "reeks of the authoritarianism of the past." He accused the Sandinista leader of "following the cues of the coup-plotters in Honduras."

According to the Nicaraguan M&R Consultores poll maker, 68.3 % of the Nicaraguans think that the presidential reelection "tends to weaken democracy and to restore a dictatorship," only 23.6 % think that the reelection "contributes to strengthening democracy," and 8.1 % said they do not know about the issue.
Also 71.3 % of the respondents think Ortega does not "deserve" to continue another presidential term, while 24.6 % think the contrary, and 4.1 % said they do not know.

Lately there hav

e been guerrilla-style protests from a growing underground movement against the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. It’s a new trend of civil disobedience that has largely been driven underground by what Human Rights activists’ term as Sandinista repression on the streets. Even non-violent human rights leaders such as Gonzalo Carrión, of the Nicaraguan Center for Human Rights, are defending the peoples' "legitimate right to use all resources available to defend their liberty and country."

"We are now living under a strong and very original dictatorship," said constitutional analyst and retired Judge Sergio Garcia Quintero. "And we are quickly approaching a tyranny, where Ortega is no longer interested in even projecting the image of a democracy with a separation of powers."

One analyst notes that The Bolivarian block comprising Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela has made reelection its leaders’ priority. They range from “some like Hugo Chávez, who call popular referendums—and repeat them until the desired result is achieved—to Daniel Ortega, who has benefited from court decisions. Colombia’s Álvaro Uribe, for his part, is doing everything possible to extend his term, and others, like the Kirchners in Argentina, keep it all within their marriage.”
The broad consensus among analysts remains that in the Latin American region leaders who circumvent term limits are undermining the region's democratic progress.

Discussion Questions:

· Given the observed trend of power grabbing through presidential term limit extensions, do you think Latin America is adopting a new dictatorial trend in Democratic garb?

· Is the US sending out mixed signals—where it supported Zelaya against the Honduran preemptive Coup at his bid to seek reelection, while strongly condemning Ortega’s ‘Constitutional Coup’ for the same end?

Sources/ Related links-
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h-AFgS8LitQDCTBhuIlCWLuSCNDw
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1027/p90s01-woam.html
http://www.impre.com/laopinion/opinion/2009/10/27/victory-for-democracy-155897-1.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-termlimits26-2009oct26,0,6790603.story?track=rss
http://insidecostarica.com/dailynews/2009/october/24/centam-091024-03.htm
http://www.americasquarterly.org/node/1026
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/oct/130875.htm
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nu.html _______________________________________________________
Business and Politics in the Muslim World (BPM)refers to the project entitled, "Globalized Business and Politics: A View from the Muslim World.' The blog development project has been undertaken and jointly developed by the Gilani Research Foundation and BPM as a free resource and social discussion tool.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Zone 3- Microscopic Analysis: Political Stalemate in Bosnia Herzegovina- ‘a new civil war’? Week # 88, Dated 4th-10th Oct 09’

EU and U.S have been actively involved in efforts at seeking solutions to the political paralysis in Bosnia Herzegovina amidst fears of a destabilized region triggered by a nation that is ‘falling behind’.

Most of the country's troubles stem from its ethnic divisions. The current fall out of the political parties is over constitutional changes needed for the country’s advances towards EU membership. The latest proposal on the table called for drastic changes in the Dayton peace accord that ended the 1992-995 civil war.

According to this settlement Bosnia was divided into two entities a Muslim-Croat federation and a Serb entity, Republika Srpska (RS). The entities had most state prerogatives, including their own governments, army and police. The international community, which still safeguards peace in Bosnia through the Office of High Representative (OHR), has gradually stripped the entities of some powers for the sake of strengthening central government.

The package, proposed by the US and the EU, called for a drastic revision of the Dayton peace accord in order to strengthen central government. The proposal calls for abolition of a rotating three-man state presidency, to be replaced by one president and two vice-presidents. The council of ministers would be transformed into a government which would make decisions by a simple majority vote, instead of by consensus. Further more there would be two-chambers of parliament: the Council of representatives would have 87 members and would make decisions by a simple majority vote. The House of people, representing the three ethnic groups, would have 21 members, but would serve mainly as an advisory body, without real influence on the country’s laws.

Bosnian Serb leader and RS Prime Minister Milorad Dodik termed the proposal an “indecent proposal” tailored only to please the Muslim majority. While the Bosnian Croat leader Dragan Covic said the proposal was “below expectations and needs” of Croa

ts, who would prefer their own entity. Muslim leaders Sulejman Tihic and Haris Silajdzic were only partly pleased, but said the entities should be stripped of even more power. The European Union, said Kurt Bassuener, senior associate at the Democratization Policy Council, a research and advocacy group based in the United States, is seen as “a desirable address and a deep-pockets donor — it throws money at problems — rather than a serious political actor.”

Brussels can exert huge leverage in countries that want to join the union, but not in Sarajevo. “The politicians believe that the E.U. wants them really bad,

and will fudge its own criteria to bring them in,” Mr. Bassuener said. That serves local politicians who love to cite seeming progress toward joining Europe while playing to distinct ethnic groups with no interest in compromise.

There is growing concerns amongst analysts, media and other informed observers concerning the potential for a rapid deterioration of the situation in the country where some even question whether Bosnia is “on the brink of a new civil war”.

Discussion Questions:
· Do you think Bosnia Herzegovina is at the brink of ‘a new civil war’?

· Do the distinct ethnic entities in the country have the potential to gain inspiration from Kosovo and unilaterally declare independent?

· In your opinion is the European Union giving too much leverage to the country’s political leaders, hence impeding a credible environment for compromise and resolution?

Sources/Related Links:
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Politics/?id=3.0.3897501565
http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/23014/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/world/europe/02union.html
http://www.rferl.org/content/EU_US_Announce_Emergency_Talks_With_Bosnia/1842258.html
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Politics/?id=3.0.3854764787
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/weekinreview/06kulish.html _______________________________________________________
Business and Politics in the Muslim World (BPM)refers to the project entitled, "Globalized Business and Politics: A View from the Muslim World.' The blog development project has been undertaken and jointly developed by the Gilani Research Foundation and BPM as a free resource and social discussion tool.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Zone 3- Microscopic Analysis: ‘Kosovo’s Plight of Recognition- Serbia’s Adamant Stance.’ Week # 87- Dated 27th Sept-3rd Oct 09'

On September 25th Serbia Serbian President Boris Tadic told participants

at the 64th UN General Assembly session in New York, that Belgrade will never recognize Kosovo as a sovereign state. Though its decision will not be enforceable, the

Hague-based International Court of Justice is set to begin hearings on December 1st, 2009 on the question of Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of idependence last year.

The roots of the Kosovo conflict run deep where both sides quarrel over disputed claims based on historical interpretations. UN led peacekeepers under UNMIK (Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo)

authority now have a minor role in the disputed region, since the creation in December 2008, of

the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX). In a dispute that has spanned generations the latest development came last year when The Assembly of Kosovo unanimously adopted the declaration of independence on 17 February 2008. However UN Resolution 1244 is still in force, where ultimate responsibility of administration falls on Special Representatives.

So far 62 of the UN's 192 countries and 22 of the 27 EU member states have recognized Kosovo's independence. Serbia however remains adamant in its claims to the disputed constituency.

CHECHNYA Russia, a firm

supporter of Serbia is a major hurdle in Kosovo’s

recognition by the United Nations. Apart from the Russian interest of hindering the full independence of Kosovo for fear that it may prove a perilous precedent for its Chechen problem, Moscow is championing the Serbian cause, based on historical and ideological significance as a Slavic group.

Turkey, a primary ally for the Kosovo cause, has strong historical and psychological ties with the Albanians. Never the less T

urkey has been following a prudent approach, providing its support but towing a neutral line at the same time. In the balance lies its policy towards the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC), a unilaterally declared independent state extant since early 1980s and officially recognized by Turkey alone. On the other hand it fears a precedent being set for northern Iraq, ruled by an autonomous Kurdish administration, and Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian enclave inside Azerbaijan that has been under Armenian occupation for more than a decade.

However, at the UN Security Council meeting this year the Turkish ambassador underlined the importance his nation attached to security and stability in the Balkans, taking in context Kosovo's independence and integration in the international community. In the same line he stressed boosting relations with Serbia and its integration in the EU.

List of Countries That

Recognize Kosovo

Post Kosovo’s declaration of independence Serbian

aspiration to the EU divided the coalition government in Serbia. Despite apprehensions, Serbia has remained inflexible regarding its stance on Kosovo. Recently the US Vice President Joe Biden on a trip to Belgrade sought better relations with Serbia whilst stressing that the recognition of Kosovo is not a pre condition for Serbian integration in the EU. With renewed optimism Serbia is expected to apply for the EU candidature by the end of this year.

So far Serbia, preconditioned for basic internal reform, seems set on its path to the EU; while Kosovo, having gained recognition from 62 nations so far, continues to seek international support and integration into international bodies.

-------
Discussion Questions:

· How would you project Kosovo's chances for a favorable ruling in the International Court of Justice regarding its unilateral declaration of independence in Feb. 2008?

· Even though the ICJ ruling is not enforceable, do you think it can bring an end to hostilities in the generations old conflict?

· Despite having gained recognition from a majority of European nations, would Serbian accession to the European Union dash Kosovo’s chances of joining the EU as well?

ttp://www.kosovothanksyou.com
________________________________________________________
Business and Politics in the Muslim World (BPM)refers to the project entitled, "Globalized Business and Politics: A View from the Muslim World.' The blog development project has been undertaken and jointly developed by the Gilani Research Foundation and BPM as a free resource and social discussion tool.

BPM- Euro-Americas Zone

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Zone 3- Micro Analysis:Cyber Warfare- Tomorrow’s Battles?-

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Zone 3- Micro Analysis: ‘Hugo Chavez- Venezuela’s Controversial Leader’

Monday, January 11, 2010

Zone 3- Micro Analysis: ‘The Copenhagen Climate Summit- a Success or a Debacle?’

Monday, January 4, 2010

Zone 3- Micro Analysis- ‘Lisbon Treaty- Streamlining the European Union’

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Zone 3- Micro Analysis- Nicaragua- Another Regressing Latin American Democracy? W # 90

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Zone 3- Microscopic Analysis: Political Stalemate in Bosnia Herzegovina- ‘a new civil war’? Week # 88, Dated 4th-10th Oct 09’

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Zone 3- Microscopic Analysis: ‘Kosovo’s Plight of Recognition- Serbia’s Adamant Stance.’ Week # 87- Dated 27th Sept-3rd Oct 09'

Total Pageviews

Disclaimer

Search This Blog

Home Page

regional pages

Sub-regional Pages

About BPM

Blog Archive

Followers