Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

A Swedish government non-apology (which the silly Saudis thought was sincere)

March 30, 2015

Oh dear!

She couldn’t understand how a unilateral non-extension of a defence cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia – because it was a dictatorship – was an insult. She couldn’t understand how her planned formal speech about women’s rights and human rights – as Sweden’s Foreign Minister and as a speaker invited to the Arab League – was not an insult to the systems of government and a denigration of their judicial systems. Even though she was a Foreign Minister she could not understand how criticising a judicial system based on Sharia was not also a criticism of the religion it was based on.

In any case, the deteriorating diplomatic situation was rescued by a monarch-to-monarch appeal by King Carl XVI Gustaf to King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud. Margot Wallström could not understand her offense and now she cannot understand how the Swedish appeal through its special emissary could be construed as an apology! But her denial that anything said was an apology insults intelligence. Or does she mean that “we didn’t apologise but the silly Saudis thought we did”. She might as well say that the Saudi King now agrees with her statements.

Margot Wallström is among the more experienced and competent members of the Swedish government. But as Foreign Minister, her lack of understanding of the consequences of her statements smacks of incompetence. I have no doubt that some of her statements were more for domestic consumption, since this government is hostage to its green partners (pun intended). But it was more than a little naive for a Foreign Minister to think that such statements would not be taken seriously and at face value abroad.

The Saudi King would never have received an emissary directly from the “socialist” government which had contemptuously dismissed him as a dictator. However he was certainly prepared to accept an emissary and a private letter from King Carl XVI Gustaf. The letter hailed King Salman for  “protecting Islam and its holy places” and expressed great “sorrow and regret”. It is not the first time that Swedish royalty has been invoked to smooth over diplomatic issues with Saudi Arabia. Back in 2004 Crown Princess Victoria was sent to Saudi Arabia (also by a Social Democrat government) to save some defence (radar equipment) deals. The Defence cooperation agreement came in 2005 – also under the Social Democrats.

UPDATE! I note that the Svenska Dagbladet claims to have seen the King’s letter and that it contained no apology. Presumably SvD in its politically correct wisdom (or self-delusion) thinks that the Saudis have been successfully fooled!!!

 

 

1427498080030735400.jpg

Björn von Sydow, former Swedish defense minister and special envoy of Sweden meets Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, Minister of Defense. (SPA)

 Arab News: Sweden has apologized for the recent offensive remarks by its foreign minister against the laws of Saudi Arabia and hoped for better relations between the two countries. …….. 

In a message to King Salman, Sweden’s Prime Minister Stefan Lofven expressed “deep sorrow and regret over the current crisis in the relations between the two countries” while stressing his government’s keenness to maintain healthy relations between the two countries.
Lofven also said the role of King Salman in protecting Islam and its holy places is clear and that his government was concerned over the deterioration of the relations between the two countries following the controversial comment by his cabinet minister.

But for domestic consumption Margot Wallström must now walk the tightrope and insist that what was an abject apology, and accepted as a sincere apology, was not really an apology after all. If she agrees she apologised she upsets the greens and denies moral superiority. If she denies the apology she is insincere and has “duped” the Saudis with her subterfuge.

Expressen: “Naturally, the Swedish government has not apologised for its well-known and long-held positions on democracy and human rights”

The bottom line is that for a Swedish Foreign Minister, an abject expression of “deep sorrow and regret” does not constitute an apology. If a Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister had used such words he would have had little recourse but to resign for having his country deliver such a shameful apology. A Japanese Foreign Minister forced to express “sorrow and regret” would then have resigned and (since hara-kiri is no longer de rigueur) left politics. These are dangerous waters for Margot Wallström and for Sweden. A Foreign Minister of Sweden who is perceived as being insincere is “all used up” and can only damage the country’s affairs abroad.

What I find most reprehensible in anybody is a lack of professionalism. The worst insult I know of is to call a specialist an amateur. Margot Wallström and this Swedish red/green government have been amateur and unprofessional. If Swedish foreign policy is to influence and encourage the development of human rights in Saudi Arabia then this episode has been spectacularly counter-productive.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Sweden | 1 Comment »

Monarch to monarch: Saudi King accepts Swedish King’s apology

March 28, 2015

The Saudi Arabian Ambassador returned to Sweden yesterday. It must be galling for the Swedish Social Democratic government that a monarch-to-monarch apology and appeal was needed to mollify the Saudis. (No doubt the Swedish monarch’s request to the government for an increase in his budget will soon be approved). The apology was carried in a letter carried personally by the King’s/Swedish government’s envoy (not the Ambassador to Saudi Arabia), Björn von Sydow. He is a former Speaker and has even been Regent when the King and his children have been abroad. He would have been acceptable to the Saudi monarch as a true representative of King Carl XVI Gustaf. The Swedish government may say otherwise, but this was indubitably an appeal from a monarch to a monarch and not from a socialist government to a “dictator” King.

The Swedish Foreign Minister, Margot Wallström says she does not back away from any of her support for “human rights or democracy” and that she has the support of the people. Indeed! But it took a King to ride in on his white charger to rescue her. “We had an opportunity to address the misunderstandings that we could have criticized Islam or insulted Saudi Arabia” is what she said.  The Prime Minister, Stefan Löfven, while in China said “We have resolved any misunderstandings about our insulting Islam, which we have never done. We apologize if we have acted in such a manner that it has been understood that we  have somehow downgraded Saudi Arabia as a nation. That has never been our intention and we have not done that”. Sounds pretty close to an abject apology to me.

It is also grand hypocrisy. Because of course it was always Margot Wallström’s intention to denigrate Saudi Arabia, their system of government and their legal system. She singled out Saudi Arabia as a country whose morals were too low for Sweden to cooperate with on Defence matters.

She has been noticeably silent about voicing any criticism of China (where Prime Minister Löfven is on a visit). For Sweden to fall out with China would be economically unsustainable. The EU has been criticising Saudi Arabia for air attacks in Yemen but Margot Wallström has been conspicuously silent on the matter. Hopefully she has learnt the lesson that there is a little more to be considered about consequences when one is a Minister rather than an activist leading a demonstration. (That is a lesson still eluding her Green party partners in government who bear their share of blame for the Saudi Arabia fiasco).

DagensNyheter:

Saudi Arabia decided on Friday to normalize bilateral relations with Sweden after a meeting between the government’s envoy, Björn von Sydow, and Saudi Arabian government leaders and King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud.

“We had an opportunity to address the misunderstandings that we could have criticized Islam or insulted Saudi Arabia. This allowed the Ambassador to return” said Margot Wallström when asked if Sweden had apologized.

“I’m not backing down from my statements for democracy and human rights. It is well known what we think on these issues and it is something we have strong support in the Swedish population” she said

Margot Wallström thinks she has acted professionally and that the problem was resolved quickly in normalising relations with Saudi Arabia. Bjorn von Sydow had the meeting with government leaders and carried a letter from King Carl XVI Gustaf to King Salman. von Sydow will not go into any more detail.

“We can confirm that the king on the government’s desire sent a letter that the government’s envoy handed over to the Saudi king” wrote the Court Information officer Margaret Thorgren. “Please also refer all questions to the Foreign Ministry”. ………

According to the television channel Al-Arabiyya the Swedish king stressed “the power in the relationship” between their countries to his brother-monarch King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud.

Prime Minister Stefan Löfven comment on the re-established diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia during his visit to China. He did not directly answer the question if Sweden apologized.

“We have resolved any misunderstandings about our insulting Islam, which we have never done. We apologize if we have acted in such a manner that it has been understood that we  have somehow downgraded Saudi Arabia as a nation. That has never been our intention and we have not done that”.

A “democracy” provides no immunity from – or an excuse for – incompetence and stupidity.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Sweden | 1 Comment »

Swedish Green minority in government leads to oppression of the majority and a “bad democracy”

March 28, 2015

The Swedish Green party won 6.9% of the vote (25 seats in a 349 seat parliament) in the last general election. But they are part of the minority government with the Social Democrats (31% of the vote – 113 seats). Inevitably the Social Democrats are forced (or choose to) adopt some of the Green party policies. Most Green party policies are about forbidding things they don’t like on ideological grounds. Or they are about increasing taxes to discourage behaviour they don’t like. Very few of the Swedish Greens’ environmental policies are based on sound science. They are mostly based on alarmism and fear. Even when they propose new taxes they have not even an inkling – apart from how much will be collected – of what they will actually achieve. The goals are never capable of being monitored or – in many cases – even measured.

Whenever the Social Democrats accept Green policies – which they themselves don’t agree with – they put it down to being the “price of having a coalition partner”. They are effectively promoting a minority view and subverting the democratic process. A policy supported by 6.9% of the voters is inflicted upon the entire population.

It happened again this week. Green party minority dogma is planned to be inflicted on the entire country and the Social Democrats – who promised not to do this – are now complicit in the subversion of democracy. It is a simple case of a tiny minority oppressing an overwhelming majority. (Not so different from a dictatorship). The Social Democrats are effectively a “poodle” being wagged by their Green tail.

TheLocal: Sweden’s left-wing government proposed a hike in petrol taxes on Friday, citing the drop in oil prices and pressure put on it by its coalition partner the Greens.

“The oil price has plunged by 50 percent, so it’s become cheaper to fill up at the pump. That’s one thing. The other is that we are in a government with the Green Party,” Social Democratic Finance Minister Magdalena Andersson told reporters at a press conference.

“We need to finance our reforms krona for krona. And that means we need to increase revenues,” she said. The government proposed to increase the tax on petrol by 0.44 kronor ($0.05) per litre and on diesel by 0.48 kronor.

The hike, which would take effect on January 1st, would bring in 4.1 billion kronor ($479 million) to state coffers in 2016.

The Social Democrats no doubt see this as a way of raising revenues while blaming the Greens. But it also demonstrates their incompetence in running a coalition where they ought to be the senior partner. The Green tail is wagging the Social Democratic poodle. Democracies work but they have their share of negatives. And coalition governments where a large party is dependant upon a small party leads to tiny minorities inflicting their views on the majority. There is nothing inherently better in a democracy than in a dictatorship. It all depends on the “goodness” of the democracy or the dictatorship. A “good dictatorship” may well be superior to a “bad democracy”.

In the case of the present coalition government in Sweden, the inescapable conclusion is that the inclusion of the Greens makes it a “bad democracy”.

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Sweden | Comments Off on Swedish Green minority in government leads to oppression of the majority and a “bad democracy”

UK Election 2015: Cameron as a duck to Miliband’s poodle but who is the jackal and who the hyena?

March 26, 2015

Yesterday was the last Prime Minister’s Question Time (PMQ) in the UK House of Commons before the general election and it lived up to my entertainment expectations. Miliband called Cameron a “lame duck” for his off-hand comment that he would not want a third term as PM. Since Cameron hasn’t even won a second term, the duck comparison is a little early. (I suppose if he wins he will be as much of a lame duck as Obama was when he won his second term).

In any event Cameron replied spiritedly. He first also called Miliband a duck hanging on to Salmond’s coattails but then called him Salmond’s “poodle”. This went down much better with his supporter’s. Everybody remembers Tony Blair being George Bush’s poodle in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Considering the UK general election as a menagerie is quite interesting. In addition to Cameron the duck and Miliband the poodle, we would get Nigel Farage as the jackal hunting for scraps and Alex Salmond as the ultimate scavenger in the shape of a hyena ready to eat anything. Nick Clegg would then be a chameleon changing colour as and when necessary and Natalie Bennett would be the Green slug, slip-streaming behind the chameleon.

UK2015 menagerie

UK 2015 menagerie

 

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Politics, UK | 1 Comment »

Scots lost the referendum but may soon be ruling England

March 24, 2015

The 2015 UK General Election is only about 6 weeks away and is turning out to be much more interesting – and entertaining – than I had anticipated. It was in September last year that independence for Scotland from the United Kingdom was rejected – in the event much more decisively than was generally expected – but not the overwhelming rejection that was first anticipated when the referendum was agreed to by the UK Parliament. (55.3% No against 44.7% Yes). The Scottish National Party (SNP) was the main driver for the referendum and for independence and their leader Alex Salmond had to step down as party leader with a bloody nose.

But now with the elections just weeks away, the Labour party has collapsed in Scotland (where the Conservatives are already almost extinct), UKIP has risen in England and the Liberal Democrats have become schizophrenic and irrelevant. The natural party for the Liberal Democrats to cooperate with in 2010 would have been Labour. But since that would not have given an overall majority, they went to bed instead with their natural and historic enemy  – the Conservatives. Which of course lies at the root of their current schizophrenia and the defection of their left wing to the Greens.

The most likely scenario now is that the Scots (via SNP) will effectively be ruling England after the election. Of course the SNP will not be the governing party but they may well be the determining voice in a minority Labour government. And since the SNP is generally further to the left of mainstream Labour, it will help to empower Labour’s more extreme members and may even help to bring in the support of some of the old communists. We could have an ironic – and highly entertaining – situation in the next Parliament. UKIP and the Conservatives could be desperately fighting for the devolution of England and a separate English parliament. Of course they would be no chance of any referendum on EU membership. The English (UKIP, Conservatives, Lib Dems) may have to plead (with SNP and Labour) for a referendum by 2020 for English devolution.

Of course there are many possible outcomes and 6 weeks is an eternity in an election campaign but the numbers provide the entertainment.

  1. Current Parliament (650 seats, 326 needed for majority)
  2. Conservatives 307, Liberal Democrats 57 (coalition 364)
  3. Labour 258, Irish DUP 8, SNP 6, others 14.

But a “very possible” result now is that the next parliament will be totally hung. The only working majority even remotely possible will be with the SNP and Labour together – though it may not be an absolute majority. Paradoxically, this could be a stronger mandate for the SNP both in Scotland and in the UK than any independence could have brought. For the Conservatives there is no redemption with the Lib Dems or with UKIP. They would have to gain seats in England compared to 2010 to prevent this or some similar scenario. And that does not look likely. Based on one forecast model, it could look like this:

UK 2015 possible

UK 2015 possible

So Alex Salmond leading a “Red” Ed Miliband even further left – and surely by the nose – is entirely possible. Scotland could effectively become a “one party democracy”. Perhaps Alex Salmond could emulate Lee Kwan Yew (though he does not quite have the same vision or intellectual stature)! Unlike Lee Kwan Yew, who never had a direct say in the Malaysian parliament, Salmond could extract his full pound (kilogram) of flesh in the UK Parliament. Labour would not be able to achieve any legislation, even if it was just for England, without the Scots.

Maybe the Scots will – of their goodness – eventually allow the English a devolution referendum.

(The hung parliament may well be “democracy in action” but it will also be a manifestation of “levelling down” to the lowest common level. And the lowest common level excludes any possibility of excellence).

Some interesting times ahead!

 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Politics, UK | Comments Off on Scots lost the referendum but may soon be ruling England

Lee Kwan Yew: A case of a wise, benevolent dictatorship achieving what democracy could not

March 23, 2015

I have great admiration for what Lee Kwan Yew achieved for Singapore and for Singaporeans as a virtual dictator. I do not see that any “open democracy” could have achieved anything remotely similar. He became Prime Minister in 1959, campaigned for the merger with Malaysia which took place in 1963 and then oversaw the separation from Malaysia in 1965. He stepped down in 1990 and continued as an advisory “Senior Minister” till 2004 and then as “Minister Mentor” till 2011. He was effectively the Dictator of Singapore for over 40 years. The comparisons with Malaysia provide a picture of what “democracy” would not have brought – and could not have brought – to Singapore.

As part of a “democratic” Malaysia, the ethnic-Chinese would have been stifled by the Malays and their success would have rankled and they would have been constrained if not repressed. It would have been a case of oppression of a very able minority by a much less capable majority as is the case in Malaysia today. The separation from Malaysia ensured that the ethnic-Chinese majority in Singapore were not stifled by being a minority in Malaysia. That, with Lee’s vision, provided a lift not only for themselves but also for the Malaysian economy.

The one thing I feel that escaped him was the establishment of a pluralistic democracy to succeed him. If he had ensured that he could only be succeeded by equally able dictators, it would not matter.

Lee Kwan Yew built Singapore. He also put in place all the trappings of a multi-party democracy but was effectively the benevolent dictator who controlled every aspect of life for over 40 years (31 years officially as Prime Minister and for a decade afterwards).

But the institutions he set up for legislative representation and the judiciary are all somewhat nullified when the current reality is one of a single party, ruling in a quite authoritarian style under the cloak of a pluralistic democracy. The ruling party has been quite ruthless in using legalities and a compliant judiciary to exclude rival political parties as soon as they begin to show any signs of becoming popular.

What he leaves behind is a one-party “democracy”, “but Lee Kwan Yew’s legacy will not be so easily  overturned when the majority perceive – as they do – that they have it “pretty good”  and maintaining the status quo is far better than the uncertain benefits of an increased level of freedom”.

This is not meant to be an obituary for Lee Kwan Yew. There are plenty of those: here and here for example. What his death reminds me is that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a dictatorship as a political system. And it is not certain that any democracy must be “better” than a dictatorship. In fact I am inclined to think that any democracy needs subordinated “dictatorships” to be able to function.

In any situation where there are many courses of action, there has to be a course of action that is “best”. The “best” course of action – by any definition – in any type of society or gathering of humans is – per force – a minority view. A “democracy” in any gathering gives no assurance that the “best” actions will guide or lead that gathering – only that the majority view will prevail. It can only be a very rare coincidence that the “majority view” coincides with the “best view” of actions to be taken. Every corporate manager is required to be something of a dictator. It is his selection which determines whether he is one of the “best” for the situation he is to manage. The good managers are those dictators who lead and manage to carry their constituencies along. The US President is given some dictatorial powers for the duration of his term. It is the selection of the President which must determine whether he is any good but the democratic process does not necessarily select the “best”. It is the fundamental weakness of democracies that the “majority views” which prevail have no necessary connection to the “correct view” or the “best view”.

Maybe Lee Kwan Yew was just an accident – the right person for the times. But he surely was a wise and benevolent dictator. So I am led to conclude that while democracies avoid the worst they will almost never provide the best. Democracies are great levellers – but they level down. Like evolution, they do not drive towards excellence; they settle for the “good enough”. It is with a dictatorship – however constrained – that one may get a chance for the best.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Singapore | Comments Off on Lee Kwan Yew: A case of a wise, benevolent dictatorship achieving what democracy could not

Swedish King rides to the rescue of the damsel Minister in distress?

March 22, 2015

Swedish foreign policy has blundered badly by not analysing or understanding the Saudi Arabian reaction to the “morally superior” and sanctimonious statements made by the Swedish Foreign Minister about the status of “human and women’s rights” in the Kingdom. The debacle is transforming into high farce as the Swedish King – who has no powers at all – offers to ride to the rescue.

In a most unusual statement, the Swedish King, Carl XVI Gustaf, has offered his “help to contribute in finding a solution to the situation”. The Swedish monarch has no political powers whatsoever but felt compelled to say something as the crisis with Saudi Arabia and the Arab world created by the Foreign Minister, Margot Wallström, continues to escalate. While more Arab countries are expressing their condemnation of Wallströms ill-judged  statements, even the Danish government has indicated that they feel she went too far.

TheLocal.se: The king is seemingly distressed about Sweden’s escalating spat with Saudi Arabia. The row began when Saudi Arabia blocked Wallström’s speech on democracy and human rights as a guest of honour addressing the Arab League, and resulted in Sweden limiting its military ties with the Saudis.

Tensions heightened when Saudi Arabia responded by recalling its ambassador to Stockholm and announced it would not issue any new visas for Swedish business people.

On Saturday, the royal palace announced that the king would meet Sweden’s top diplomat on Monday “to help contribute in finding a solution to the situation”. The king also said that: “It’s important to have a good dialogue and good relations between countries,” but noted that he hadn’t been in contact with the Saudi royals.

In Saudi Arabia, the Justice Minister has also added his voice to the wide-spread Arab condemnation of  Wallström’s statements.

ArabNews: Justice Minister Walid Al-Samaani strongly condemned recent statements from foreign parties targeting the country’s judicial system. ….. 

Al-Samaani’s statement came in the backdrop of Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom’s pronouncements against the Kingdom’s Shariah laws that led Saudi Arabia to recall its envoy to Stockholm. The minister said that such accusations are unwarranted and uncalled for, since the Saudi law is derived from the Book of Allah and the teachings and practices of His Prophet (peace be upon him). 

The Saudi law, the minister emphasized, guarantees the dignity of all its citizens irrespective of race, religion, sex and language. “Everybody before our law is equal,” he reiterated.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Saudi Arabia, Sweden | 1 Comment »

WHO delayed Ebola emergency declaration by 2 months – for political expedience

March 20, 2015

In October last year it was revealed that the complacency of the WHO African country heads (mainly political appointees) and who “seem to have been unwilling to even acknowledge that there was a problem on their turfs” had caused avoidable delays.

Now the Associated Press reports (NY Times) that the WHO leadership delayed declaring an emergency by 2 months for reasons of political expediency; to avoid upsetting some African countries, to avoid economic damage and to avoid any interruption to the annual Haj pilgrimage to Mecca. The emergency was declared on August 8th 2014 but from emails obtained by AP, it should have been declared 2 months earlier. That probably means that about 1000 deaths might have been prevented. The death toll from the outbreak is now estimated to have reached over 10,000.

Ebola deaths in West Africa (Data: WHO / Chart CC BY 4.0: JV Chamary / Source: http://onforb.es/1sCVxE1)

The Hindu:

Among the reasons the United Nations agency cited in internal deliberations – worries that declaring such an emergency akin to an international SOS could anger the African countries involved, hurt their economies or interfere with the Muslim pilgrimage to Makkah. ….. 

In public comments, WHO Director-General Margaret Chan has repeatedly said the epidemic caught the world by surprise. ……

But internal documents obtained by AP show that senior directors at the health agency’s headquarters in Geneva were informed of how dire the situation was early on and held off on declaring a global emergency. Such an alert is meant to trigger a surge in outside help, or, as a WHO document put it, “ramps up political pressure in the countries affected” and “mobilizes foreign aid and action”.

When WHO experts discussed the possibility of an emergency declaration in early June, one director viewed it as a “last resort”.

The delay in declaring an emergency was one of many critical problems that hobbled the agency’s ability to contain the epidemic. When aid agency Doctors Without Borders warned Ebola was spiralling out of control, WHO contradicted it, even as WHO’s own scientists called for backup. When WHO did send staffers to Africa, they were of mixed calibre. Fellow responders said many lacked Ebola experience; one WHO consultant who got infected with Ebola broke his own agency’s protocol, putting others at risk and getting WHO kicked out of a hotel, the AP found.

……..  The vacuum of leadership at WHO was so damaging the U.N. created the Mission for Ebola Emergency Response to take over the overall fight against the disease.

….. By the time WHO declared an international emergency, nearly 1,000 people were already dead. Overall, more than 10,000 are thought to have died in the year since the outbreak was announced.

NYT: 5 Key Findings

1. WHO officials privately floated the idea of declaring an international health emergency in early June, more than a month before the agency maintains it got its first sign the outbreak merited one — in late July — and two months before the declaration was finally made on August 8, 2014.

2. WHO blamed its slow response partly on a lack of real-time information and the surprising characteristics of the epidemic. In fact it had accurate field reports — including scientists asking for backup — and it identified the unprecedented features of the outbreak. The agency was also hobbled by a shortage of funds and a lack of clear leadership over its country and regional offices.

3. Politics appear to have clouded WHO’s willingness to declare an international emergency. Internal emails and documents suggest the U.N. health agency was afraid of provoking conflict with the Ebola-stricken countries and wary that a declaration could interfere with the economy and the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca.

4. An Ebola-infected WHO consultant in Sierra Leone violated WHO health protocols, creating a rift with Doctors Without Borders that was only resolved when WHO was thrown out of a shared hotel.

5. Despite WHO’s pledges to reform, many of the proposed changes are recycled suggestions from previous outbreaks that have never taken hold. Any meaningful reform to the organization would likely require countries to rewrite the constitution, a prospect many find unpalatable.

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Management, Medicine, Politics | Comments Off on WHO delayed Ebola emergency declaration by 2 months – for political expedience

US is not amused at the rise of AIIB as rival to World Bank

March 20, 2015

The US is not amused.

The list of countries signing up to the Chinese-led initiative which would rival the World Bank is growing as Japan and Australia have now indicated that they too will join. In the last week the UK, Germany, Italy, France and Luxembourg indicated that they too would sign up to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in spite of dire warnings from across the Atlantic. South Korea is also expected to sign up now that the UK and Japan have.

(Reuters) – Japan signaled cautious approval of the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) on Friday and said for the first time that, if conditions were met, it could join the institution that the United States has warned against.

Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey said there was “a lot of merit” in the bank and the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper reported that Canberra could formally decide to sign up when the full cabinet meets on Monday.

Japan, Australia and the South Korea, all major U.S. allies, are the notable regional absentees from the AIIB. The United States, worried about China’s growing diplomatic clout, has questioned whether the AIIB will have sufficient standards of governance and environmental and social safeguards.

The US  (US Treasury department and the US Congress) was not amused in October last year when “India along with 20 other countries today signed an agreement to become founding members of the China-backed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to aid the infrastructure development in the Asian region and reduce the dependence on Western-dominated World Bank and IMF.”  The authorised capital of AIIB is to be USD 100 billion and the initial subscribed capital is expected to be around USD 50 billion. The paid-in ratio will be 20 per cent. The AIIB is to be headquartered in Beijing and it is hoped that it will be operational by the end of 2015.

It was the US opposition to allowing any reform of voting rights at the International Monetary Fund which had irritated and annoyed China and other Asian countries which had led to the Chinese initiative. The proposed – relatively mild – reforms for the IMF were agreed at a G20 meeting in 2010 and have been ratified by all European countries. But the US has not yet ratified these changes. It has not been prepared to permit any weakening of its dominance in the World Bank and the IMF.  The founding members of the AIIB members in October 2014 were China, India, Vietnam, Uzbekistan, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Qatar, Oman, the Philippines, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Mongolia and Myanmar.

The US has followed a strategy of criticising the possible environmental and social irresponsibility of the new institution which is intended to focus on transport, energy and telecommunications infrastructure. The US has also raised doubts about the transparency and governance of the proposed new institution and warning other countries not to join. But what was a relatively minor and mainly regional matter has been blown-up by the US opposition. The US strategy of “bad-mouthing” the AIIB seems to have back-fired. Some of the support now coming from countries traditionally seen as US followers can be considered a direct reaction to the bad-willed US opposition. 

From all accounts, the Obama administration has expended serious energy trying to dissuade its allies from joining ……. With the defection of the UK, however, it appears likely that Washington’s carefully constructed coalition will gradually unravel—both Australia and South Korea are apparently reconsidering their earlier reluctance to join the bank and could well use the UK’s decision as political cover for deciding to join the bank.

The European countries (and Japan and South Korea) have realised that their companies must have the chance of bidding for future AIIB infrastructure projects. For at least the next two decades – and maybe longer – there has to be a massive infrastructure investment in Asia. The US will eventually have to join the AIIB or to step aside and to let it proceed. US companies hoping to bid for Asian infrastructure projects would prefer that the US join. But now the US administration has the additional task to do some “face-saving” while it backs away from its ill-considered strategy of opposition.

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Business, Development, Economy, Politics | Comments Off on US is not amused at the rise of AIIB as rival to World Bank

Left/Green sanctimony is causing a debacle for Swedish foreign policy

March 19, 2015

The 2005 defence cooperation agreement between Sweden and Saudi Arabia was renewed in 2010 and was coming up for a natural termination or a mutual renewal again this year. Currently there is very little being done under this agreement. It could have been allowed to die quietly. But that was not loud enough and self-righteous enough for the Greens and the left of the ruling Social Democrats.

The Greens are new to government (and it shows in many areas) but they are implacably opposed to Sweden having any defense industry of any kind. The Greens and the left are utterly opposed to the “anti-feminist and anti-democratic” nature of Saudi Arabia. But the Greens and the left of the Social Democrats forgot that they were actually in government and were not just an irresponsible lobby group like Greenpeace or the WWF indulging in publicity pranks.  They were so mesmerised by the idea of showing off their moral credentials that the intention to terminate the defense agreement was announced in a great blaze of self-righteous publicity.  The Prime Minister Stefan Löfven (an old trade unionist with a good understanding of the importance of jobs) actually wanted to extend the agreement. But he was over-ruled by his far left and the Greens. His Foreign Minister, Margot Wallström (who, unlike the Greens, is old enough to know better), was more obsessed with demonstrating how Swedish foreign policy was feminist and green and occupied the moral high ground than in promoting Swedish interests and values. And so she forgot about her duties as a Foreign Minister and sharply criticised Saudi Arabia in most undiplomatic language. It verges on incompetence that the consequences of her statements were not analysed. She received a swift diplomatic “punch on the nose” when she was barred from speaking to the Arab League.

But the Greens and the left (and the Swedish media – who are all very politically correct and morally upstanding) basked in the warmth of their own sanctimonious self-indulgence. If they thought they were promoting Swedish values, they seem to have failed spectacularly. Instead they have fuelled the opposing views from the region about Swedish moral degeneracy and decadence.

But now the whole affair is becoming a foreign policy debacle. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have called their ambassadors home. Fifty seven other nations have backed Saudi Arabia in criticising Margot Wallström for “denigrating Saudi Arabia’s social norms, judicial institutions and political institutions”. Swedes are not being issued visas for Saudi Arabia any longer.

Sweden is left floundering with a foreign policy being made by children and governed by childishness. A policy built on trying to demonstrate a self-proclaimed moral superiority and which talks down to others smacks of the playground. It diminishes Sweden. Business will suffer and jobs will suffer. And it will take a long time to repair the damage. Right now almost the entire Islamic world has taken umbrage and Sweden’s voice has never been as irrelevant in the region.

(Soon after the left/green government took over they had recognised Palestine as a State – also to demonstrate their moral superiority. Needless to say Israel was not amused and they are not the flavour of the month with Netanyahu. And he is going to be around for a long time yet).

But the Greens and far left are still basking in their moral superiority and don’t even realise that they have done something very silly. That they have managed to earn the contempt of both Israel and the Arab World  – simultaneously – seems to be of little consequence.

Swedish Radio:

Saudi Arabia has informed the Foreign Ministry that they will not issue any new business visas to Swedes. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has confirmed that they received notice about this and say they will continue trying to resolve the issue bilaterally.

Companies that are in procurement or planning projects will not be able to send employees to the country. 

The Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven had just received the information and said, “We do not want this situation with Saudi Arabia. We have been clear all the time that we want a good relationship with Saudi Arabia and we work seriously and systematically with it”.

Swedish Industry Minister Mikael Damberg also believe that the news is negative. “It is clear that this not good and we are working both to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia and to make sure that it does not spread to more countries. We are very careful to emphasize that what the government did was not to extend a military Terms of Collaboration with Saudi Arabia. And there was a very strong political majority in parliament not to extend”, says Mikael Damberg.

Tonight, the Minister and the Foreign Minister, Margot Wallström will meet with executives from Swedish industry regarding Sweden’s relations with Saudi Arabia. “I will talk about what the government is doing but also to listen to those companies that are active in the region to see if they have encountered a problem and if there are misunderstandings so that we can help each other” says Mikael Damberg.

On being asked what actions the government would take, he said “We are working very hard to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia. Both through diplomatic contacts here in Stockholm but also in place in Riyadh and in countries in the region. The work is intense.. We are also working together with Swedish companies in place in these markets. We take note that this has happened but we have no interest to implement some kind of retaliation or to escalate this”, says Mikael Damberg.

Both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have called their ambassadors home from Sweden. The reason is because of the statements made by Foreign Minister Margot Wallström about Saudi Arabia in connection with the Swedish government cancelling a controversial trade agreement.

At the same time 57 states have closed ranks behind Saudi Arabia in their criticism of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Margot Wallström. This means that almost the entire Muslim world is critical of Wallström’s statements.

“In its opinion Wallström has humiliated Saudi Arabia and its social norms, legal systems and political institutions,” says a statement on the website of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (IOC).

 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Saudi Arabia, Sweden | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »