Globalization

Ahmad Hussein Annan

(Note:All that is written in italic i have excerpted .. Comments a, b , c etc and the conclusion are my own View)    

The Capitalistic Crisis (2008) has been a political disaster for the US Republicans and liberal Streams in general. Many liberals reduced the economic downturn to George W Bush Policy, and many republicans joint the opposing Democrats in their 2008/2009 presidential and Congressional Elections Campaigns. Just before we start Investigating the Crisis, one should bear in mind; that the Liberal Globalization has been stimulating the fast and vast Growth in third World Countries. It has been also boosting the international Demand through lower Prices and stronger Supply. Republicans traditionally lead and advocate the Globalization of Liberalism, and are to be considered as the Dynamic Power of World Trade, Prosperity and Growth in the last three Decades (dominantly since Reagan’s time)

A just Tractate would relatively require some important Key Questions to be answered:

When did the Crisis begin (Its Nature and Synchronizations)?

A joint Report of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the five United Nations regional commissions (Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), and Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA)), tell;

 

The World Economic Outlook (WEO) presented by the IMF published (October 2008) the following Report:

1. United States and Canada: Bending but Not Buckling

2. Western Europe: Struggling with Multiple Shocks

3. Advanced Asia: Responding to External Shocks

4. Emerging Asia: Balancing Risks to Growth and Price Stability

5. Latin America and the Caribbean: Navigating a More Perilous Environment

6. Emerging Europe: Prospects for a Soft Landing

7. Commonwealth of Independent States: Managing the Commodity Price Boom

8. Sub-Saharan Africa: A Test of Policy Frameworks

9. Middle East: Overheating Still A Concern

WTO Sees Global Trade collapse by 9%

March 24, 2009 by GlobalCrisisNews.com 

Global trade will shrink by 9 percent this year in the most devastating collapse since World War II, the World Trade Organization said Monday. According to the latest report, the developed nations will be hit with a nearly 10 per cent decrease, whereas developing nations will only see their exports fall between 2-3 per cent. Despite richer nations seeing a bigger decline, the poor countries will be affected more, given their bigger dependency on such trade.

Global economy: 2009 just like World War II

International Monetary Fund says world economic growth will fall to 0.5% in 2009, the lowest rate in more than 60 years.

2009 financial showdown subside

The IMF, a global economic organization of 185 countries, said economic growth across the world will fall to just 0.5% in 2009 from 3.4% in 2008. Financial markets are expected to remain under stress - despite a cornucopia of credit-easing actions - until investors and consumers gain confidence that policy actions can help improve market conditions.

In advanced countries, including the United States, the euro-zone nations, Japan, Canada and the United Kingdom, gross domestic product is expected to shrink by 2%. IMF said a vicious cycle of plummeting asset values, decreasing household wealth and sinking consumer demand will result in the first contraction of total advanced economies' GDP in the post-World War II era.

Even booming emerging and developing economies are feeling the pains of the global recession. China, India, the Middle East and Brazil will grow a combined 3.25% in 2009, down considerably from 6.25% growth last year. Falling export demand, lower commodity prices and financial constraints will lead to the slowdown.

Comment (a)

The assumption that Trade will shrink by 9%, in 2009 hitting developed Countries with 10% must be studied carefully. Given the fact that developed Countries Output is expected to shrink in 2009 from 1 to -2.0, and from 6.3 to 3.3 in emerging and developing Nations (0.5% world wide), and given the fact that growth is strictly depending on Trade in according to the reporting and assuming Institutions themselves, the claim that world Trade will shrink by 9% (10% in developed nations) seems to be quite conditional and dependent. The published Data don’t also support the Assumption; that the world output will necessarily shrink by exactly 2.9%. It is also not proper; that the output will fall to -1.6 in the USA and -1.8 in the EU amid Chinese performance of 6.7% and expected Indian 5.1%. If we consider the supply based on today’s demand, the numbers could meet the track, but it is quite evident that demand is increasingly hurting, making the developed Countries hang seesawing in a crunching and unestimateable blow. Let us assume that some political steps have been considered to be implicatively taken within the striking economic Scalar. Homosexual Stimulus Plans would make things worse anyway. It doesn’t help also to discuss how the World Growth will look like in coming Years, (before knowing the reasons and Genesis of the Crisis, about which we are going to focus in the following Questions)

2. Why is the World Economy facing such hard and uncertain times?

a. The mentioned Report published by the WESS 2008 says:

After several years of robust growth, the world economy is now facing some serious challenges. In sustaining its brisk pace. The end of the housing bubble in the United States of America, as well as the unfolding credit crisis, the decline of the United States dollar vis-à-vis other major currencies, the persistence of large global imbalances and high oil prices will all threaten the sustainability of global economic growth in the coming years.

b. World Economic and Social Survey 2008:

According to the UN 2008 World Economic and Social Survey, economic insecurity arises from the exposure of Individuals, communities and countries to adverse events, and from their inability to cope with and recover from the downside losses. The risk and threats vary from community to community; in advanced countries, they have been associated with a significant rise in inequality, a hollowing out of middle-class lifestyles and reduced welfare protection. Elsewhere, economic shocks and premature deindustrialization have raised fears of an insufficiency of the formal sector jobs needed to accommodate an expanding urban population. In still other places, food insecurity has given rise to political discontent and increased levels of personal insecurity.

These local concerns have been compounded by new global threats. Unregulated financial markets and international capital flows are currently threatening economic livelihoods across the world economy. Climate change imposes the threat of greater local environmental damage and increasingly destructive natural disasters.

The attention brought to the presence of these heightened economic risks and compounded threats has often been met with the response that the forces behind them are autonomous and irresistible, and beyond our collective political control.

WTO Sees Global Trade collapse by 9%

March 24, 2009 by GlobalCrisisNews.com 

The WTO warned against protectionism which will eat on worldwide efforts to save the economy and prolong the current difficult scenario.

Comment (b)

I am absolutely not surprised by the ambiguous UN WESS Report, for the UN cares about own Budget much more than it does about the Prosperity of the World. The UN looks like so many pastors or Imams (Muftis), who care about own stomach much more than they do about poor and hungry people, but still love them because they are the source of Many UN Institutions survival. Beautiful Words and enchanting Style is that WESS Introduction. Stuffs like the mentioned economic insecurity arises from the exposure of Individuals, communities and countries to adverse events, and from their inability to cope with and recover from the downside lossessound poetic. Amazing! But scientifically represent some ambiguous Generalizations. Such axiomatic introduction is neither a patent nor a new discovery. Some Parts of the report are interesting albeit seem to be self-evident to even school Children. Let us assume that the UN count with primitive and illiterate populations also. But even at this level seem to be overseeing some important factors also. It is true that some adverse Events are some how associated with inequality and threat of middle-class lifestyles, but not necessarily all are associated with reduced welfare. The dramatic crack down on financial Markets and international Capital Flows associating them with Threat of livelihoods can in no way be logically justified. On the contrary; financial Markets and Capital Flows have been enhancing Growth and income across the world in the last two decades. What should Capital do? Should money remain frozen behind Seas? It could be somehow relevant (in some rich Societies) to discuss Capital volatility and over sea immigration of Jobs and companies, but on such a level the UN would lose its Universality, for it was founded to be general and international. Elsewhere the WESS associate adverse events with deindustrialization and shrank urban Population life, Food insecurity etc. In that respect we join the WESS with full agreement, but although still don’t see a direct link to Liberalization and Capital Flow. It would be helpful to research Links to Mismanagement and dictatorship, bearing in mind that Diagnosis somehow worth studying, but Conclusions mentioned in the Report have been mostly arbitrary and illogically inserted. To make the Topic Charisma credible and more attractive the WESS jumps like an Arabic Horse further to the climate Changes to rustle some more Conclusions. Studying the report politically (from a different aspect); we find a direct Link between the Stormy UN-Crisis Reports, and the political polemic that has been threatening the UN Institutions since the eighties. Liberal Streams arising in the USA and the World have been a great Challenge to the United Nations. Liberal Institutions and Research Centers accuse the UN of being a big-ticket and old fashioned Structure, aiming to burden people with high and useless expenditure. Further many liberals (including me) see in the UN a Cold-war Heritage, with lack for Reforms. In fact; in order to survive in an economically and culturally changing world, UN Structures require responsive changes and flexibility. When Cultural and economic demands Change, without responsive changes in politics, we may logically expect instability driven by various social and political disorders. The call for Reforms has been internationally urging, and discontent is widely seen in developed and in developing Countries in general. So the UN (as we all know) has been facing some hard Times in last two decades. Politically many Liberals have proposed to (temporarily) replace the UN with NATO (Even some reformed US Democrats like the former US Foreign Secretary M. Albright rely on the NATO). Weeks ago the Egyptian Boutros Ghali (a former UN secretary) called for an alternate Organization that would perform better than the UN. Economically liberals rely on the WTO, which is democratically and liberally better shaped, and has been replacing the GATT and performing much better in the last Decade. In the new Era, the UN has been suffering economically. Budget Cuts became a weapon against the retardate UN. The first Sponsor (USA) has been reducing American share. Germany, Japan and some other Countries threat to delay or reduce their shares, if the UN remains irresponsive to their Demands. Who catch at the UN? Some Left Streams like Democrats or social Democrats, Green Parties, financially supported poor Countries by the ORG etc. Many third World Countries prefer to keep the UN at its contemporary stance, like to hear about help and support, but don’t want an effective UN that would enforce political Changes or interfere in interior affaires (Mainly Benefiting Dictators and Kings, who enjoy a full recognition and membership (without any pre conditions)). The latest Change in the United States brought some new Hope to the oldie UN. Elected Obama promised to regulate Capital flow and emphasized the need to clean Energy and environmental politics. He implemented some protectionism also. That is a Glimmer of hope for the UN. Why? Because; 1. Protectionism is traditionally associated with Taxes-a UN Saliva agitator 2. The center and right liberal defeat seems to be a UN Triumph. 3. Democrats traditionally advocate Diplomacy and Soft lines in international relations, and to do so some UN Channels are needed. A UN triumph has been the 2008 Crisis, but the celebration will not last long, because the UN will either have to change in order to meet the international ambitions, or will be exposed to more Pressures and greater Challenges. The WTO warning (March 24/2009) came as an opposition to UN invalid expertise. Protectionism and peace Meals can not be a lasting invigoration to the Crisis. On the contrary; they make things worse

Proposed Solutions:

The World Economic and Social Survey (WESS) proposes:

What is needed is a strong "social contract" to help secure the spaces within which individuals, households and communities could pursue their day-to-day activities with a reasonable degree of predictability and stability, and with due regard for the aims and interests of others. This will require a more integrated and pragmatic approach to economic and social policy, one tailored to local threats and challenges, as well as more space for implementing counter-cyclical macroeconomic policies and greater international support for broader social protection schemes. It will also require a better link between approaches to local disaster management and development strategies, aimed particularly at the establishment of more diversified production structures for sustaining livelihoods in vulnerable countries. Dealing with economic insecurity in post-conflict situations requires radically different approaches to the provisioning of official development assistance and to the conduct of macroeconomic and social policies.

Comment(c)

What is a strong social Contract? A social Contract is usually approved by a Society. Individuals are the Contract Parties of which a Society consists, and to secure spaces within which Individuals can freely pursue their day-to-day Activities, a liberal Statute of determining and protecting some certain individual rights is prematurely needed, for some supposedly implicated individual rights and freedoms should not be exposed to a majority Decision (demarcated as a liberal democracy, that excludes all other false and illegitimate forms of Societies).

Given the mentioned characteristics concerning the Entity of social contracts, we may say; that Authoritarianism and dictatorships are the real Enemy of general human economic, cultural and political health. Sadly; there are enough dictators around the world, and those enjoy a full recognition and membership in the UN. The mentioned Dictators (whether Kings, military rulers or what so ever) have been mostly implementing a so called Underground economic Rules), which makes political and economic predictability relatively impossible. On the other hand; the mentioned Dics and Kings have been behind almost every conflict in the post WWII eras. Based on almost all the known social contract Theories, Kings and Dics are asocial political forces. Somehow have been the greatest Enemies of Free markets, and prove a very strong commitment to protectionism, because free markets shrink political authoritarianism and weaken their racist legacies. The idealistic call for a broader social protection Schemes and the recall of Keynesian Macroeconomics and development tools represent the rhapsody of a triumphing UN dancing in the very center of the Crisis. The turn over in the economic policy in rich Countries, support what some liberals and advocates of free markets considered to be on behalf of the poor in developing States and on behalf of companies in rich Countries also. The last could be more helpful for the Governments than expensive workers and bottom classes. The workers dominate the scene in rich Countries today, seeking a short range solution for unemployment and provisional social threats. But soon will realize; that this wouldn’t help the general health in the long run. So the rich Countries workers and third world Dics share a common interest. On the other hand, (influenced by alarmed rich Countries workers) the new trend demands a less intervention in third world countries affaires, and a beneficiary relation to all states. This can be helpful in the short run, but threats to turn the development upside down also, leading to a more disastrous turn. Generally speaking; it lies in the interest of Rich Countries and poor societies in dictatorial States to keep expanding openness of markets, with less possible intervention or protectionism aimed and championed by idealists and Authoritarians around the Globe.

March 24, 2009 by GlobalCrisisNews.com   

WTO Sees Global Trade collapse by 9%

“Trade can be a potent tool in lifting the world from these economic doldrums,” WTO Director-general Pascal Lamy said in a statement. “In London G20 leaders will have a unique opportunity to unite in moving from pledges to action and refrain from any further protectionist measure which will render global recovery efforts less effective,” Lamy said, referring to the upcoming Group of 20 summit scheduled for early April. Just two months ago, the WTO forecast a reduction in global trade this year of just 2.8 per cent.

http://www.globalcrisisnews.com/general/wto-sees-global-trade-collapse-by-9/id=680/

The WTO:

May 8th, 2008 -Geneva, May 7 (DPA) The head of the World Trade Organization (WTO) said Wednesday that the multilateral trade body must help provide a solution to the spreading global food crisis. In his report to the General Council at WTO headquarters in Geneva, Director-General Pascal Lamy said concluding the Doha Round of trade talks to dismantle barriers and cut tariffs was “becoming more critical by the day”.

He said: “The reasons why we must conclude the round this year are visible to all of us. The WTO can provide part of the solution.”

After turbulence in world financial markets, rocketing food prices had created new pressures and fuelled food riots in some countries heavily dependent on food imports.

The Doha Round of talks, known as the development round, has collapsed several times in the six and a half years since it was launched due to endless squabbling by rich and poor countries.

Lamy said it was important to reach a deal this year and do away with trade distorting barriers that stifled food production and new investment particularly in developing countries.

He said: “This is a very tight schedule, but it is still doable.”

A meeting of trade ministers was planned later this month in Geneva but a date has still not been set.
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/doha-deal-can-help-resolve-food-crisis-wto_10046246.html

Comment (d)

The WTO represented a more realistic, expletive and explanatory proposition based on factual world economic status. With this statement and other reported liberalization efforts, the WTO Universality appears to be more realistic than ever before. Its reports and analysis comprise (in details) the whole world, and contribute to the general health of the world economics, as well as for a peaceful advance in the international Relations. Just and Faire international Relation can not be more or less than a Free and open international Market and political Structure. So the world Markets openness to Trade grant a freedom of demand and supply, providing free choices and free access right to all. So the WTO recipe to cut Taxes is the right response to rising food and other commodities prices. Those who try to integrate Monopoly and protectionism labeling them as a social political Issues, can not jump over the facts; that such kind of policies are practically asocial in a world of interdependency and overcome spaces. The WTO Members have pledged and affirmatively stated (in the Doha Round) to decrease and lower Taxes gradually to null. But what happens today is; Taxes on food and agricultural Products still reach if not exceed the 100% ratio in rich Countries, and for their part; some third World Countries impose very high Taxes on western Technology. Important to note; the small number of third World Countries, that impose high Taxes on western Technology are mostly non-WTO Members. Mentioned irresponsible and evasive States can not be a justification for rich Countries Taxation. Much more; Maverick States wish that the WTO collapses, and new cold Wars break out, to help the Survival of their authoritarian Systems. They even send permanently attracting Signals to the newly converted Russia, in a hope that Kremlin (pressured by local Challenges) turns the wheel back to the evil past. Third world Nations pay mostly the piper in both cases. In the Crisis of 2008, the Gulf Countries had to response to the Crisis. Sheik Hamad (the Prince of Qatar) said in an AL – Doha Conference: Super Powers have no right to tell us what to do. But what happened is: the rich Industries imposed their bail-out plans forcing rich Oil Countries to keep producing a great amount of Oil, in order to keep Oil Prices low. A Kuwaiti Economist declared weeks ago: Rich Industries keep their very high Taxes on Oil. They want us (gulf Countries) to produce more, but never cut taxes to help keep the Stability of Prices. The Gulf Countries had a big financial Surplus last year, because they are asked to produce more than they need. The rich Countries, who originally proposed and initiated the WTO, try to access Markets and overcome Barriers, but seldom show commitment to the rules and Promises they make. That is why we find it more helpful for the Middle East to forget about what they call EU Partnership. After long EU-ME negotiations, the EU Partnership appears to be a gay one. What they really want and practically show is a one way partnership. They want the Market to keep open to their trade flow, but never think to (reciprocally) open doors for their trade Partners. Concerning the Syrian-EU Relations, what we achieved until now is; a halfway (one sided) political Security Partnership. Syrian agricultural Products keep stinking under a clear Siege, and the EU demand more and more stoops, but refuse to offer any waivers. So the partnership turned to exploiting (if not blackmailing) Syria by the European Union. That is why we (Middle Eastern Liberals) advocated the American Model. In addition to the financial and technical Help the USA provides, the administration offered industrialization, open trade from both Sides and more American Investments flow in Syria, Lebanon and the entire Middle East. That economic plan has been depending on a Settlement to end the Israeli-Arab Conflict. A political mobilization is being required to make economic plans achievable. But the Jewish-Palestinian Conflict and the Interactions related to its regional and international interferences remain embarrassing every productive View and limiting all possible projects. It provides a free and open space for blackmailing Governments and developing dictatorship and authoritarianism, which makes economic prosperity impossible. Many Countries create some temporarily good Business amid such a conflict, and hence support the continuity of the dispute, because such Countries can not achieve well development in free and open spaces, and in that way they share with the regional Dictators common ambitions and interests. Dictator can not survive in open spaces where economic and political freedoms are prior, and their related middle or modest powers can not make a good business or win in such tough competition sphere. This and Situations alike mobilize the ground for possible international splits and Hostility, and open the Way for the rise of new Alliances (Hot or cold Wars). To avoid that danger; an end to Conflicts (chasms or Cavities where such evil axes may emerge) would provide more prosperity with less Wars and Crisis, and more opportunities for the General Health of all.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The United States Department of Agriculture ( www.ers.usda.gov ) published a Report concerning the 2008/2009 world economic Crisis and its meaning for U.S. Agriculture, telling:  The weakening of global demand because of emerging recessions and declining economic growth result in reduced export demand and lower agricultural commodity prices, compared with those in 2008. These, in turn, reduce U.S. farm income and place downward pressure on farm real estate values. So far, the overall impact on U.S. agriculture is not as severe as on the broader U.S. economy because the record-high

agricultural exports, prices, and farm income in 2007 and 2008 put U.S. farmers on Solid financial ground. Moreover, the debt equity ratios in agriculture tend to be more conservative than those in most other sectors of the economy. There is much uncertainty concerning the depth and extent of the crisis. The outcomes for U.S. agriculture depend on whether or not there is a global realignment of exchange rates to correct current macroeconomic imbalances.

But the USDA proposed solution sounds less convincing. The Department says:  The main long-term issue is how and whether the fundamental imbalances that created the conditions for the global crisis will be reduced or maintained. This process will depend to a large degree on whether exchange rates are realigned. If, in the longer term, the dollar and other trade deficit countries’ currencies depreciate, then imbalances will be reduced and economic growth will resume at sustainable rates. If exchange rates are not realigned, then the trade and savings imbalances will remain.

If the long-term outcome is a depreciated dollar and the fundamental realignment of global exchange rates, then U.S. agriculture

will be strengthened by increases in agricultural export volumes, agricultural commodity prices, and farm incomes. If the long-term outcome is an appreciation of the dollar but no fundamental realignment of exchange rates, the high dollar will become a constraint on U.S. agricultural exports, dollar denominated agricultural commodity prices, and farm incomes.

Comment (e)

Mentioned USDA Proposition seems to be very problematic in many Ways, because depreciation of currencies goes hand in hand with inflation, and therefore depreciation can not help in the long run. If the analysis assumes depreciation without Inflation, a legitimate logical plan for such development should be benchmarked also, which is necessary to mute anti American Experts who constantly accuse the USA of depreciating the Dollar to make Debts Payments less burdening. Demand on agricultural Exports has been getting internationally weaker because of rising food prices pushed by higher production cost, and the last has been driven by increase in Oil Prices. A realignment of exchange rates could be helpful, but even this is depending on the state and Stability of own Currency. Now many Governments around the World bind their Currency to the US Dollar, which makes the US Money more stabile, secured and stimulate the leadership of the United States in this World. The depreciation of US Dollar last year made Some Governments undo the Tie-up of their Money Value to US Dollar. It is important to note; that the USDA proposition serves the US Agriculture in the short term, but with grave consequences in the general long run.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMF (as mentioned in the report of January 28, 2009) reports:

Global monetary and fiscal policies are providing substantial support. Faced with a quickly deteriorating outlook and subsiding inflation pressures, central banks in the advanced economies have taken strong actions to cut policy rates and improve credit provision. Policy interest rates have been brought down substantially in recent months, especially as inflation pressures subsided, although falling inflation expectations are mitigating the impact on real interest rates. Relative to the November WEO Update projections, short-term market interest rates in 2009 are assumed to be about ¾ percentage point lower in the United States, the euro area, and the United Kingdom, in line with market expectations. Central banks in emerging economies are also moving to ease their policy stance and improve market liquidity.

To combat the downturn, many governments have announced fiscal packages to boost their economies. Consequently, unlike the November WEO Update, the new projections incorporate a substantial fiscal expansion. Specifically, fiscal stimulus in G-20 countries in 2009 is projected to be 1.5 percent of GDP. Deficits are also expected to be boosted by the operation of automatic stabilizers and the impact on revenues of sharp asset price declines, as well as the costs of financial sector rescues. As a result, the fiscal balance in advanced economies is projected to deteriorate by 3¼ percentage points to -7 percent of GDP in 2009

Strong and complementary policy efforts are needed to rekindle activity. Policy efforts so far have addressed the immediate threats to financial stability (through liquidity support, deposit insurance, and recapitalization schemes), but they have done little to resolve the uncertainty about the long-term solvency of financial institutions. The process of loss recognition and restructuring of bad loans is still incomplete. Therefore, financial sector policies should focus on advancing this process by forcing credible and coordinated loan loss recognition and by providing public support to the viable financial institutions. Such policies should be supported by measures to resolve insolvent banks and set up public agencies to dispose of the bad debts, including possibly through a "bad bank" approach, while safeguarding public resources. Monetary policy remains an important policy lever. The projections incorporate a substantial easing in policy rates, although the effectiveness of interest rate cuts to support activity is likely to be constrained as long as financial conditions remain disrupted. With interest rates approaching zero in several major countries, central banks are exploring alternative policy approaches that rely on using their balance sheets to ease monetary conditions further. The focus should be on unlocking key (high-spread, low-liquidity) credit markets.

In current circumstances, the timely implementation of fiscal stimulus across a broad range of advanced and emerging economies must provide a key support to world growth.3 Given that the current projections are predicated on strong and coordinated policy actions, any delays will likely worsen growth prospects. Countries that have policy room should make a firm commitment to do more if the situation deteriorates further. Fiscal stimulus packages should rely primarily on temporary measures and be formulated within medium-term fiscal frameworks that ensure that the envisaged buildup in fiscal deficits can be reversed as economies recover and that fiscal sustainability can be attained in the face of demographic pressure. Countries that have more limited fiscal space should focus their efforts on supporting the financial sector and credit flows, while ensuring that budgets adjust to less favorable external conditions. However, it will be important to avoid cutbacks in foreign aid in response to tightening budget constraints, lest hard-won economic gains in developing countries are lost.

Comment (f)

A neo liberal governmental intervention is being proposed and advocated by the IMF. The stimulus Packages have been approved by the EX Republican administration and by the winning Democrats (2009). Thus far, Left political barking didn’t change the fact; that the solution to emerging Challenges remains a neo liberal monetary policy. As mentioned in the IMF Report; several stimulus Packages have been proposed by developed Governments world wide. Example:

In according to some western agencies:

November 27th, 2008

The European Union Wednesday called on member states to help the bloc avoid a deep recession by mobilizing 200 billion euros ($260 billion) in extra spending and tax cuts. ”Exceptional times call for exceptional measures,” said the head of the EU’s executive, European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso.

According to the plan outlined on Wednesday, governments are encouraged to improve their countries’ competitiveness by lowering labor taxes and boost private consumption through temporary cuts in value added tax (VAT).

In response to the EU Appeal, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has thrown her support behind a plan to pump up to €130 billion into the European Union economy. The government in Berlin says it would be prepared to contribute up to €25 billion for a stimulus program. Government spokesman Ulrich Wilhelm told the Financial Times Deutschland that "we can imagine a package totaling around 1 percent of the EU’s gross domestic product."

Series of fiscal and financial stimulus actions have been taken worldwide, but benefiting from the crisis, the left trends propaganda gained wider Sympathy to become an important part of the international Crisis 2008/2009. They criticize well, but when it comes to concepts and solutions they have nothing to show except red eyed actions. To face such a political Challenge in the mentioned Germany, the ruling Party sought coalition with the CSU and FDP, but the CSU challenged the CDU on some related Issues like The Lisbon’s Treaty and Taxes. In Japan, where recession scored 4% this year, the ruling liberal Democratic Party suffered great losses in this year Elections also. But as I mentioned in many several studies, the Leftists show a different political face when it comes to external relations, and that is why the Ideology expanded gaining more Sympathy in the European local Elections, but shrunk in the EU Elections, whereby the right wings harvest has been more productive.

Secret World Bank Report Says Biofuels Are Prime Cause of Food Crisis (by Lloyd Alter, Toronto)

The Bush administration says it ain't so, blaming high food prices on higher demand from India and China. Brazil's Lula blames record oil prices and rich countries' farm subsidies. John Laumer blames genetically modified crops, among other things. Now a leaked report from the World Bank claims that biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75%. The Guardian writes: "Senior development sources" say the report was spiked to avoid embarrassing President Bush. "It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one yesterday. The report contradicts Bush and says "Rapid income growth in developing countries has not led to large increases in global grain consumption and was not a major factor responsible for the large price increases Without the increase in biofuels, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate ."World Bank Entrance, Washington, Getty Images From the Guardian: "Political leaders seem intent on suppressing and ignoring the strong evidence that biofuels are a major factor in recent food price rises," said Robert Bailey, policy adviser at Oxfam. "It is imperative that we have the full picture. While politicians concentrate on keeping industry lobbies happy, people in poor countries cannot afford enough to eat.

Comment (h)

Each of the mentioned Prognoses must be taken seriously. High Oil Prices and Subsidies are some important factors. But stronger growing demand in third world countries because of population increase and advance in the general growth plays an important role also. Biofuels have been mere words in the past years. When Oil Prices rise, speculations experts and entrepreneurs propagate some alternates plans enlarging rumors that would influence the market, and help make Oil Prices go down. Biofuels stand on the production Agendas when Oil Prices become too high. In that sense, Biofuels would be a mere result anyway, and therefore can’t be treated as a reason or cause. Biofuels Industry is too young and exorbitant, and can not be a lasting solution. The fact that despite the downturn in Oil Prices 2009, food prices remain much higher than before (in many Countries around the world), refute the claim that Biofuels are real and decisive influence factor.

In a recent Report on global Economy, the IMF analyzes, prognosticates and proposes:

For emerging economies, a stronger economic framework developed in recent years will help them avoid the shock of serious, painful declines of past recessions. Developing economies, too, are better prepared to deal with the current recession than in than in years past, though high poverty levels and reliance on commodity exports will still sting throughout the downturn, said the report.

To help reverse the economy's course, several nations around the world with advanced economies have enacted fiscal stimulus plans, which could cost as much as 1.5% of advanced economies' GDP in 2009. The United States is currently considering a plan that would equal roughly 6% of its total economic output. The actions of those countries are expected to increase their debt levels to 7% of their GDP, up from 3.75% in 2008.

But the IMF said stimulus packages may not be enough. Countries around the globe should consider strong and complementary policy actions that help to fix the financial sector meltdown. IMF recommended a massive coordinated effort to buy up troubled assets, a policy that has received much attention in advanced economies but wavering support in recent months. 

First Published: January 28, 2009: 9:00 AM ET

In a recent Update the IMF publishes the following Report:

Inflation pressures are subsiding.

Sluggish real activity and lower commodity prices have dampened inflation pressures (Figure 5, view: Data Figure 5). In the advanced economies, headline inflation is expected to decline from 3½ percent in 2008 to a record low ¼ percent in 2009, before edging up to ¾ percent in 2010. Moreover, some advanced economies are expected to experience a period of very low (or even negative) consumer price increases. In emerging and developing economies, inflation is also expected to subside to 5¾ percent in 2009 and 5 percent in 2010, down from 9½ percent in 2008.

Table 1.1. Overview of the World Economic Outlook Projections
(Percent change, unless otherwise noted)

 

Year over Year

Q4 over Q4

 

 

 

 

 

Difference from November

 

 

 

 

 

 

Projections

 

2008 WEO Projections

Estimates

Projections

 

2007

2008

2009

2010

 

2009

2010

2008

2009

2010

 

World output1

5.2

3.4

0.5

3.0

 

-1.7

-0.8

1.1

1.2

3.4

Advanced economies

2.7

1.0

-2.0

1.1

 

-1.7

-0.5

-1.1

-0.5

1.6

  United States

2.0

1.1

-1.6

1.6

 

-0.9

0.1

-0.7

--

2.0

  Euro area

2.6

1.0

-2.0

0.2

 

-1.5

-0.7

-0.7

-1.4

0.9

    Germany

2.5

1.3

-2.5

0.1

 

-1.7

-0.4

-1.2

-1.0

0.4

    France

2.2

0.8

-1.9

0.7

 

-1.4

-0.8

-0.5

-1.8

2.2

    Italy

1.5

-0.6

-2.1

-0.1

 

-1.5

-0.1

-1.5

-1.3

0.8

    Spain

3.7

1.2

-1.7

-0.1

 

-1.0

-0.9

-0.4

-1.5

0.5

Japan

2.4

-0.3

-2.6

0.6

 

-2.4

-0.5

-3.0

-0.2

0.8

United Kingdom

3.0

0.7

-2.8

0.2

 

-1.5

-0.9

-1.8

-1.5

0.8

Canada

2.7

0.6

-1.2

1.6

 

-1.5

-1.4

-0.4

-0.4

2.0

Other advanced economies

4.6

1.9

-2.4

2.2

 

-3.9

-1.0

-1.6

0.1

2.7

    Newly industrialized
    Asian economies

5.6

2.1

-3.9

3.1

 

-6.0

-1.1

-3.4

0.6

3.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Emerging and developing economies2

8.3

6.3

3.3

5.0

 

-1.8

-1.2

4.5

3.5

5.8

  Africa

6.2

5.2

3.4

4.9

 

-1.4

-0.5

...

...

...

    Sub-Sahara

6.9

5.4

3.5

5.0

 

-1.6

-0.7

...

...

...

  Central and eastern Europe

5.4

3.2

-0.4

2.5

 

-2.6

-1.3

...

...

...

  Commonwealth of Independent States

8.6

6.0

-0.4

2.2

 

-3.6

-2.3

...

...

...

    Russia

8.1

6.2

-0.7

1.3

 

-4.2

-3.2

2.7

-1.3

1.9

    Excluding Russia

9.7

5.4

0.3

4.4

 

-1.3

-0.3

...

...

...

Developing Asia

10.6

7.8

5.5

6.9

 

-1.6

-1.1

...

...

...

    China

13.0

9.0

6.7

8.0

 

-1.8

-1.5

6.8

7.5

8.1

    India

9.3

7.3

5.1

6.5

 

-1.2

-0.3

5.1

5.3

7.1

    ASEAN-5

6.3

5.4

2.7

4.1

 

-1.5

-1.3

4.1

3.1

4.5

Middle East

6.4

6.1

3.9

4.7

 

-1.5

-0.6

...

...

...

Western Hemisphere

5.7

4.6

1.1

3.0

 

-1.4

-1.0

...

...

...

    Brazil

5.7

5.8

1.8

3.5

 

-1.2

-1.0

4.3

2.2

4.2

    Mexico

3.2

1.8

-0.3

2.1

 

-1.2

-1.4

--

0.2

3.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Memorandum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

European Union

3.1

1.3

-1.8

0.5

 

-1.6

-0.8

...

...

...

World growth based on market exchange rates

3.8

2.2

-0.6

2.1

 

-1.7

-0.7

...

...

...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

World trade volume (goods and services)

7.2

4.1

-2.8

3.2

 

-4.8

-2.5

...

...

...

Imports

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Advanced economies

4.5

1.5

-3.1

1.9

 

-3.0

-1.8

...

...

...

  Emerging and developing economies

14.5

10.4

-2.2

5.8

 

-7.0

-3.6

...

...

...

Exports

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Advanced economies

5.9

3.1

-3.7

2.1

 

-5.0

-1.8

...

...

...

  Emerging and developing economies

9.6

5.6

-0.8

5.4

 

-5.8

-3.5

...

...

...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commodity prices (U.S. dollars)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oil3

10.7

36.4

-48.5

20.0

 

-16.7

9.7

...

...

...

Nonfuel (average based on world commodity export weights)

14.1

7.4

-29.1

7.3

 

-10.4

6.3

...

...

...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consumer prices

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advanced economies

2.1

3.5

0.3

0.8

 

-1.1

-0.8

2.6

0.3

0.9

Emerging and developing economies2

6.4

9.2

5.8

5.0

 

-1.3

-0.5

7.6

4.7

4.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

London interbank offered rate (percent)4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On U.S. dollar deposits

5.3

3.0

1.3

2.9

 

-0.7

-1.4

...

...

...

On euro deposits

4.3

4.6

2.2

2.7

 

-0.8

-0.8

...

...

...

On Japanese yen deposits

0.9

1.0

1.0

0.4

 

--

-0.3

...

...

...

 

Conclusion:

The IMF, the WTO and other economic institutions introduced some more or less logical Analysis and plausibly proposed solutions. Important to note; that none of them speak of a link between the former US administration and the Crisis. That is of course not to say that politics and economics are two different spheres. The Reports speak mostly of Suffer in the US Housing market, rising oil prices and soaring interest rates, but don’t go far behind, to know what the possible source of all that evil is. Before we develop some more penetrative questions concerning the economic collapse, one should discuss how did the opposing Leftists come to convince; that conservative and liberal administrations are behind the recession, blinding the facts that almost all institutionally proposed Solutions have been bearing some liberal and neo liberal approaches? In fact; some of the UN Groups and committees share almost same interest and Values with the oppositions to neo and classical liberalism. To recover their lost roles, they made use of the economic disaster through manipulations and launched some overwhelming campaigns in 2009.

I wouldn’t affirm that the invasion of Iraq has been a directly decisive Factor that led to the economic Collapse (2008). On the other hand, zooming in we find out; that the Forces lurking behind the Iraqi Crisis are mostly leftists (social Democrats or democratic socialists), dictators and kings, and For the mentioned Forces are strongly present at International Level, the UN played a harmful role in the early years of the invasion. As we all know, the UN universal Rights Declarations correspond to the American or even French rights Declarations. The UN Declarations to protect human rights encourage Democracy and boost individual freedoms have been a harmonic response to the American and other enlightenments Movements. To achieve Democracy and protect Nations, the United Nations is supposed to be supportive to the removal of Forces that violate Liberty, Peace and democracy in the World. That is the Theoretical Basis on which the UN was originally founded. But on practical Levels, the UN doesn’t appear to be committed to those Principles. Why? I wouldn’t go far away from the topic and refer to so many Conflicts that don’t directly relate to the economic troubles of 2008, but will relevantly and respectively refer to the Middle East Crisis in general, and the Iraqi as a particular and most actual update. In the case of the Israeli Occupation, the UN has been a poor pastor (rather an Islamic Mufti), preaching Verses and Issuing Treatises that have never been respected from any of the conflict Parties. Although our UN keep hypocritical in relation to both (Arabs and Israelis), and hence helps the Continuity of the Conflict. From an international Government one expects deeds and not merely Words. In the Iraqi Case, the UN opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein (A man that has been threatening Security in the (economically) most sensitive Region of the world). The UN Objection was clearly declared by Security Council, but in no way has the Objection been justified. One can simply not justify the opposition to the removal of a man that has been Violating International and regional Freedoms and Stability, and in same way can no one justify his Survival on the political and strategic Stage. Much more; the Security Council refusal to remove Saddam Hussein served as a legitimacy Basis for Insurgents and Terrorists (An Endorsement to launch Attacks against the democratically elected Government of Iraq). It has encouraged authoritarian and dictatorial Brothers, to train and support Forces that have been destroying every democratic and Stabilization effort in the Country. The growing tension in Iraq threatened to escalate, and the supported Forces turned dangerous even against those who have been supportive to them. In the following years, the UN became more cooperative, and those who were against the removal have finally accepted the Change. The fact that (despite the rejecting Security Council) the US Actions in Iraq don’t stand in conflict or any opposition to the UN declarations shows how handicapped and contradictive (structurally) the UN is. Even the Veto right seems to have become a formal idealist with no relation to the reality at all (since the end of the cold War at least). Veto prevents theoretically, but practically didn’t in many cases. Years ago, the USA interfered in Yugoslavia to prevent Massacres and stop Genocide despite Security Council rejection. The Fact that Serbs who stood before the ICC were found Guilty shows also how disabled and disruptive the UN Gestalt is, and justify international calls for reforms. Another part of the Crisis is; those who try to exploit the UN for he Purpose of achieving illegitimate Goals. We (well educated) know; that the lassez-faire political Principles refer to rights, but not to rights Violations. So those who advocate lassez-faire when it comes to Violation of Security and human rights, Massacres and Genocide, stand in dispute with what they preach, and all that they achieve is mere short and narrow sighted Interests. Left Forces (their Submitted Dictators also) and their Influences or effects upon the UN have factually led to the whole disaster. So if the Iraqi Crisis has been one of the factors that led to the economic Collapse 2008, Mentioned forces are to be blamed for. But because well informed Public is not secured yet, due to the strongly growing Medial and publicity Manipulation presence of opposing Forces, and because the Crisis emerged accidentally under liberal Leaderships, the left and anti liberalism and Globalization Forces convinced; that the Origin of the Crisis lies in Liberalism and centered or conservative liberalist actions. This preface is neither to say that the liberal Forces are perfect nor bear no responsibility for the Crisis at all, but we can confidently say; that the whole indicators point out to the fact, that authoritarian Forces plus their attracted Leftists and Socialists have been the greatest Masters of the striking economic Disaster.

Before I proceed scanning the political Background, I would like to draw attention to the pure economic Aspect of the Crisis:

Reports and Analysis treat mostly Results (shedding light on the actual state of the economics) with very low focus on the Genesis or economic background. Some Studies mix Genesis with Justification (Events with aftermaths/Cause with caused) considering them all as factors or one and same phenomenon. But zooming in, we find out that production technology, Demand, supply etc change gradually. They generally don’t rise or fall at once, and are predictable. Surprising was the sudden rise in the Price of Oil, but with no anticipating sudden big Rise or fall in Demand and Supply, which raises so many Suspicions and Questions that have never been satisfactorily solved yet (a 10 Millions production decrease can not lead to a 4 times increase in the Price. The Irony is; that decreased production remains a matter of fact today, amid a price fall to $40). Crisis in the Housing Markets, soaring Interest rates, Car Industries etc are all outcomes of the jumped Barrel Price last year, and still suffer of potential escalation being predicted in according to last year’s Circumstances that didn’t change that much. A sudden shock to shareholders, Car Producers and managers from many different economic Sectors, whose predictions and Market Views didn’t grow immune enough to have such uncountable and unexpected surprises under control. A black Hole has been that sudden and irregular increase in the price of Oil. Many Experts compare it to the Crisis of 1973, when rich Oil Countries of the Arabic World used Oil as political Weapons, embargoing Israel’s Sponsors and cutting over 5 Million Barrels of their daily productions. Expensive Oil made Car Industries suffer (2008/2009), and so many Workers have lost their Jobs. That is the reason why politicians called for the invention of alternate Energy Engines. McCain (the republican Nominee 2008) proposed a high budget and Awards for the development of competitive Battery Systems, and his Opponent Obama did same thing when repeatedly affirmed the need for alternate Energy Systems. That is the way usually evolutive Capitalism behaves, when Stagnation strikes and recessions prevail.

The Call for New Production Technology made Car Industries sell great amounts of shares to foreign Countries, especially to rich Oil Countries (a good way to make involved Oil Countries care more about Stability of Oil Prices being a primary condition for the Stability of Car Markets they already share). Buying Car Industries is a commitment to keep Oil Price stabile and acceptable.

As the world biggest Oil Consumer, Behaviorally and economically we view also a US commitment to stabile Oil Prices. Expensive Oil makes the American Car Industries and financial Markets lose. In the following let us browse the historic move of the price:

The price of Oil was about $3 a barrel before the Israeli Arabs War of 1973. The Israeli defeat in the War of 1973 led to a dramatic Price increase ($12,21),which didn’t happen in the war of 1967, when Israel launched an insulting War against the Arabic World.

In 1979-1980, the Iran-Iraq War led to some further increase (from $14 in 1978 to $35 in 1981). The supportive Gulf States in the War against Iran increased the production to make Oil Price fall to $18 in 1986. Without War, the price was expected to be over $18 by the End of the eighties.

Uncertainty emerged in 1990 through lower production associated with the invasion of Kuwait and the gulf War. Anti Saddam Oil Countries reacted to help reduce the impact upon the Price of Oil. On the other hand, the Liberation of Kuwait restored confidence in the Market. From 1990 to 1997 world oil Consumption increased by 6.2 Million Barrels per day, and Russian production declined by daily 5 million barrels, which helped the recovery of the price, and so the rapid Growth in Asia halted.

1997 OPEC increased production by 2.5 Million Barrels, to help lower the prices. Upward again in early 1999, and in response to, OPEC reduced production by 1.719 Million Barrels. As the Production (1998/1999) dropped again, Barrel price moved to $25. 2001 increases in non-OPEC production influenced the price again, and the OPEC responded with production cuts. 2003, the Venezuelan production became reduced, and OPEC increased quotas in an attempt to keep Stability of the Supply. Little later the invasion of Iraq plus increased Asian Demand stroke Oil Market again. Some assume that the invasion of Iraq, the US refinery problems, the level of the US inventories, hurricanes and disasters (happened since 2005) have been some of the important factors that led to the 2008 recession. Between 2005 and 2006/7 the price ranged from $60 to $77 (depending on the kind of the crude). In September 2007, US crude exceeded $80, US Stocks fell surprisingly and OPEC Response was careless. The Increase was anticipated by Attacks on Pipelines in Mexico, and so other vulnerable Pipelines around the world became at a high alarm. In October the price rose to $90 synchronized with Weakness in US Dollar and high tension in Iraq. By the shining of 2008, the price increased to $100 and kept ascending to reach $147 (in July 2008). Later the Market witnessed a gradual decline to become bellow $100 in August and September. In the advance of US Presidential elections, Oil Price fell to become around $40 in April 2009.

Through this quick preface we understand, that not mere Wars, but Wars and other Circumstances rule the price of Oil (Relativism). Example: the War of 1967 and the Iran-Iraq War didn’t have that big impact, because of an Arabic weakness contributing to western predominance in the case of 1967, and on the other hand because of actions taken by supportive Oily Gulf States during the Saddam War on Iran. So the nature of War (depending on who is the superior party is) plus accompanying Circumstances (Rumors and fear associations) play (positively or negatively) a decisive role in making it influential or not. It became almost a law during the cold War; that the more Anti Capitalism Forces grow up threatening to take control of Oil market, the more Market escalation and price increases become expected (if not real). So the latest Challenge began with the Invasion of Kuwait, but the vacillation of Oil Price ended in Stability after the interfering Forces restored confidence. The following Iraqi status to sell Oil in exchange for food, and the regional Threat represented by creating ties to Iran through restored relation to the neighboring Syria, made it possible for the three neighbors (Iraq Syria and Iran) to build own Alliance (A troika that would expand influences attracting anti western Forces across the region, and thereafter weaken the Israeli Dominance). On the other Hand, the rapidly growing China and other Asian neighbors are likely to end the region Dependence on western Technology in one of the strongest consuming markets of the world. To stop the Chinese expansion, Investments are needed (from western point of view). No one can overcome Chinese through expensive western labor production. So western Experts proposed investments there, where Chinese economic invasions are taking place (with low Salary workers, no transport cost, local cooperation and engagement and better quality). The American plan to create (what they called) a big or great Middle East, and the effort to implement the road map ending the main conflict in the region were not supported by Countries (like France, china and even some other Europeans) who benefited from the Embargo through legal or illegal trade with Saddam’s regime. Russia lost some 50 Milliards Business contracts because of the invasion, and other weak and uncompetitive European Forces missed the Money they made through violation of the “Oil for food Program”. Well known Countries were the welcoming Gate and proxies of such a bad and dirty Business. Anti American Forces gathered jointly around the Security Council Invasion disapproval to encourage anti American and anti Settlement actions Passion.

Illegal Business Makers, Left Streams, Dictators and Kings led to the Crisis of 2007/2008. But soon some European Turbulences Sponsors realized that they could become the biggest losers with much less perspectives.

Some economic Experts view in the decrease of Oil Price a decrease in US demand for Oil, and the increase becomes often associated with US Inventories. Such narrow headed Experts don’t realize that inventories wouldn’t be managed to harm own Industries. Countries that benefited form the rising Oil Prices are the large Oil Exporters. One should go far behind whole accidental Markets Behavior with a much relative and comprising world View (whereas entire political and economic Circumstances overlap interfering in each other’s spheres), to understand (with high probability and open to criticism View) how it works.

Observing the market state between 2006 and 2008, we indicate some meaningless flow fluctuation in Oil market (Demand and Supply). In contrast to the economic Track we view greater political instability and growing tension in international relations. Some of the important political factors that led to the price escalation are:

1.      The launched War against Israel by Hezbollah 2006. The Israeli failure to end Hezbollah dominance in southern Lebanon produced total uncertainty.

2.      the tension and out of control growing insurgency in Iraq encouraged by foreign Powers

3.      the mentioned 1 and 2 led to a bigger challenge represented by Iran, and helped Iran develop own atomic power plants

4.      Attracted Russia began to send significant Challenge Signals throughout the following years.

This beside so many other politically encouraging motivators made Oil Market Security more vulnerable. Given such Considerations, the rich Oil Countries became encouraged to challenge the market also.

The decrease in Oil Prices happened after the emerging Democrats promised to open dialog to Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, and improve relations to Russia and other powers (Refuting in that way the political escalation expectations). On the other hand, the successful Israeli War on Ghazza made things look little different too.

Anyway, the temporarily declared dialog between America and other troublesome powers can not achieve prosperity in the long run. It is more or less a temporarily soothing pill to regulate and take hold of keys again. The growing hostile Forces develop tools and weapons to strike the international structure and coordinate hostile efforts in order to serve own authoritarian existence. To overcome such Axis of evil, the liberal Forces should work together giving up narrow and temporary benefit. That is to say: Regime Changes, human rights and Democratization are primary devices to overcome such Axis. As long as there are such Forces in this dangerously growing world, no security can be guaranteed, and thereafter no capitalistic market Stability can be invulnerably achieved. The Democratic Diplomacy serves hence as more or less a temporary narcotic pill inserted in a suffering Body. It is true that Authoritarian Governments were endorsed during the cold War, and are to be considered as a cold War Heritage today. Hitherto the removal and change of such regimes is an important Strategy to secure liberal Capitalism and get rid of a heritage that burden the international political and economic Gestalt in the post cold war era.

Economic Globalization requires basic political Globalization of necessary Rules, and economic Freedoms require a satisfactory amount of political Freedom also. The more economic Freedoms a country has the less governmental intervention and control is, and that simply opposes the nature of Authoritarianism and Dictatorship. So the plan to invest and make use of resources in the competition Field became perceived (by dictators) as violation of their State Sovereignty. To stop the process of Globalization and secure their Survivals, Dictators, Kings and authoritarian Governments in general have been looking for alternate Alliances that would fill out the Gap caused by the collapse of the Soviet Sponsorship. Shanghai Meeting, the Arabic League, the African Union, some Russian movements, Hugo Chavez, Morales, the North Korean atomic program, the Iranian revolution and nuclear projects etc are some of the Attempts to mobilize an alternate political protection shield, and must be taken very seriously, for they represent a real threat to the liberal World. Problem is: the USA is the only Country that confronts such Challenges, appoints specialists and found institutions to study and observe such potentialities. The American Effort to stop the expansion of such Forces influences unmasking their cheating attractions in the Middle East has not achieved expected success because of 1. Incredibility produced by supported Israeli Politics standing against international Resolutions and 2. Some influential conflict sponsors who see in a free and open Middle Eastern markets created or sponsored by the USA a loss of Business and a Block of own beneficiary Access.

That miserable political Process is accompanied by a corresponding economic Challenge. Since the Collapse of the Soviet Union and openness of world Markets we have been witnessing a dramatic rise vis-à-vis a dramatic fall. China and other Asian and African Countries grow up rapidly, whenever liberal Countries sink. Good political and economic Quality retires while bad political and economic qualities expand sweeping Market founders away across the region. As mentioned before; This Challenge has been too early detected by American Experts, who proposed free, open markets and investments there, where western products shrink because of cheap invaders. To secure the future of liberal Capitalism in that world strongest consumption Market, the Middle East had to be economically mobilized for such a project. On the one hand the world’s most important Energy Resources are buried in the region; on the other consumption of western Products require a direct investment and a mobilization of political Ground. The Bush Administration recognized the need to remove Saddam Hussein and expose dissident regional Powers to a high Pressure. To become credible and psychologically well endorsed parallel to that action a Solution to the Palestinian Problem had to be very present on the Table. For some well known strategic Reasons, the War on Saddam was inevitable. But the European Reaction was less than expected. Authoritarian Powers, narrow sighted left Streams in Europe, panicked Kings, Market invaders and classical sponsors of the Arab-Israeli Conflict became highly alarmed. They did almost every thing to make America suffer in Iraq, and prevent the process of Democracy there. Louder growing left voices, careless European Countries, embarrassing international and European Sponsors who used to temporarily benefit from conflicts, local dictators etc financed and supported the instability of the newly born Iraq, which caused America to spend a lot of many on an ambiguous project, and invest on a foggy Ground being manipulated, tempted and encouraged to resist every helpful action. This beside other Events being underestimated and tolerated by some sponsoring European countries have weakened the liberal Capitalistic Position producing uncertainty about Oil Safety and control, and helped the escalation of Oil market as well. It also raised suspension about the international relation to Oil Kings, sheiks and other dictatorial Regimes. It has been classically known, that the more local Middle East regimes are dependent on western or foreign political help, the more local regimes are stricken, weakened and under control-and the more Oil Kings are blackmailed and dependent the cheaper and stabile Oil prices become. What has changed today is; that this Game has become very dangerous, and threats to bring the actors upside down. It remains useable to strike hostile Forces and bring anti western Streams down, but to keep supporting dictatorial and authoritarian Leaderships who would provide temporary and unsecured protection of western interests amid open new international Horizons and tempting alternatives, and within a dramatically changeable political Ground that newly requires more transparency and a mobile Ground for Market Freedoms becoming dependent on political openness and change-the Game became more dangerous, and the need for a Change of regimes turned to be an important part of the capitalistic Future. Critical Rationalists had been tolerating some authoritarian political Leadership that had been protecting western interests being prior to a pro Soviet Dictatorship. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of new political Circumstances, mentioned critical rationalist View changed as echoing changes on the Ground. A newly born Middle East that would fit the new Needs and satisfy broader free capitalistic Ambitions requires a political Freedom and a direct people Involvement. Of Course, It will take sometimes until the chickened Middle Eastern people get rid of the dictatorial legacy and raise heads to eye with self-confidence the new horizons.

I wouldn’t propagate the Theory that says: Authoritarian Characters subject themselves without any conditions to their authoritarian rulers. But it seems to be a matter of fact, that the long experienced authoritarian Regimes learnt how to make use of their sowed authoritarianism when regimes become at threat. Example: the Islamic oppositions became directed by their repressing authoritarian rulers to operate against newly born liberal forces, for they represent a common enemy to both. So Arabic Governments preferred not to crack down directly on liberal forces (because they count with international concern), but their secret forces adopted and opened new High Ways for hostile Islamists to target liberal intellectuals and free movements. In that method authoritarian Arabic Governments used to justify their iron dictatorial rule letting common enemies strike each other, and so, many liberal Intellectuals became killed by newly tolerated Islamic forces (those with experiences in secret services understand well how it works). But it is important to note: that the Republican Administration has detected that dirty business too early, opened doors for NGO to take part in the international political process, backed and integrated every liberal movement launching a conditionless assaults on Governments under which crimes took place. A necessary effort to access the cultural Ground trying to break out with states Monopoly, for Globalization of Cultures can not be treated a part from political Globalization.

G w Bush fair deal to democratize Governments, end the Israeli Palestinian Conflict and encourage freedom of Markets and Investments serves local people interest and help western Governments confront the new market Challenges. It is the only lasting long term solution to the local Arabic Development, and to the fitness and health of liberal Capitalism Industries.

It is in the interest of the people of the Middle East and the rest of the capitalistic World to accept the American Plans for the Region and break up with helpless inherited political dalliance. It is also quite difficult to (on this restrictive Page) amply explain why it is in the interest of the Free World to do so. But it would be sufficient to know; that almost every critical rationalistic Focus leads to the following Conclusion: Easy to criticize the US Plans, but absolutely uneasy to find better alternatives. What China has offered up to date is: a useless Shanghai pole! What Russia Propose is: a politically divided multi polar World, in which Russia would seize its empire’s proportion through taking over some parts of Europe and Asia- A typical Euroasiatic Vision being advocated by so many Russian Colonialists who propagate a six or seven Poles, in each of them an atomic power like Russia would dominate. Russia Today TV hosts such sick intellectuals every week to speak on behalf of a balancing Russian Empire. Some of the most prominent Guests are terribly bearded members and founders of the EUROASIA Stream like Alexander Doggin, who appear to be truly and vampiricaly inherited from the tsar Times. What Islamists offer is worse: Veiled Woman crying over holy Victims, and weeping Children over lost houses? They still stand in the very core of the contemporary international Crisis.

Strategic forecasts:

Now a day, the world is in urgent daily need to almost 80 million Barrels. With forth population growth the daily Energy Consumption will extend, while Production Capacity is becoming much lower in Oil producing Countries world wide. In the near Future Oil will become very expensive, which would make it very hard for contemporary Oil Engines Industries to survive. It is of course possible to develop alternate Energy Resources, but mentioned resources are unfeasible on military levels. Tanks and heavy Tracks require diesel, and Air Force can not competitively function with electric, sunlight or hydrogen Energies. The world largest Producers are in the gulf, and Oil is expected to be lately (after it runs out in the world) available there. That is why it is important for the United States to remain very present in the expectedly longest lasting and surviving Oil Region. Rising Powers like China and India will not have that big access to Oil, and Russia is expected to have not that big amount of Oil, because the Country needs to sell in order to provide a sufficient budget. Russian Production Capacity became less in last Years, and the country lives a constant Crisis anyway, but will do better in the future than some other Oilless Powers for sure. In contrast to mentioned potential Rivals, The USA saves Oil for the Future on the one hand, and has strengthened its military deployment in Oil regions on the other. The only Country that operates out of US Control in the gulf is Iran, and it is the only gulf Country that has been supported by Russia and china to threat the US Military Presence also. When medium and rising Powers will be embarrassed through lack for Oil, Wars will be highly expected, and the only Superpower that may decisively act is the USA. Days ago the closest Ally (UK) declared that its military presence in Afghanistan is expected to last throughout the coming 4 decades. The formal presence justification would be (however) Terror Combat, democratization, human rights etc those are in fact legitimate Causes and meet the demands of People also. The only power that may provide real future security to the region is America, and it is quite natural that such superpower benefits from its leading Role. The Republican Plans to provide Security for the region through removal of dictatorial regimes, the establishment of legitimate Governments, whose commitment to human rights and democracy would make them naturally American Allies, and therefore create a relation that would serve both sides’ interests, resist exploitive authoritarian flows, and prevent evil powers and Vampire regimes with formally lying Goals from restoring their lost political Bazaars - would be better than an international Presence raising the motto  “Purpose or goal justifies the tools and contrivances”, and thereafter appoint or establish local Regimes that would serve as own private Proxies with no respect to local people Interests. This last version of Governance has become very dangerous as mentioned before, and the forces lying behind are in fact the fuel of the contemporarily striking international Crisis. But to implement the republican Plans of Achieving a real Peace and lasting political Stability would require an End to the Israeli Occupation. Under G W Bush, the Settlers were forced to leave Gaza, and the plan to achieve a full withdrawal from the westbank became dependent on a liberal democratization of the political System in Gaza- A quite living evidence that Authoritarianism has been the fuel of every local and international Crisis. Authoritarian Arabic Governments appear to be happy and supportive to Hamas, for it became their good anti democratic Argument. At each two States Talk, Hamas fired Rockets giving Israel a good reason to remain in occupied Territories, and giving Arabic Leaders a convincing basis to block every democratic Effort that threats to bring Islamists alike to power. The Good Response to those Forces would be a liberal democratic System….in order to protect democracy from becoming a racehorse for Nazis, Racism, Fundamentalism etc Statutes should be vaccinated with exclusive liberal Values (Human Rights).

Sooner or later, the temporarily narcotized rather latent Crisis will wake up, and the pressured Oil Barrel will explode the Market Silence again. The Decreasing Oil production will attract international Powers over and over again, and the option for Rule Proxies will become possibly bigger than before. Those who believe that the Crisis has ended through a black democratic leadership in the White House must be the greatest Idiots of the whole lying future Challenges. So the manipulating Forces will emerge helpless, and the real bail-out plan for a stabile Middle East sponsored and protected by a strong western World led by the United States would be that proposed republican one.

Some bolded crises Aspects are to be demarcated:

A. An economic Aspect:

1.      A general international Crisis in which decreased Oil Production represents the pane of whole temporarily escaped challenges (just take the relativity of the word “decreased” into account).

2.      Vibrant balance of Demand and Supply subjected to many different factual and psychological urgencies

3.      A special western economic Crisis produced by the rise of new market invaders

A political Aspect:

1. Uncertainty over the future western Control of Oil Market. This has been driven by so many psychological and factual factors such as:

1.1 The military Growth of Iran

1.2. The adaptation of effective new Resistance Methods in Lebanon

1.3 The emergence of some hostile Forces across the region aiming to end the American Dominance

1.4 The foggy American Future in Iraq

1.5 The weakened Israeli Position and the weakened reliability on the Jewish State

1.6 Uncertainty over the power to solve Disputes and secure Future Markets through mere military Forces

1.7 The clear and evident Failure of the peace Process in the Middle East due to Israeli Aggression on the one hand, and to the interdependently sticky and clamped Dictators in the Vicinity on the other

Undisputed Facts:

1.      The Western World can not face the new market Invaders through Protectionism, unless protectionism becomes a counter response or procedure. Unjustified Protectionism would create and unfold political and ideological Contradictions within the western System, and make the Liberal Institutions lose face. Free Trade and Freedom of Markets have been western Values, and are the economic Aspect of political Freedom and liberal Democracy.

2.      The Future of the western World is depending on who will win the alternate Energy Revolution, win the new markets and take over the rest of Oil Fields. In both Cases the Middle East plays a decisive role.

3.      The Western World can not give up Israel, but can not win Israel to lose the rest of the Region. Israel had been an important iron Faust when Arabic neighbors propagated Socialism, became Soviet Allies and a real threat to Oil Principalities. But as things have changed, and new horizons have opened up, the classical Israeli Role burdens the American and western Plans more and more. They can’t abandon Israel because the Country has become militarily a superpower, and a future of western Dominance (without Israel) amid hostile dictators and growing anti western forces is not certain yet.

4.      To win the region and to become economically and politically an accepted partner, the western World will have to:

4.1. Stop the Israeli Aggression and put an End to the Israeli Settlements.

4.2. The western World will have to mute the propagated Iranian call for a total destruction of Israel (the road Map)

4.3. So the western World will have to curb Israel and act. This has been the case under the republican Administration since the collapse of Communism. Just after the republicans became politically strongly hit through Insurgency and hostile forces, they tolerated a limited Israeli Wars on Gaza and Hezbollah, but ended both also.

It is easy for the western World to put Pressure on Israel, for Israel can’t economically survive without western help. But to curb or exercise pressure over hostile Arabic and Islamic Forces, greater Efforts and bigger Jobs need to be done.

If the new Democratic Administration will keep cherishing Israel, suck Oil through appointed tyrants and Dictators and act in according to that past cold War Agenda without finding a real solution to the Arabic Israeli Conflict, Opposing Islamists will grow stronger, Terror Groups will have more resources and the involvement of Rivals and hostile foreign powers will gain a wider legitimacy and gravitation. So the American and western World will in that case lose but win a race to the bottom.

5. The only Way to overcome cheap invaders is to encourage lower production cost investments in the new markets. The Uprising western Workers need to be well enlightened about the fact, that protection is a monopoly of own Market, but can’t win external Trade, or open new horizons for economic Development.

Open Trade and globalizing market will lead to lower Prices and cheaper labor on the beginning, but in the long run, the growth of cheap Invaders will slow down, and the qualitatively better and more experienced Industries will prevail. The protectionist response to Challenges is wrong. Protectionism is based on nationalism, and Nationalism would turn the wheels back to Socialism to end in a nihilistic disaster.

In that sense, WTO and other liberal Institutions are the good and fair future deal for all.

www.ahmadannan.webs.com

ann_2006@hotmail.de