Europe

[Endovelico]

Europeans tried to block IMF debt report on Greece
By Paul Taylor
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/ ... 0120150703

Euro zone countries tried in vain to stop the IMF publishing a gloomy analysis of Greece's debt burden which the leftist government says vindicates its call to voters to reject bailout terms, sources familiar with the situation said on Friday.

The document released in Washington on Thursday said Greece's public finances will not be sustainable without substantial debt relief, possibly including write-offs by European partners of loans guaranteed by taxpayers.

It also said Greece will need at least 50 billion euros in additional aid over the next three years to keep itself afloat.

Publication of the draft Debt Sustainability Analysis laid bare a dispute between Brussels and the Washington-based global lender that has been simmering behind closed doors for months.

Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras cited the report in a televised appeal to voters on Friday to say 'No' to the proposed austerity terms, which have anyway expired since talks broke down and Athens defaulted on an IMF loan this week.

It was not clear whether an arcane IMF document would influence a cliffhanger poll in which Greece's future in the euro zone is at stake with banks closed, cash withdrawals rationed and commerce seizing up.

"Yesterday an event of major political importance happened," Tsipras said. "The IMF published a report on Greece's economy which is a great vindication for the Greek government as it confirms the obvious - that Greek debt is not sustainable."

At a meeting on the International Monetary Fund's board on Wednesday, European members questioned the timing of the report which IMF management proposed at short notice releasing three days before Sunday's crucial referendum that may determine the country's future in the euro zone, the sources said.

There was no vote but the Europeans were heavily outnumbered and the United States, the strongest voice in the IMF, was in favor of publication, the sources said.

The Europeans were also concerned that the report could distract attention from a view they share with the IMF that the Tsipras government, in the five months since it was elected, has wrecked a fragile economy that was just starting to recover.

"It wasn't an easy decision," an IMF source involved in the debate over publication said. "We are not living in an ivory tower here. But the EU has to understand that not everything can be decided based on their own imperatives."

The board had considered all arguments, including the risk that the document would be politicized, but the prevailing view was that all the evidence and figures should be laid out transparently before the referendum.

"Facts are stubborn. You can't hide the facts because they may be exploited," the IMF source said.

IMF spokeswoman Angela Gaviria declined comment on this report.

POLITICALLY ANATHEMA

Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis said in a blog post the IMF had upheld the Syriza party government's contention for the last five months that debt relief should be at the center of the negotiations.

"Puzzlingly, all this fine research by the good people at the IMF suddenly evaporates when IMF functionaries coalesce with their ECB and the European Commission colleagues in order to impose upon our government their chosen policies," he wrote.

The IMF argues that Greece's debt burden of nearly 185 percent of gross domestic product can only be made sustainable if the euro zone provides considerable extra financing through a mixture of new loans and a debt restructuring.

This is politically anathema in Germany, the biggest creditor country, and most other euro zone states, where no leader wants to explain to taxpayers that the money they lent to Athens will never be coming back.

Euro zone governments insisted in five months of talks this year that a lengthening of loan maturities and a reduction in interest rates would only be considered after Greece had implemented its commitments under a 2012 bailout deal, including painful structural reforms and public spending cuts.

In Brussels, the way the IMF communicated the findings was seen as confusing, misleading and politically unhelpful.

The European Commission had produced its own debt sustainability analysis, based partially on IMF data, which is less pessimistic in its scenarios and is one of the documents mentioned on the Greek referendum ballot paper.

Diplomats said the IMF's publication of the study was a way of making clear it would only be part of any future loan pact with Greece if the Europeans included debt relief in the mix.

Germany and its north European allies have said the IMF's presence is indispensable both to win parliamentary backing for aid for any euro zone partner, and to keep the European institutions honest. Berlin suspects the European Commission of being too soft on Greek efforts to wriggle out of reforms of pensions, taxation, public sector wages and labor law.

The European Central Bank, the third partner in what used to be called the "troika" of bailout enforcers, is also keen to keep the IMF involved.

When do we start shooting the bastards?...

[Endovelico]

Thomas Piketty: “Germany has never repaid.”
In a forceful interview with German newspaper Die Zeit, the star economist Thomas Piketty calls for a major conference on debt. Germany, in particular, should not withhold help from Greece.

(This interview has been translated from the original German)

Since his successful book, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” the Frenchman Thomas Piketty has been considered one of the most influential economists in the world. His argument for the redistribution of income and wealth launched a worldwide discussion. In a interview with Georg Blume of DIE ZEIT, he gives his clear opinions on the European debt debate.

DIE ZEIT: Should we Germans be happy that even the French government is aligned with the German dogma of austerity?

Thomas Piketty: Absolutely not. This is neither a reason for France, nor Germany, and especially not for Europe, to be happy. I am much more afraid that the conservatives, especially in Germany, are about to destroy Europe and the European idea, all because of their shocking ignorance of history.

ZEIT: But we Germans have already reckoned with our own history.

Piketty: But not when it comes to repaying debts! Germany’s past, in this respect, should be of great significance to today’s Germans. Look at the history of national debt: Great Britain, Germany, and France were all once in the situation of today’s Greece, and in fact had been far more indebted. The first lesson that we can take from the history of government debt is that we are not facing a brand new problem. There have been many ways to repay debts, and not just one, which is what Berlin and Paris would have the Greeks believe.
“Germany is the country that has never repaid its debts. It has no standing to lecture other nations.”

ZEIT: But shouldn’t they repay their debts?

Piketty: My book recounts the history of income and wealth, including that of nations. What struck me while I was writing is that Germany is really the single best example of a country that, throughout its history, has never repaid its external debt. Neither after the First nor the Second World War. However, it has frequently made other nations pay up, such as after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, when it demanded massive reparations from France and indeed received them. The French state suffered for decades under this debt. The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.

ZEIT: But surely we can’t draw the conclusion that we can do no better today?

Piketty: When I hear the Germans say that they maintain a very moral stance about debt and strongly believe that debts must be repaid, then I think: what a huge joke! Germany is the country that has never repaid its debts. It has no standing to lecture other nations.

ZEIT: Are you trying to depict states that don’t pay back their debts as winners?

Piketty: Germany is just such a state. But wait: history shows us two ways for an indebted state to leave delinquency. One was demonstrated by the British Empire in the 19th century after its expensive wars with Napoleon. It is the slow method that is now being recommended to Greece. The Empire repaid its debts through strict budgetary discipline. This worked, but it took an extremely long time. For over 100 years, the British gave up two to three percent of their economy to repay its debts, which was more than they spent on schools and education. That didn’t have to happen, and it shouldn’t happen today. The second method is much faster. Germany proved it in the 20th century. Essentially, it consists of three components: inflation, a special tax on private wealth, and debt relief.

ZEIT: So you’re telling us that the German Wirtschaftswunder [“economic miracle”] was based on the same kind of debt relief that we deny Greece today?

Piketty: Exactly. After the war ended in 1945, Germany’s debt amounted to over 200% of its GDP. Ten years later, little of that remained: public debt was less than 20% of GDP. Around the same time, France managed a similarly artful turnaround. We never would have managed this unbelievably fast reduction in debt through the fiscal discipline that we today recommend to Greece. Instead, both of our states employed the second method with the three components that I mentioned, including debt relief. Think about the London Debt Agreement of 1953, where 60% of German foreign debt was cancelled and its internal debts were restructured.

“We need a conference on all of Europe’s debts, just like after World War II. A restructuring of all debt, not just in Greece but in several European countries, is inevitable.”

ZEIT: That happened because people recognized that the high reparations demanded of Germany after World War I were one of the causes of the Second World War. People wanted to forgive Germany’s sins this time!

Piketty: Nonsense! This had nothing to do with moral clarity; it was a rational political and economic decision. They correctly recognized that, after large crises that created huge debt loads, at some point people need to look toward the future. We cannot demand that new generations must pay for decades for the mistakes of their parents. The Greeks have, without a doubt, made big mistakes. Until 2009, the government in Athens forged its books. But despite this, the younger generation of Greeks carries no more responsibility for the mistakes of its elders than the younger generation of Germans did in the 1950s and 1960s. We need to look ahead. Europe was founded on debt forgiveness and investment in the future. Not on the idea of endless penance. We need to remember this.

ZEIT: The end of the Second World War was a breakdown of civilization. Europe was a killing field. Today is different.

Piketty: To deny the historical parallels to the postwar period would be wrong. Let’s think about the financial crisis of 2008/2009. This wasn’t just any crisis. It was the biggest financial crisis since 1929. So the comparison is quite valid. This is equally true for the Greek economy: between 2009 and 2015, its GDP has fallen by 25%. This is comparable to the recessions in Germany and France between 1929 and 1935.

ZEIT: Many Germans believe that the Greeks still have not recognized their mistakes and want to continue their free-spending ways.

Piketty: If we had told you Germans in the 1950s that you have not properly recognized your failures, you would still be repaying your debts. Luckily, we were more intelligent than that.

ZEIT: The German Minister of Finance, on the other hand, seems to believe that a Greek exit from the Eurozone could foster greater unity within Europe.

Piketty: If we start kicking states out, then the crisis of confidence in which the Eurozone finds itself today will only worsen. Financial markets will immediately turn on the next country. This would be the beginning of a long, drawn-out period of agony, in whose grasp we risk sacrificing Europe’s social model, its democracy, indeed its civilization on the altar of a conservative, irrational austerity policy.

ZEIT: Do you believe that we Germans aren’t generous enough?

Piketty: What are you talking about? Generous? Currently, Germany is profiting from Greece as it extends loans at comparatively high interest rates.

ZEIT: What solution would you suggest for this crisis?

Piketty: We need a conference on all of Europe’s debts, just like after World War II. A restructuring of all debt, not just in Greece but in several European countries, is inevitable. Just now, we’ve lost six months in the completely intransparent negotiations with Athens. The Eurogroup’s notion that Greece will reach a budgetary surplus of 4% of GDP and will pay back its debts within 30 to 40 years is still on the table. Allegedly, they will reach one percent surplus in 2015, then two percent in 2016, and three and a half percent in 2017. Completely ridiculous! This will never happen. Yet we keep postponing the necessary debate until the cows come home.

ZEIT: And what would happen after the major debt cuts?

Piketty: A new European institution would be required to determine the maximum allowable budget deficit in order to prevent the regrowth of debt. For example, this could be a commmittee in the European Parliament consisting of legislators from national parliaments. Budgetary decisions should not be off-limits to legislatures. To undermine European democracy, which is what Germany is doing today by insisting that states remain in penury under mechanisms that Berlin itself is muscling through, is a grievous mistake.
“If we had told you Germans in the 1950s that you have not properly recognized your failures, you would still be repaying your debts. Luckily, we were more intelligent than that.”

ZEIT: Your president, François Hollande, recently failed to criticize the fiscal pact.

Piketty: This does not improve anything. If, in past years, decisions in Europe had been reached in more democratic ways, the current austerity policy in Europe would be less strict.

ZEIT: But no political party in France is participating. National sovereignty is considered holy.

Piketty: Indeed, in Germany many more people are entertaining thoughts of reestablishing European democracy, in contrast to France with its countless believers in sovereignty. What’s more, our president still portrays himself as a prisoner of the failed 2005 referendum on a European Constitution, which failed in France. François Hollande does not understand that a lot has changed because of the financial crisis. We have to overcome our own national egoism.

ZEIT: What sort of national egoism do you see in Germany?

Piketty: I think that Germany was greatly shaped by its reunification. It was long feared that it would lead to economic stagnation. But then reunification turned out to be a great success thanks to a functioning social safety net and an intact industrial sector. Meanwhile, Germany has become so proud of its success that it dispenses lectures to all other countries. This is a little infantile. Of course, I understand how important the successful reunification was to the personal history of Chancellor Angela Merkel. But now Germany has to rethink things. Otherwise, its position on the debt crisis will be a grave danger to Europe.

ZEIT: What advice do you have for the Chancellor?

Piketty: Those who want to chase Greece out of the Eurozone today will end up on the trash heap of history. If the Chancellor wants to secure her place in the history books, just like [Helmut] Kohl did during reunification, then she must forge a solution to the Greek question, including a debt conference where we can start with a clean slate. But with renewed, much stronger fiscal discipline.

https://medium.com/@gavinschalliol/thom ... 5e7add6fff

What's so difficult to understand about this?...

[YMix]

10 reasons why the latest #ISDS compromise is a bad deal
02 Jul 2015, by Owen Tudor in International

Yesterday the Socialists & Democrats Group in the European Parliament voted 56-34 to endorse a compromise amendment to the Parliament’s draft resolution on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP, the EU-US trade deal), covering the controversial issue of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS).

The compromise was opposed by UK Labour MEPs, and has dismayed Green and Left MEPs too. It’s not clear how many socialist MEPs will actually vote against the compromise if it is put to the Parliamentary vote next Wednesday (Labour MEPs are likely to vote against, and trade unions in other countries are likely to be pressing the French, German, Italian and Spanish socialist MEPs too.) Right-wing anti-Europeans like UKIP will probably also oppose it.

But with the backing of the Conservatives in the ECR group, centre-right MEPs from the European People’s Party and Liberal Democrats in the ALDE group, the compromise is likely to be adopted. We’ll be urging Labour, Green and UKIP MEPs to stand firm, and calling on Conservatives and the single Liberal Democrat to represent the people who elected them rather than the big businesses who will be rubbing their hands with greed.

The proponents of the compromise in the S&D group are arguing that it rules out the sort of full-blooded ISDS that led to over 140,000 critical submissions to the European Commission consultation, over 2.25 million signatures on a European Citizens’ Initiative, and opposition from trade unions, consumer groups and environmentalists. But it leaves intact the idea that foreign investors should get a privileged route to massive compensation payments when democratically-elected governments do something that could be argued in court affects the profits of a multinational enterprise.

The compromise amendment reads:

“to ensure that foreign investors are treated in a non-discriminatory fashion while benefitting from no greater rights than domestic investors, and to replace the ISDS-system with a new system for resolving disputes between investors and states which is subject to democratic principles and scrutiny where potential cases are treated in a transparent manner by publicly appointed, independent professional judges in public hearings and which includes an appellate mechanism, where consistency of judicial decisions is ensured, the jurisdiction of courts of the EU and of the Member States is respected and where private interests cannot undermine public policy objectives;”

Here are ten reasons why the compromise amendment is a bad deal:

1. Although this proposal addresses some of the drawbacks of ISDS, it really isn’t an alternative to ISDS, but just a softer version, or ISDS-lite. It still provides for individual foreign investors to challenge state decisions directly, with all the problems that entails such as ‘regulatory chill’ (when Philip Morris sued the Australian Government over plain paper packaging – a case still not concluded – the New Zealand Government shelved its plain paper packaging proposals.)

2. Leaving any form of privileged investor protection in TTIP would mean that the threat to a publicly-run National Health Service remains. Corporate lawyers will still be licking their lips over the possibility of suing any government brave enough to return privatised parts of the NHS to public hands. And that applies to education, water, railways and any other privatised or part-privatised public services.

3. The compromise would provide foreign investors with compensation arrangements not available to other potential litigants (eg workers, consumers, environmentalists). It would be like restricting access to the European Court of Justice, which also oversees trans-national conflicts, to just one class of litigants, foreign investors.

4. The imbalance of access to justice which is so offensive in ISDS would remain – workers would still get what they have in the EU-Canada deal (called CETA): the possibility of a strongly worded, expert report. As ever, if that’s good enough for workers why should investors get more?

5. The costs involved in taking cases under this arrangement will mean it is only really available to big companies – so small firms will be excluded, which has led to opposition from Austrian and German small firms’ organisations.

6. The case for privileging investors like this still has not been made. How much extra investment is likely to arise? How much has been lost as a result of not having ISDS in EU-US arrangements?

7. Some of the changes proposed sound good (eg “private interests cannot undermine public policy objectives;”) but how can they be guaranteed? In practice, the courts will decide how far these principles are effected (they always do) and we can’t guarantee, once set up, that courts will do as we wish. Corporate lawyers will get creative!

8. There are still many reforms to ISDS that have been proposed which are not included in this proposal, eg that costs should be borne by the unsuccessful litigant, that litigants should demonstrate they are upholding the law before suing governments (so there will be many cases brought by disreputable companies), that amicus curiae/third party briefs will be permitted etc.

9. The move throws away the Parliament’s negotiating position with the European Commission far too early. The TTIP negotiations have years to run, and opposition to ISDS will continue to build. Rather than accept a compromise investor protection system at this stage, the Parliament should hold off until popular opposition to ISDS has made all special deals for foreign investors unacceptable.

10. Finally, the compromise amendment means that the Parliament only has the option to vote for ISDS-lite (as set out in the current draft of the Parliament’s resolution) or ISDS-liter as in the compromise, rather than the original amendment put down by MEPs like Labour’s Jude Kirton-Darling which called for excluding ISDS from TTIP altogether.

The lengths that European Parliament politicians have gone to, responding to public concern, demonstrates how effective and influential the campaign against ISDS has become. No one in the European Parliament is now defending the sort of ISDS that has been included in the already concluded EU trade deals with Canada, Singapore and so on.

Unions and other campaigners will be demanding those trade deals have to be scrapped or completely rewritten, and we will be building popular opposition to special rights for foreign investors, whether they’re called ISDS or not. We’ve come a long way, and losing this skirmish doesn’t mean we can’t win this trade war.

[Endovelico]

«L’Allemagne n’a ni bon sens économique ni compassion»
Christian LOSSON Envoyé spécial à Addis-Abeba (Ethiopie) 15 juillet 2015 à 19:26


INTERVIEW Présent au sommet du financement du développement d’Addis-Abeba, le Prix Nobel américain remet violemment en cause la stratégie de Berlin dans la crise grecque et appelle à une refonte du système financier international.

Inlassable partisan d’une autre économie, l’Américain Joseph Stiglitz est présent à la troisième Conférence internationale sur le financement du développement à Addis-Abeba, où le Prix Nobel d’économie 2001 milite pour une refonte radicale de l’architecture financière mondiale. Dans la capitale éthiopienne, on parle aussi beaucoup du «plan de sauvetage de la Grèce». Dans un entretien exclusif à Libération, l’ex-chef économiste de Bill Clinton, puis de la Banque mondiale, revient sur cette crise historique de la zone euro, qui met à mal, selon lui, les fondations de l’Europe.

Quel regard portez-vous sur l’accord et le nouveau plan d’aide pour la Grèce ?

Ce que l’Allemagne a imposé à coups de bâton est tout simplement inconcevable. C’est aussi de la très mauvaise politique économique. On va continuer à imposer des modèles qui sont contre-productifs, inefficaces et producteurs d’injustice et d’inégalités. Continuer à exiger de la Grèce qu’elle parvienne à un budget primaire en excédent [hors paiement des intérêts de la dette, ndlr] de 3,5 % du PIB en 2018 est non seulement punitif, mais aussi d’une stupidité aveugle. L’histoire récente de la Grèce l’a prouvé. Et cela va continuer à amplifier la dépression dans un pays qui a connu une chute de son PIB de 25 % depuis cinq ans. Au passage, je ne connais aucun autre exemple d’une dépression qui aurait été créée de manière aussi délibérée et dont les conséquences humaines auraient été aussi catastrophiques. Et on en remet une couche encore plus humiliante.

Que faut-il faire ?

On le sait, et même le FMI, l’organe le plus historiquement hostile à un tel processus, l’admet désormais : il faut une restructuration de la dette grecque ; mieux, un allégement. Mais l’Allemagne ne veut entendre parler ni de l’un ni de l’autre. Elle dit, dans ses paroles, qu’il faut remettre la Grèce sur ses pieds, mais milite pour une politique et impose un programme qui, dans ses actes, la mettra encore plus à genoux. L’intrusion dans la souveraineté d’un pays comme la Grèce, le diktat qu’on lui impose sont très dangereux. Les citoyens grecs ont élu un gouvernement qui s’est engagé à mettre fin à l’austérité. Ils ont voté par référendum contre un plan dit «d’aide» qui alimentait encore plus cette austérité. Et voilà que, par aveuglement, on tord le bras de son gouvernement et on lui impose malgré tout une nouvelle cure… Mais cela ne marchera pas plus avec la Grèce que cela a marché par le passé où de telles politiques suicidaires ont été imposées et appliquées.

On ne tire pas les leçons de l’histoire ?

C’est le pire, justement, dans ce feuilleton irrationnel ou trop rationnellement glacial ; le pire avec l’hypocrisie, et le manque de compassion : les leçons non tirées de l’histoire. L’Allemagne ne doit son rétablissement économique et sa croissance qu’à la plus grande annulation de dette jamais observée, en 1953. Et devrait avoir compris, depuis le traité de Versailles signé en 1919, les conséquences de dettes insurmontables. Elle n’a ni appris de la compassion ni du désastre de ces deux périodes clés de l’histoire.

Quelles conséquences cela peut-il avoir sur la zone euro ?

C’est un désastre. Si j’étais l’un des pays de la zone euro, je poserais la question que tous les économistes lucides posaient lors de la création de l’euro : que se passera-t-il en cas de choc asymétrique [qui affecte de manière différente deux régions qui ont décidé de faire monnaie commune] ? La question clé est la solidarité. Avec elle, on peut surmonter un tel choc. Mais l’Allemagne dit : «Pas question, si vous en subissez un, acceptez-en les effets.» Je ne voudrais pas être membre d’un club dont le leader ne montre aucune réflexion de bon sens économique, aucune solidarité, et, encore une fois, aucune compassion. Et dit : «Si vous subissez un choc asymétrique, vous mourrez.» On devrait assister à un mouvement politique puissant qui dénonce cela avec force, pas forcément avec ces mots, mais au moins avec cette philosophie, sinon cet événement sans précédent marquera sans aucun doute le début de la fin pour la zone euro.

C’est un virage crucial, il y aura un avant et un après «plan Grec» dans l’histoire de l’Europe et de la zone euro ?

Absolument. Pour les deux, et pas seulement la zone euro. Cette dernière a été créée pour que des pays se rapprochent. Désormais, elle les pousse à se déchirer et voit les éléments les plus forts dévorer les plus faibles. C’est la négation même de la zone euro que l’on a vue à l’œuvre. La question se pose : la zone est-elle encore réparable avec des dommages aussi importants ? On ne peut diriger une zone monétaire comme l’euro sans un minimum de vision, de lucidité et de solidarité. Si la BCE autorise les banques grecques à rouvrir et qu’un accord est renégocié, les blessures peuvent en partie se refermer. Mais si l’Allemagne réussit à utiliser cela pour, in fine, exclure la Grèce, les dégâts seront tellement profonds qu’ils seront irréparables. Certes, la politique de la zone euro n’a jamais été un projet très démocratique. La plupart des Etats membres n’ont pas cherché l’approbation de leurs citoyens pour remettre la souveraineté monétaire de la zone entre les mains de la BCE. Mais au moins, il y avait une vision commune, une forme d’entraide et de solidarité. Cette vision-là est révolue. Il est dans l’intérêt de l’Europe de changer de braquet sur la Grèce. Il faut qu’elle reconnaisse qu’il faut davantage d’aide, et moins de conditions drastiques. Sinon, on va vers la sortie de la Grèce de la zone euro. Cet échec serait d’autant plus grave que l’Europe devrait s’inquiéter de voir le sud-est de l’Union si affaibli et vulnérable. La migration, les influences du Moyen-Orient, de la Russie, ou de la Chine rendront cette partie du monde encore plus fragile. Et si j’étais l’Europe, je ferais tout pour la renforcer.

Mais la zone euro, c’est aussi une question de pouvoir, de démocratie, pas que d’argent et d’économie ?

Bien évidemment. C’est une question de gouvernance politique. Mais elle n’existe pas ou, plutôt, elle ne sert aujourd’hui qu’une idéologie et une logique des seuls intérêts financiers, une alliance qui n’a jamais fait bon ménage. Le monde de la finance et les banquiers, les plus grands avocats du laissez-faire économique, ont pourtant prié pour que les Etats volent à leur secours en les arrosant de centaines de milliards de dollars pour les sauver du naufrage. Et ce sont les mêmes qui ont multiplié le lobbying pour que le plan d’aide à la Grèce soit le plus sévère possible. L’hypocrisie, là encore, est générale. Rappelez-vous, au passage, qu’une infime partie des colossales sommes d’argent prêtées à la Grèce était destinée, avant tout et en priorité, à rembourser les créanciers privés, notamment des banques en Allemagne et en France. Au moins 90 % de l’argent prêté était destiné à revenir dans les établissements financiers des pays prêteurs. Ce n’était pas un sauvetage de la Grèce, mais, encore une fois, un sauvetage des banques !

Les leaders de la zone euro et les Etats-Unis ont multiplié les critiques sur la Grèce et son incapacité à collecter l’impôt et à enrayer l’évasion fiscale…

Les pays riches ont créé la plus belle architecture mondiale pour favoriser l’évitement fiscal et l’évasion fiscale, et surtout brouiller les frontières entre les deux. A tel point d’ailleurs que, depuis la crise de 2007, ils découvrent l’ampleur du manque à gagner et viennent de pousser l’OCDE [Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques] à agir et proposer des pistes de réformes. Mais quand le reste du monde demande, comme à Addis-Abeba, de créer un comité fiscal international placé sous l’égide de l’ONU, ils freinent comme jamais. Pourquoi ? Parce que les pays riches et leur institution, l’OCDE, pensent qu’on peut réformer le système financier actuel. Or, on ne peut pas réformer un système irréformable. Il faut en changer. Et le faire serait remettre en cause l’ensemble qui bénéficie aux pays riches. N’est-ce pas la preuve d’un double discours qui met en lumière l’hypocrisie des pays riches, sur la Grèce comme sur le reste du monde ?

http://www.liberation.fr/monde/2015/07/ ... on_1348536

For those who read French, this is a must read.

[YMix]

Mario Draghi: The ECB Has No Mandate To Ensure Checks Clear Or Credit Cards Work
Posted on July 23, 2015 by Nathan Tankus

Last week Mario Draghi held a press conference following the decision to raise ELA a paltry 900 million dollars for Greek banks. In that press conference he said many things but I’d like to focus on one passage that has gotten no attention:

There is an article in the Treaty that says that basically the ECB has the responsibility to promote the smooth functioning of the payment system. But this has to do with the functioning of TARGET2, the distribution of notes, coins. So not with the provision of liquidity, which actually is regulated by a different provision, in Article 18.1 in the ECB Statute: “In order to achieve the objectives of the ESCB, the ECB and the national central banks may conduct credit operations with credit institutions and other market participants, with lending based on adequate collateral.” This is the Treaty provision. But our operations were not monetary policy operations, but ELA operations, and so they are regulated by a separate agreement, which makes explicit reference to the necessity to have sufficient collateral. So, all in all, liquidity provision has never been unconditional and unlimited.

This is a truly shocking statement. To understand why, we need to go back to the basics of central banking. Banks have accounts at the central bank (I’m going to call the balances in these accounts “settlement balances” in line with non U.S. Conventions) which are primarily used to settle payments with other banks. When you use a debit card issued by one bank to pay someone with a bank account in another bank, your bank has to in turn send a payment using settlement balances to make that payment.

As should be obvious from that description, in order to make that payment your bank has to have sufficient settlement balances in its account at the central bank or the central bank must provide an overdraft. Thus, if the smooth functioning of the payments system is defined as the ability of depository institutions to clear payments, the central bank must ensure that settlement balances are available at some price.

The Federal Reserve explicitly recognizes this in its “Policy on Payment System Risk” by stating that “the Board recognizes that the Federal Reserve has an important role in providing intraday balances and credit to foster the smooth operation of the payment system”. Draghi is arguing that the ECB’s mandate to “promote the smooth functioning of the payments system” is defined differently than the Federal Reserve’s mandate and (as far as I can tell) every other Central Bank’s payment system mandate around the world. I can’t over-emphasize how radical a departure Draghi’s position is from the norms of central banking. Whatever else we may want to criticize the Federal Reserve’s and the government’s response to the financial crisis, they did preserve the the smooth functioning of the payments system with their alphabet soup of lending facilities and ultimately an FDIC guarantee on interbank lending. The problem was that they didn’t put Too Big To Fail banks in a form of receivership and didn’t prosecute bank executives, not that they made sure payments continued to take place.

As disturbing as the European Central Bank position already is, it becomes more frightening when we analyze why the Greek banking system has been cut off in detail. First, remember that the ECB’s official position has been that the Greek banking system is solvent as long as Greek government bonds preserve a certain value. Second, the ECB judges the value of those government bonds not be their market price but by their view of the Greek government’s “compliance” with the dictates of the EU and the IMF. As Vice President Constâncio said during the press conference:

when a country has a rating which is below the investment grade which is the minimum, then to access monetary policy operations, it has to have a waiver. And the waiver is granted if there are two conditions. The first condition is that the country must be under a programme with the EU and IMF; and second, we have to assess that there is credible compliance with such a programme.

The bigger picture here is that under this interpretation of the ECB’s operating mandates the European Central Bank can, at any time choose to exclude a particular country’s bonds from its monetary policy operations, watch its credit rating fall and eventually, force the country to choose between an IMF program and having a frozen banking system and no ability to borrow. Not only must that country enter an IMF program but it must be judged to be in “credible compliance” by the ECB at all times.

Being in credible compliance is a necessary not sufficient condition for borrowing. Recall that the statute Draghi quoted said that it “may”, not must, “conduct credit operations”. This is how they’ve justified keeping the Greek banking system on such a tight leash despite claiming that the Greek Government was in “credible compliance” up until recently and how they can justify not extending ELA by enough to restore normal operations in the current situation. The ECB is like an abusive spouse who believes marriage means they can beat their significant other for any reason and that previous beatings justify beatings in the future.

Even worse, if the Greek banking system is insolvent because of defaults from the private sector in Greece (very likely), the Troika has made the reduction in value of deposits (a bail-in) the preferred tool (along with privatization) to return solvency to the banking system. In other words, there is not only no guarantee of orderly clearing of payments but also no guarantee that depositors will eventually be made whole. It is official policy that at any time the value of a deposit in one bank does not equal the value of a deposit in another bank. Cyprus was not a fluke. It would be foolish for depositors in other countries to feel safe, except perhaps those in Germany and France. Their political leaders would likely suddenly discover the need for depositors to be fully protected in the Eurozone if they were ever forced to recognize insolvency.

Putting all this together, Europe now has a system where liquidity and insolvency problems can occur and can be deliberately generated (at least in part) by the central bank. Then the Troika can force that country into an “IMF program” if it wants to continue having a functioning banking system. Alternatively, the central bank can choose to simply “suspend convertibility” to the unit of account and force the write down of deposits until the banks are solvent again. During this drawn out period payments grind to a halt and mass business disruptions and failures can and will be generated. In other words Europe has created a system where you either comply with the dictates of unelected bureaucrats or you accept a more disorderly version of the United States banking system before the Civil War. The bottom line is that if you feel inclined to visit Europe remember that the payments system can fail you at any time. Plan accordingly.

[YMix]

Europe’s bearing the cost of Washington’s Middle Eastern policy
By Alexander Casella

GENEVA — Four years after having brought about the fall of the Gadhafi regime in Libya, Europe is having to come to terms with the law of unintended consequences. Removing Gadhafi was essentially the Obama’s administration doing, acting through NATO with the support of France and the UK and was supposed to usher in Libya an era of freedom and democracy. That it would lead to the collapse of the Libyan state and bring about a fragmentation of the country was something that the planners in Washington visibly overlooked. And so was the fact that Libya, after having been a country of immigration would become one of the main avenues for illegal immigration to Europe. With the US shielded by geography, it is now America’s allies that are left carrying the baby namely a massive wave of illegal immigrants coming through Libya, which they are proving increasingly unable to address.

High oil revenues, a visa-free regime and a low population level, had made of Libya a preferred destination for sub-Saharan Africans seeking employment and it was estimated that, at any given time some 2 million foreigners were working in the country. That some, among this number, would want to move illegally to Italy was a given, albeit one that was under control. Over the years the Italian authorities had worked out several arrangements with Gadhafi, some formal and some informal which provided that he would keep the lid on transit migration through Libya. Moreover, since 2009 Gadhafi accepted to take back illegal migrants intercepted by the Italian on the high sea, a move which while not quite consonant with the Refugee Conventions acted as a further deterrent to irregular movement.

All these arrangements collapsed with the fall of Gadhafi and literarily overnight the country became the preferred access route for illegal migration to Italy. With the number of boats, all heading to Italy and more specifically to the island of Lampedusa, increasing, so did the number of sinkings. By 2012 loss of life was estimated in the thousands and the rescue by the Italian Coast Guard of drifting, overloaded migrant boats became a daily occurrence. With Italian public opinion becoming increasingly concerned the Italian government launched, in October 2013 operation “Mare Nostrum”, a massive rescue at sea effort which is credited with having saved, in one year, over 120 000 lives, all of whom were landed in Italy. By comparison, in the years prior to the fall of Gadhafi, the number of those intercepted by the Italian Coast Guard was below 40 000 practically all of whom were returned to Libya

While the rescue operation, which has now been taken over by the European Union could not be faulted on humanitarian grounds it left unanswered two question: first whether the publicity given to the operation would not encourage others to put their lives at risk and, second what to do with the saved. This, obviously this was not of Italy’s concern were it only for the fact that most of the migrants would ultimately move north to Germany, Switzerland or Scandinavia. Thus, the operation does not appear to have comprised any strategic thinking.

With the fall of Gadhafi having turned Libya into an open gate to Europe, the same phenomena developed in the Eastern Mediterranean involving this time Syria, Turkey and Greece.

As of today, the conflict in Syria has generated some 7.5 million internally displaced, in addition to some 3.8 million refugees who sought asylum in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq. While the overwhelming majority initially stayed in the camps which were set up to shelter them, a combination of lack of hope in the future, frustration, poor living conditions and despair is inducing an increasing number to try to move to Europe. The movement went at first unnoticed by the Europeans and essentially used Libya as a stepping-stone. By early 2015 numbers exploded as a new migration route emerged going through Turkey, then the island of Kos in Greece, from there to Athens and than onwards trough Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary with Germany and Sweden as the preferred final destinations. Currently it is estimated that some 2000 Syrian per day are crossing into Hungary, the first European country on their route which is a member of the Schengen free-movement area and Germany is bracing itself for an inflow of some 800 000 arrivals before the end of the year.

Confronted with an issue, which for some of its members is fuelling an increasingly contentious internal political debate Europe as such, it has emerged, does not exist.

There are on one hand the countries of entry, namely Spain, Italy and Greece with weak economies and dysfunctional governments who are quite content to let the arrivals land and then move on to central and northern Europe.

There are then the likes of Bulgaria, Romania, Poland and the Baltic states to which no one wishes to emigrate and which are neither part of the problem nor of the solution. Finally there are the countries of destination such as Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, Switzerland and Austria, which bear the weight of the bulk of the arrivals.

Faced with an inflow, which is for all practical purposes out of control the question that is increasingly, being raised in the countries of destination is whether, over the next years or decades the influx can be sustained. Or in other words are these the migrants that Europe needs and can they be absorbed, economically and socially without bringing about a major disruption to the values and social order prevailing in Western Europe.

As of today, the answer is negative, but with one caveat. It is a weak, disorganized, erratic and above all unthinking negative.

To whit the recent EC proposals that illegal arrivals be redistributed among the European countries appears little short than the product of a hallucination. Not only was the proposal rejected by a majority of countries but also unless the arrival were to be put in detention there was nothing to guarantee that the those concerned would remain in the less attractive countries they would be allocated to.

Further compounding the issue, European national societies do not react uniformly to a foreign population inflow, albeit one that occurs outside the rule of law and is thus uncontrolled. By and large, Mediterranean countries with less structured not to say dysfunctional administration and week social safety nets tend to be less adverse to a foreign inflow than their northern counterparts. Indeed as one moves north, European democracies tend to be less forgiving of violations of immigration regulations and trade unions make it a point to ensure that no one gets hired at a cut-rate salary. Conversely, social benefits for asylum seekers and illegal aliens are so generous and mandatory repatriation of illegal immigrants so few and far between that there is little incentive for an illegal alien not to register with the authorities.

With the Europeans divided into inaction, or nibbling at the periphery of the problem but incapable of coming to grips with its substance, the international system has shown itself equally inept.

Neither the United Nations and its various components nor the European Commission have shown the foresight or simply the common sense to try to realistically come to terms with a crisis, which affects three continents and was three years in the making.

Assuming that the current situation is in the long term untenable does not contradict the fact that while the problem is European the solution involves three continents namely Africa, The Middle East and Europe. To this effect the Europeans will have to establish a partnership with other national actors, which in turn will involve not only financial commitment but also some ruthless arm-twisting.

Pending a solution there is no escaping from the fact that Europe has for all practical purposes forfeited the control of its borders. All an African, an Arab, an Afghan or a Pakistani who wants to immigrate to Europe has to do is to find the funds to pay a people smuggler. Granted the journey will be arduous, and at time dangerous but with some luck he will be rescued from a sinking craft in the Mediterranean by the Italian navy or transported by the Greek authorities from the island of Kos to the mainland. From there will be few impediments to his making way to Sweden, Germany or Switzerland where once arrived he will be housed, fed, provided with medical care and, above all will be able to look to the future with some hope.

Given the state of poverty, disorder, lawlessness, corruption, lack of opportunity and insecurity that prevails where he left from, it is surprising that more did not chose this path. But they might. Which will find the Europeans having to continue to pay the price for what was, at its inception a policy designed in Washington, which ended up by destabilizing the whole Mediterranean.

[Endovelico]

The solution, as far as I am concerned, would be a military pacification campaign in Libya, which would destroy all armed groups active in the country and establish a temporary protectorate, under the UN, until a stable government could be established by means of free and fair elections. With the stabilization of the country there would be a strong decrease in immigration to Europe. Since overwhelming force would be needed, such a campaign might need hundreds of thousands soldiers, but would be worth trying. In the end it would be cheaper and less disruptive than the alternative.

[Parodite]

The solution, as far as I am concerned, would be a military pacification campaign in Libya, which would destroy all armed groups active in the country and establish a temporary protectorate, under the UN, until a stable government could be established by means of free and fair elections. With the stabilization of the country there would be a strong decrease in immigration to Europe. Since overwhelming force would be needed, such a campaign might need hundreds of thousands soldiers, but would be worth trying. In the end it would be cheaper and less disruptive than the alternative.

I'd like to see this extended to Syria and Iraq. It would also be worth re-considering the holiness of those failed nation states that are falling apart while we speak. Why not create new nation states in parts of those "countries" and stay there permanently? Unmanageable parts can be pacified still and left for later re-distribution into the new territories.

[YMix]

The solution, as far as I am concerned, would be a military pacification campaign in Libya, which would destroy all armed groups active in the country and establish a temporary protectorate, under the UN, until a stable government could be established by means of free and fair elections. With the stabilization of the country there would be a strong decrease in immigration to Europe. Since overwhelming force would be needed, such a campaign might need hundreds of thousands soldiers, but would be worth trying. In the end it would be cheaper and less disruptive than the alternative.

I'd like to see this extended to Syria and Iraq. It would also be worth re-considering the holiness of those failed nation states that are falling apart while we speak. Why not create new nation states in parts of those "countries" and stay there permanently? Unmanageable parts can be pacified still and left for later re-distribution into the new territories.

Apparently, the lessons of Irak and Afghanistan are lost on everybody.

[Endovelico]

The solution, as far as I am concerned, would be a military pacification campaign in Libya, which would destroy all armed groups active in the country and establish a temporary protectorate, under the UN, until a stable government could be established by means of free and fair elections. With the stabilization of the country there would be a strong decrease in immigration to Europe. Since overwhelming force would be needed, such a campaign might need hundreds of thousands soldiers, but would be worth trying. In the end it would be cheaper and less disruptive than the alternative.

I'd like to see this extended to Syria and Iraq. It would also be worth re-considering the holiness of those failed nation states that are falling apart while we speak. Why not create new nation states in parts of those "countries" and stay there permanently? Unmanageable parts can be pacified still and left for later re-distribution into the new territories.

Apparently, the lessons of Irak and Afghanistan are lost on everybody.

Not really. In Irak and Afghanistan there never were enough soldiers to do the trick. You can't do it with one hundred thousand soldiers, you may need a million. And in Libya, a much less populated country and geographically less problematic, you could do it with half that number. The stupid thing has been trying to achieve military victory without enough means to do it.

[Parodite]

Apparently, the lessons of Irak and Afghanistan are lost on everybody.

But what are those lessons? In some parts of the world like the Meddle East... you either better meddle totally and take over permanently as in "good old conquest" style... or you better do nothing at all. You have to go in there with the intention to stay for ever, or not go in at all. That is in my view the lesson.

I don't see why no new nations could be created there. Locals remaining can stay, but new immigrants from the new conquestadores can settle there permanently. Russian, Chinese, European and American immigrants flooding those new nation states to become democratic, diverse yet functional nation states.

[Alexis]

The solution, as far as I am concerned, would be a military pacification campaign in Libya, which would destroy all armed groups active in the country and establish a temporary protectorate, under the UN, until a stable government could be established by means of free and fair elections. With the stabilization of the country there would be a strong decrease in immigration to Europe. Since overwhelming force would be needed, such a campaign might need hundreds of thousands soldiers, but would be worth trying. In the end it would be cheaper and less disruptive than the alternative.

Welcome to the club, Endo!

Apparently, the lessons of Irak and Afghanistan are lost on everybody.

But what are those lessons?

Errr Parodite, you do realize that your question is making YMix's point, right?

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


Folks, George sayin what Azari sayin since long long time



A must read


.

[YMix]

Interesting and unexpected. Disappointing, too.

Right now, European Union members cannot agree on a common policy regarding all these migrants flooding into Europe. I don't see them agreeing on the invasion and indefinite occupation of a number of North African and Middle Eastern countries. The economic and social costs will be massive and onerous. The funds meant for social programs and public investment will have to be redirected to war production and the population will have to be made to understand that it's supposed to bleed indefinitely. This will lead to rejection of the entire plan. The conflict and the loss of social programs will make everything worse for the refugees who are already in Western Europe and help the process of radicalization.

Overseas, the invasion will be received about as well as any other invasion; soldiers make poor ambassadors. The occupation will be even less well received. The conflict zone has already spread beyond Libya, Irak and Syria. What will the Imperial European Union do when it becomes apparent that hostile "armed groups" are operating out of Algeria, Niger, Chad and Sudan? Start bombing all neighboring countries the way the USA bombed Laos and Cambodia? And if that doesn't work, how many more countries is the IEU supposed to invade and pacify?

There's every chance that free and fair elections bring to power governments that are either hostile to the IEU or ineffectual. We'll simply be dragged into endless petty political games and conflicts between factions. Setting up new countries is a remarkably dumb idea. I assume that new countries means new armed camps capable of defending themselves because otherwise they would be pretty useless. And that's before realizing that the new "governments" will only cooperate so much.

Colonization is obviously a good idea. As countries across Europe face worsening birth rates, we should definitely encourage part of the population to move abroad and set up small Crusader states on the Mediterranean coast. It worked like a charm in the Middle Ages.

[Parodite]

Of course, in the current reality the idea to conquer and create new territories and stay there permanently is a pipe dream, or nightmare respectively depending on what people associate with that word. But I like to follow this insane train of thought bit further still and contrast it with the alternatives.

We already have seen what half-baked actions have as a consequence. The fragile balance of power has been destroyed thanks to an amateurish US invasion of Iraq where incompetent neocons thinking messianically that Iraqis would welcome their liberators like Europeans welcomed them end WW2 defeating the Nazis. What a miscalculation it was. Libya: same error. Afghanistan: same error. Try remove butcher Assad and what you get is worse. Gangs gangs and bigger gangs all to the top.

So obviously, the lesson is usually considered to be: don't even try and better stay home, these half measures will never work out. And probably it is the best thing to do. But that doesn't mean permanent occupation/conquest and creating new nation states is not an option: logically it is, but it never has been considered one. Why not? The reasons are partly sensible, but also insane. Despite the fact that Iraq has ceased to exist as a stable entity and is falling apart.. it appears that no one is seriously interested in declaring it officially a non-entity. Why is that? Because territorial entities like nation states have been elevated to an almost divine status. Even if God is dead already.. he has to be kept alive with prayers and fantasies. God Iraq.

Borders in the ME will probably be redrawn through long wars to come anyways.. and the migration of refugees has just started. Don't be surprised if in the end 30 million people will seek a new life in Europe and elsewhere. I'm totally in favor of helping them and letting them in. But it is then our (the big boys EU+US+Russia together) choice to let those borders be redrawn via wars we don't want to interfere with. How many more civilians will die, how many more on the run?

Before you kill off the idea of conquest/permanent occupation because you associate it with the dark middle ages and crusaders, which is just lazy thinking IMO... compare the alternatives with the reality of today and most likely to develop further.

[YMix]

But that doesn't mean permanent occupation/conquest and creating new nation states is not an option: logically it is, but it never has been considered one. Why not? The reasons are partly sensible, but also insane. Despite the fact that Iraq has ceased to exist as a stable entity and is falling apart.. it appears that no one is seriously interested in declaring it officially a non-entity. Why is that? Because territorial entities like nation states have been elevated to an almost divine status. Even if God is dead already.. he has to be kept alive with prayers and fantasies. God Iraq.

In my opinion, Irak is still on the map because:
- disestablishing Irak means that the USA would have to officially accept the total failure of its 2003 invasion;
- if democracy is actually a concern, then it's not our job to declare Irak a non-entity. It's up to the locals to make their own arrangements.

Before you kill off the idea of conquest/permanent occupation because you associate it with the dark middle ages and crusaders, which is just lazy thinking IMO... compare the alternatives with the reality of today and most likely to develop further.

Crusader states are an obvious historical example because they are about the best that those European Christians who had answered the call could do. And it wasn't enough. Small states clinging to sea shores while hostile forces have entire continents to organize and develop are a bad idea.

[Parodite]

But that doesn't mean permanent occupation/conquest and creating new nation states is not an option: logically it is, but it never has been considered one. Why not? The reasons are partly sensible, but also insane. Despite the fact that Iraq has ceased to exist as a stable entity and is falling apart.. it appears that no one is seriously interested in declaring it officially a non-entity. Why is that? Because territorial entities like nation states have been elevated to an almost divine status. Even if God is dead already.. he has to be kept alive with prayers and fantasies. God Iraq.

In my opinion, Irak is still on the map because:
- disestablishing Irak means that the USA would have to officially accept the total failure of its 2003 invasion;
- if democracy is actually a concern, then it's not our job to declare Irak a non-entity. It's up to the locals to make their own arrangements.

It is a bit hard for them to make such arrangements when everybody is increasingly at each others throat. If security is provided, wouldn't potential refugees reconsider fleeing? Your reference to christian crusaders is cheap. Providing security, protecting human rights, developing democratic process is opposite of what crusaders wanted and did in fact.

Before you kill off the idea of conquest/permanent occupation because you associate it with the dark middle ages and crusaders, which is just lazy thinking IMO... compare the alternatives with the reality of today and most likely to develop further.

Crusader states are an obvious historical example because they are about the best that those European Christians who had answered the call could do. And it wasn't enough. Small states clinging to sea shores while hostile forces have entire continents to organize and develop are a bad idea.

What I am thinking about is a pipe dream for the simple fact that US, EU and Russia don't want it. But consider, in line with Endo's correct observation that for the whatever goals the military presence was too small.. and I would say the ambitions way too big and also misplaced: ME countries like Iraq were carved out post colonialism arbitrarily. Which also explains why an entity like Iraq won't work and trying to bring it to some bright future an insane idea to begin with.

What would be necessary for this pipe dream to work even though it never will?

Russia should still become part of NATO. The trade-off between Russia and NATO could be to leave Crimea to Russia, a fair-deal on the most Eastern part of Ukraine but a guarantee that Russia will respect all existing borders of its former USSR satellite states and let them make their own political decisions. NATO will dismantle all real/perceived military bases that make Russia feel "encircled". A pan European-Russian free trade zone.

This new NATO+ will have these initial objectives: secure a new Kurdish nation state in former Iraq and destroy ISIS with boots on the ground, both in Iraq and Syria. Consider Assad a lost cause (he will be history soon anyways). The territory conquered on ISIS will be stabilized with a million+ military force and be used as a territorial base for a later to be created new nation state in parts of the remaining Iraq. Revenues from former IS oil fields will be split between NATO+ and the new territory where it is used for local development, security etc.

[Endovelico]

Trouble with intervention in the ME was the fact that it was always too small to achieve the desired ends. The stupid idea that you can do the job of a million soldiers with one hundred thousand led necessarily to disaster. A lot of money was spent, lots of people got killed, and the job wasn't done. Wars are never won on the cheap. But if you are willing to engage the necessary means, then it will be possible to purge the ME of all terrorist/extremist factions and give a chance to the majority of moderate people to get a functioning government. A protectorate under the UN supervision would be necessary, but probably for no longer than five years. I am obviously against any colonial idea, but I don't see why it would be necessary. Now I agree that this is a job for the US, Europe and Russia in cooperation. Among ourselves we could certainly get that million military necessary to get results. And if we started with Libya, just to see how it worked out, we might do the job with a lot less than a million military. Once the job done in Libya we could move to Iraq and to Syria. With all the unemployment we have in our countries, finding one million soldiers wouldn't be too difficult.

[YMix]

It is a bit hard for them to make such arrangements when everybody is increasingly at each others throat. If security is provided, wouldn't potential refugees reconsider fleeing? Your reference to christian crusaders is cheap. Providing security, protecting human rights, developing democratic process is opposite of what crusaders wanted and did in fact.

How do you expect to provide security? Put a French, Swiss or Bulgarian cop on every corner? I don't think we have enough cops. Democratic process sounds like a good idea for us. Not sure if they see it in the same light. Human rights and the democratic process are a direct threat to the current social situation in the Middle East and, in my opinion, one of the reasons behind Islamic religious radicalism.

What I am thinking about is a pipe dream for the simple fact that US, EU and Russia don't want it. But consider, in line with Endo's correct observation that for the whatever goals the military presence was too small.. and I would say the ambitions way too big and also misplaced: ME countries like Iraq were carved out post colonialism arbitrarily. Which also explains why an entity like Iraq won't work and trying to bring it to some bright future an insane idea to begin with.

Which is why you want this huge army to drive in downtown Irak and say: "We just know that you people would like to set up you own nations, but you can't because these guys with guns won't let you. Never fear. We are here to help you". Odds are you're going to get a bunch of enclaves, which may or may not be viable and stable in the long run. Also, the obligatory: "You there with the gun and the white skin. This oasis is mine. The shithead who lives two dunes down the road wants to steal the water. Go and kill him. He's beating his wife, reading Mein Kuran and listening to Radio Free Islam. Kill him."

What would be necessary for this pipe dream to work even though it never will?

This question is too broad.

Russia should still become part of NATO. The trade-off between Russia and NATO could be to leave Crimea to Russia, a fair-deal on the most Eastern part of Ukraine but a guarantee that Russia will respect all existing borders of its former USSR satellite states and let them make their own political decisions. NATO will dismantle all real/perceived military bases that make Russia feel "encircled". A pan European-Russian free trade zone.

Better yet, dismantle NATO and set up a new arrangement.

This new NATO+ will have these initial objectives: secure a new Kurdish nation state in former Iraq and destroy ISIS with boots on the ground, both in Iraq and Syria. Consider Assad a lost cause (he will be history soon anyways). The territory conquered on ISIS will be stabilized with a million+ military force and be used as a territorial base for a later to be created new nation state in parts of the remaining Iraq. Revenues from former IS oil fields will be split between NATO+ and the new territory where it is used for local development, security etc.

The destruction of Daesh doesn't guarantee anything. A Kurdish national state must be built on the dead bodies of Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran.

[Parodite]

It is a bit hard for them to make such arrangements when everybody is increasingly at each others throat. If security is provided, wouldn't potential refugees reconsider fleeing? Your reference to christian crusaders is cheap. Providing security, protecting human rights, developing democratic process is opposite of what crusaders wanted and did in fact.

How do you expect to provide security? Put a French, Swiss or Bulgarian cop on every corner? I don't think we have enough cops.

How to defeat ISIS? Through war. Round up gangs. Yes it is bloody. But less bloody than let them continue butchering.

Democratic process sounds like a good idea for us. Not sure if they see it in the same light. Human rights and the democratic process are a direct threat to the current social situation in the Middle East and, in my opinion, one of the reasons behind Islamic religious radicalism.

I beg to differ. Most people anywhere also in the ME want democracy, have a say in how their societies are managed. They want to be able to vote.

The reason behind religious radicalism and intolerance towards otherly thinkers/believers is universally the same; the belief that some holy book or doctrine tells the truth directly from the lips from Gawd Awmighty and that those who do not subscribe to their doctrine are lesser people, if not sinners, if not enemies who deserve to die now or in the future or just subhuman cockroaches. Religious radicalism is by definition anti-democratic, intolerant and inclined to use violence on others.

I find it extremely far fetched to think that democratic process is the reason behind religious radicalism, especially since it suggests that democratic process is to blame for it. With same reasoning democratic process produces dictatorship or autocracy. Duh.

What I am thinking about is a pipe dream for the simple fact that US, EU and Russia don't want it. But consider, in line with Endo's correct observation that for the whatever goals the military presence was too small.. and I would say the ambitions way too big and also misplaced: ME countries like Iraq were carved out post colonialism arbitrarily. Which also explains why an entity like Iraq won't work and trying to bring it to some bright future an insane idea to begin with.

Which is why you want this huge army to drive in downtown Irak and say: "We just know that you people would like to set up you own nations, but you can't because these guys with guns won't let you. Never fear. We are here to help you".

These questions and answers are at that point totally irrelevant. Such an army would be there to prevent civilians getting killed when they get caught up between various gang wars (as between the Assad gang and gangs opposing him that are not much better or worse). You know, the people who now flee in masses to safer places in Europe and elsewhere. What is so criminally difficult to understand and justify when you want to save those people, think women and children? Future territorial configurations are not a priority now. But of course, ultimately that is up to negotiations among people who do subscribe to the same values of democracy, human rights etc. Violent radicals like IS and their similar cousins are not tolerated here in the West, why should they be tolerated elsewhere?

Odds are you're going to get a bunch of enclaves, which may or may not be viable and stable in the long run. Also, the obligatory: "You there with the gun and the white skin. This oasis is mine. The shithead who lives two dunes down the road wants to steal the water. Go and kill him. He's beating his wife, reading Mein Kuran and listening to Radio Free Islam. Kill him."

I'm sure there are enough people in Iraq and Syria who don't mind joining your "white skin forces" in their fight against those violent gangs and dictators.

What would be necessary for this pipe dream to work even though it never will?

This question is too broad.

Russia should still become part of NATO. The trade-off between Russia and NATO could be to leave Crimea to Russia, a fair-deal on the most Eastern part of Ukraine but a guarantee that Russia will respect all existing borders of its former USSR satellite states and let them make their own political decisions. NATO will dismantle all real/perceived military bases that make Russia feel "encircled". A pan European-Russian free trade zone.

Better yet, dismantle NATO and set up a new arrangement.

Giving it a new name would be a good idea. For those who are easily bothered about names and labels. But dismantle NATO in order to make way for a new arrangement.. let me guess what that what look like.

This new NATO+ will have these initial objectives: secure a new Kurdish nation state in former Iraq and destroy ISIS with boots on the ground, both in Iraq and Syria. Consider Assad a lost cause (he will be history soon anyways). The territory conquered on ISIS will be stabilized with a million+ military force and be used as a territorial base for a later to be created new nation state in parts of the remaining Iraq. Revenues from former IS oil fields will be split between NATO+ and the new territory where it is used for local development, security etc.

The destruction of Daesh doesn't guarantee anything. A Kurdish national state must be built on the dead bodies of Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran.

Not necessarily. Kurdish violence within Turkey can be condemned, and it should. Turkey can be kept in the NATO+ fold if they stop fighting Kurds outside of Turkey. Iran can cancel its dreams for a Greater Persia if it had one. But if they want to join NATO+ in fighting violent gangs who kill Shia Muslims in Iraq and Syria, i.e. IS, why not? Up to them.

Syria is falling apart now anyways. There will be territory on discount available. Most likely the voids will be filled with IS and their similars. I would be ready to snatch away as much as possible territory that has strategic or other value when the crumble down starts. The alternative is accept an ever stronger and bigger IS in Iraq and Syria. My view is to better root them out now completely and occupy indefinitely the territories conquered.

[YMix]

How to defeat ISIS? Through war. Round up gangs. Yes it is bloody. But less bloody than let them continue butchering.

The history of counterinsurgency is littered with defeated empires.

I beg to differ. Most people anywhere also in the ME want democracy, have a say in how their societies are managed. They want to be able to vote.

The reason behind religious radicalism and intolerance towards otherly thinkers/believers is universally the same; the belief that some holy book or doctrine tells the truth directly from the lips from Gawd Awmighty and that those who do not subscribe to their doctrine are lesser people, if not sinners, if not enemies who deserve to die now or in the future or just subhuman cockroaches. Religious radicalism is by definition anti-democratic, intolerant and inclined to use violence on others.

I find it extremely far fetched to think that democratic process is the reason behind religious radicalism, especially since it suggests that democratic process is to blame for it. With same reasoning democratic process produces dictatorship or autocracy. Duh.

I don't think you understood my point and I'm too tired to explain. There's always tomorrow.

These questions and answers are at that point totally irrelevant. Such an army would be there to prevent civilians getting killed when they get caught up between various gang wars (as between the Assad gang and gangs opposing him that are not much better or worse). You know, the people who now flee in masses to safer places in Europe and elsewhere. What is so criminally difficult to understand and justify when you want to save those people, think women and children?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Hamlet_Program

Future territorial configurations are not a priority now. But of course, ultimately that is up to negotiations among people who do subscribe to the same values of democracy, human rights etc. Violent radicals like IS and their similar cousins are not tolerated here in the West, why should they be tolerated elsewhere?

And if they subscribe to tribal supremacy and "do unto your neighbor before he can do unto you"?

I'm sure there are enough people in Iraq and Syria who don't mind joining your "white skin forces" in their fight against those violent gangs and dictators.

Yeah, place is full of them.

Not necessarily. Kurdish violence within Turkey can be condemned, and it should. Turkey can be kept in the NATO+ fold if they stop fighting Kurds outside of Turkey. Iran can cancel its dreams for a Greater Persia if it had one. But if they want to join NATO+ in fighting violent gangs who kill Shia Muslims in Iraq and Syria, i.e. IS, why not? Up to them.

Syria is falling apart now anyways. There will be territory on discount available. Most likely the voids will be filled with IS and their similars. I would be ready to snatch away as much as possible territory that has strategic or other value when the crumble down starts. The alternative is accept an ever stronger and bigger IS in Iraq and Syria. My view is to better root them out now completely and occupy indefinitely the territories conquered.

Ok.

[noddy]

for the crusader state idea to work you would need the kind of immigrant that made it work like the young families looking for a fresh start in the new world that created the usa or aus

im not sure they even exist at this point in time - the nation building folk wouldnt dream of setting up the family in a violent shithole surrounded by loons so what you would actually get is the narco/mafia/warlord flavours of personality.

[Endovelico]

for the crusader state idea to work you would need the kind of immigrant that made it work like the young families looking for a fresh start in the new world that created the usa or aus

im not sure they even exist at this point in time - the nation building folk wouldnt dream of setting up the family in a violent shithole surrounded by loons so what you would actually get is the narco/mafia/warlord flavours of personality.

Quite right. All we need is giving decent ME people a chance to run their own countries. But to do that one must first eradicate the loonies. Who are a minority.

[Alexis]

We already have seen what half-baked actions have as a consequence. The fragile balance of power has been destroyed thanks to an amateurish US invasion of Iraq where incompetent neocons thinking messianically that Iraqis would welcome their liberators like Europeans welcomed them end WW2 defeating the Nazis.

Trouble with intervention in the ME was the fact that it was always too small to achieve the desired ends. The stupid idea that you can do the job of a million soldiers with one hundred thousand led necessarily to disaster. A lot of money was spent, lots of people got killed, and the job wasn't done. Wars are never won on the cheap. But if you are willing to engage the necessary means, then it will be possible to purge the ME of all terrorist/extremist factions and give a chance to the majority of moderate people to get a functioning government. A protectorate under the UN supervision would be necessary, but probably for no longer than five years. I am obviously against any colonial idea, but I don't see why it would be necessary.

So, the US military was incompetent? 150,000 soldiers with the best modern weapons was too tiny a force?

You start from the assumption that "one million" soldiers could have transformed Iraq for the better, this within "no longer than five years". That assumption is not only unproven: no case has been done for it.

As for the idea that because occupation forces would bring law & order (incidentally, precisely the opposite happened in Iraq), people would accept being occupied, that idea is wrong. What occupation force & opposing insurgent / resistance forces struggle for is legitimacy, that is acceptance by the local population. And insurgent forces generally win it in the end, because the home turf advantage ("this guy looks like me / believes my religion / speaks my language") is so huge. Also because in the end, insurgent forces have no country to return to, while occupation force always has the option to quit.

Regarding "bringing human rights to these people", that's precisely what the French under Napoléon did in Spain. And don't imagine it was merely propaganda: of course Napo was primarily interested in power, but the laws imposed by the occupying force was progressive: suppression of Inquisition, etc.

Guess what? The Spaniards were not interested. Losses of the Empire in Spain are estimated in excess of 200,000 dead soldiers, Spain losing 250,000 fighters + an estimated 650,000 people due to famine and diseases resulting of general disorganization. Ah yes: the French also lost. And the Spanish word for "little war" was adopted into most other European languages, with a meaning of irregular war. That word is: guerrilla.

Why were the Spaniards not interested? Well, according to some, it might be related with a desire to be master of one's own country and not to have foreigners boss you around and dictate your life. Historically, that desire has generated much more will to fight than the desire for rights or democracy. Like it or not, that is a historical fact worth remembering...

Borders in the ME will probably be redrawn through long wars to come anyways.. and the migration of refugees has just started. Don't be surprised if in the end 30 million people will seek a new life in Europe and elsewhere. I'm totally in favor of helping them and letting them in. But it is then our (the big boys EU+US+Russia together) choice to let those borders be redrawn via wars we don't want to interfere with. How many more civilians will die, how many more on the run?

I'm not in favor of letting them in. Nations have finite abilities to integrate and assimilate a given proportion of foreigners within a given time, say a generation - both for cultural and employment reasons. For example, in France we are not far from our maximum capability. We need a decade if not a generation of moderate immigration, so as to give us time to appropriately Frenchize our present immigrants. I suspect many other European countries are in a similar situation than France.

Include all "refugees" in, happens what may? Well, a French politician recently advocated precisely that. She gave the example of Lebanon, whose "25%" of population would be refugees. Yes... also, Lebanon suffered a disastrous civil war lasting 15+ years, it remains to this day separated in hostile communities with only a weak State to top them all. And inception of that civil war was precisely acceptance of a very large number of refugees.

Sorry, but no. I don't want to take a risk of inflicting that on my children.

What America and European countries can do is the following: at least apply Hippocratus' fundamental principle of "First, do not harm". Therefore, do not support those who want to break countries into pieces, rather the regular governments which, good or bad, represent status quo and basic international order.

If we want to go beyond the fundamental principle, we may choose to support those forces that a) want to maintain status quo and States as they are and b) have a real chance of success. In Syria e.g. that means helping the Assad regime to reconquer their country and eradicate all Jihadists. Weapons & intelligence may be helpful to this kind of forces. We can't do more.

And we don't have to: we can protect from illegal immigration the traditional way - law & order - and we owe nothing to people who chose to fight along sectarian lines.

Before you kill off the idea of conquest/permanent occupation because you associate it with the dark middle ages and crusaders, which is just lazy thinking IMO... compare the alternatives with the reality of today and most likely to develop further.

Comparison is above. Conclusion is clear.

[Endovelico]

So, the US military was incompetent? 150,000 soldiers with the best modern weapons was too tiny a force?

You start from the assumption that "one million" soldiers could have transformed Iraq for the better, this within "no longer than five years". That assumption is not only unproven: no case has been done for it.

Yes, the US military was deeply incompetent. Not only they didn't have the numbers to be successful but their attitude to "rag-heads" was mostly a hateful and destructive one. Their indifference to "collateral damage", their hatred of anything native, made it impossible for the military action to be acceptable to the Iraqi people. Greater military means and a careful approach to the civilian population might have guaranteed success. I participated, for two years, in a successful counterinsurgency war in Angola, and I have a pretty good idea of how important it is to avoid antagonizing the local population.