Correa Wins Reelection amid Economic Storm

By Michael Burgevin

Just four years after entering Ecuador’s political arena, President Rafael Correa won the country's first consecutive reelection since the 19th century. Although not all results have been counted, Correa's significant lead over his closest rival, former President Lucio Gutierrez, guarantees him a second term as president. The Correa announced his plan to protect of the poor and stabilize Ecuador’s economy in the coming year. “We’re here for the poor,” said Correa last night. “Our commitment is to end the misery and to leave behind a more just, equal, and dignified country with greater solidarity.”

Correa swept into power in 2006 on a platform of repairing Ecuador’s corrupt government. Since his first term, the President has successfully rewritten the constitution, centralized power around himself, and subdued an unruly legislature that ousted the previous three presidents. Michael Shifter, Vice President of Inter-American Dialogue in Washington, questioned Correa's decision to centralize power. “For now such a trade-off seems acceptable for most Ecuadoreans,” he told The New York Times. “But when economic conditions worsen, there may be greater discontent with virtually one-man rule.”

Many analysts agree that Correa could quickly loose his public support if he is forced to cut back on social spending after the election. The global financial crisis will take its toll on the national economy this year. Ecuador is the smallest member of OPEC. 40 percent of the country’s GDP comes from the sale of oil, which has fallen in value by 65 percent since last year. The President ruined any hope private investment in the Ecuadorian government after defaulting on billions of dollars in foreign debt last December.

Although the country has demonstrated a rising need for outside economic support, Correa has spurned many go-to lenders such as the World Bank and the IMF, which he lambasted for being “exploitative.” He may still turn to multilateral organizations such as the Inter-American Development Bank to help maintain the country's social spending. Correa has also engaged in talks with China. Beijing recently offered the country $1 billion in exchange for oil drilling rights.

Ecuador’s relationship with the United States has been rocky at best. Earlier this year, Correa expelled a mid-level U.S. diplomat after the man threatened to pull U.S. aid to Ecuador’s anti-drug police force during the final days of the Bush administration. Correa has also refused to renew a U.S. lease on an airbase in Ecuador. The base is used to combat narcotrafficking in Latin America. There have been no other notable interactions between the two countries since President Obama took power earlier this year.

Twin deadly bombings place Iraq back in the spotlight

By Rachel Oppenheimer

Last Thursday, twin suicide bombings killed at least 60 people outside Baghdad's most sacred Shiite shrine, pushing the death toll to nearly 150 in just one 24-hour period. The first suicide bomber wearing an explosive vest blew himself up among a group of police officers distributing relief supplies in the Baghdad area, killing at least 28 people and wounding 50. The second “twin” suicide bomber attacked a group of Iranian pilgrims near the northeastern city of Baquba. Muhanad Harbi, a shop owner near the blast site, said he saw a woman wearing a black robe walk into the crowd – she appeared to have detonated an explosives belt. This new violence may act as a wake up call to the United States that the war in Iraq is not over.

The separate attacks – that resulted in the deadliest day of violence to strike Iraq this year – occurred just as American soldiers who specialized in clearing bombs from roads boarded a plan from Iraq to Southern Afghanistan. Last Thursday’s attacks proved particularly brutal – one involved a woman taking her child along for a suicide mission against a food distribution checkpoint. The latest in a series of high profile attacks, the bombings have raised concern of an increase in violence as the US scales back its forces in the area ahead of a planned withdrawal by the end of 2011.

The scale of the violence – blamed on Sunni insurgents – pales in comparison to past years but still undermines confidence that Iraq’s security gains remain strong as the US military shifts its focus and resources to Afghanistan. The attacks came as Iraqi security officials said they captured one of the most wanted leaders of the al-Qaeda-linked Sunni insurgency, an arrest that could deliver a significant blow to an intensified campaign of attacks. Officials identified the man as Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, supposed leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella group of Sunni militant factions believed to be dominated by Al Qaeda in Iraq.(Back in 2007, Iraq’s government had reported that the same man had been killed, and released photos of his supposed body.)

Experts in Iraqi politics warn that the week of Baghdad killings – combined with unresolved governance issues and heightened sectarian tensions – could or should affect Washington’s exit strategy. Iraqi official Abu Mohammed said “All the killing of Shiites is done by Al Qaeda. America was not able to finish them off. How can our forces do it?”

Swine "snafu"

By Jaya Spier

Panic levels are starting to rise as the recent outbreak of the Swine Influenza in Mexico has quickly spread to New York, Canada, and probably soon to parts of Europe. Students who went to Mexico City on spring break have reportedly become mildly sick. The numbers in Mexico have risen to 103 dead and 1,600 infected. Fortunately there have not been any deaths outside of Mexico thus far (Yahoo! News).

“Swine Influenza (swine flu) is a respiratory disease of pigs caused by type A influenza that regularly cause outbreaks of influenza among pigs. Swine flu viruses do not normally infect humans” (cdc.gov). The Swine flu can be passed on to humans through contact with infected pigs or objects that have been in contact with the infection. Apparently symptoms of the Swine flu in people are very similar to that of the normal flu including fever, coughing, and muscle aches. Reportedly the Swine flue includes symptoms of increased diarrhea and vomiting.

This particular strain has been examined from patients in the United States by the Center for Disease Control and it has been said to be “a never-before-seen mixture of viruses from swine, birds and humans” (latimes.com).

So far twenty people have been reported sick in the United States and six in Canada. The United States has declared a public health emergency “providing for easier access to flu tests and medications, and enhanced surveillance along the US-Mexico border (timesofindia.indiatimes.com).

Cases have also been suspected to exist in other parts of the world such as New Zealand, France, Spain, Israel and Australia (BBC). The World Bank has granted Mexico emergency loans equaling a total of $205 million to deal with the Swine flu crisis. “The World Bank is granting Mexico an immediate loan of $25 million to help with medicine and medical equipment and is to provide a further $180 million to help Mexico set up operations to deal with the outbreak.”(guardian.co.uk).

Hopefully as governments heavily monitor people coming from infected countries the likelihood of the disease spreading will lessen and soon die out. The mass outbreak in Mexico must be dealt with as soon as possible before the strain mutates even further to cause more deaths. Unfortunately the money from the World Bank may not do as much good as could be expected if it is not distributed correctly. Corruption and poverty are very influential in circumstances like this, if the Mexican government doesn't act efficiently, the situation could quickly spin out of control.

Opening toward American leaders criticized at home

By Imola Unger

The leaders of numerous states of the continent gathered to discuss policy and improve relations last Saturday at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago. Relations indeed seemed to improve, as President Obama literally stretched out a friendly hand toward politicians with whom the US’s relations have been tense or practically nonexistent. Especially remarkable was the companionable and joking tone he found with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, who even gifted Obama with a book on imperialist oppression in the region. Further to the talks, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton already conducted discussions on the persons of the future envoys that Venezuela and the US are going to exchange, a decisive step in diplomatic relations after the ambassadors were expelled from both countries. The US President rated the event as successful in terms of preparing the ground for “frank dialog” with the leaders of the region.

The majority of the South American leaders welcomed Obama’s efforts and deemed the situation was ideal for opening up and reevaluating relations. However, the reaction was less favorable on US soil. The President had to rebuff criticism and defend his friendly stance at the meeting against LINK voices suggesting it was “irresponsible” and dangerous of him to schmooze with ardent opponents of United States policy. Mr. Obama argued that there were no enemies present and said his friendly gestures hardly endangered national security, nor did they show weakness. Instead, in his view this could be a defining moment for strengthening ties and rewriting old wrongs with many of the nations.

Indeed, Cuban leader Raúl Castro’s suggestion that he and the US President should discuss the relation of their countries was a pleasant surprise and was warmly welcomed as an unprecedented event. President Obama’s measures to lighten the restrictions between transportation and flow of money between the two countries last Monday can be seen as the precursor of Saturday’s invitation for dialog. Raúl Castro apparently seeks to reset and rebuild relations with the US and in the current atmosphere both parties can be hopeful. The American President rejected, however, the idea of lifting the trade embargo that various South-American leaders suggested at the summit.

Not all participants were convinced by the President’s good intentions: Bolivian President Evo Morales remained skeptical and confronted Mr. Obama about an alleged assassination plot against him, which the President fended off. On the whole, nevertheless, all participants agreed that his actions show a definite shift from his predecessor’s more unilateral approach.

Improved Cooperation at Summit of the Americas

By Ioana Botea

President Obama met with 33 other regional leaders in Port of Spain, Trinidad, to launch a “new era of partnership” between the nations of the western hemisphere. The American president announced the beginning of a new chapter of engagement, based on an equal partnership with “no minor and major partners” – a relationship based on mutual respect and trust. The 5th Summit of the Americas covered issues ranging from migration, drug trafficking, and energy. Obama insisted that such challenges that have serious implications for all nations must be tackled jointly. He made an effort to overcome past disputes by opening dialogue with countries including Cuba and Venezuela. He argued that it is in the U.S.’s strategic interest to strengthen ties with its southern neighbors in order to secure imports of oil and other commodities. Also, the influence of the United States in the region has been diminishing in favor of rivals such as India and China.

The elephant in the room was one country not invited: Cuba. The Brazilian president, Lula da Silva, declared that he cannot imagine a future summit of the Americas without Cuba. In an attempt to alleviate some of the anticipated criticism against U.S. embargo on Cuba, Obama had raised restrictions on travel and remittances for Cuban-Americans. He also urged the Cuban government to take concrete action besides their increased willingness to negotiate. Recognizing some “potential positive signs” between the United States, Cuba and Venezuela, Obama insisted that the test would be “not only words, but also deeds.”

For the last decade, Hugo Chavez has been one of the U.S.’s most virulent critics. Surprisingly, he appeared to be more open to dialogue with the new American president. When Obama notoriously shook his hand, Chavez claims to have told him, “I want to be your friend.” At the same time however, the Venezuelan leader had promised from the onset of the meeting that he would veto any decision in sign of protest to Cuba’s exclusion. Chavez said he is ready to send a new ambassador to Washington, as he considered the summit a “good start,” and admitted that the leaders have “started taking some good steps.”

The summit was regarded as “a moment of great challenge and opportunity” amid the economic meltdown across the hemisphere. The Latin American leaders recognized the importance of Obama’s domestic plan to be efficient in order for their economies to benefit as well. In an op-ed in the Miami Herald prior to the summit, Obama emphasized his determination to overcome past animosity, and to re-engage with Latin American countries. He wrote, “My administration is committed to renewing and sustaining a broader partnership between the United States and the hemisphere on behalf of our common prosperity and common security.” Despite the summit’s failure to produce any concrete decision, a promising first step was taken towards reconciliation and future cooperation between the United States and its southern neighbors.

More Waterboarding Evidence Comes to Light

by Alyssa Landers

The recent release of official C.I.A. memos on the use of torture to obtain coveted information from suspected terrorists reveals that waterboarding was performed approximately 266 times on to key al-Qaeda detainees.

Many in the C.I.A. were against the leak, which was ordered by President Obama last week. President Obama has famously opposed the torture policies, ordering the close of Guantanamo Bay and other offshore prisons within the first two days of his presidency. The president plans to visit C.I.A. headquarters to speak with members of the agency.

As increasing amounts of information on U.S. interrogation techniques rise to the surface, the controversial debate over torture has undoubtedly intensified. Sanctioned under the 2006 Military Commissions Act, waterboarding, or simulated drowning, was allegedly performed by C.I.A. officials on “high level” terrorist suspects, most notably Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

The procedure, largely condemned by human rights groups as well as members of Congress, was conducted in official C.I.A. “black site” prisons in nations from Thailand and Afghanistan to Morocco, Poland, and Romania.

In a recent review of the Bush administration’s “alternative set of procedures” (which include, among other things, prolonged nudity, permanent shackling, the unceasing loud music or noise, starvation, and physical beatings), the International Committee of the Red Cross officially determined that C.I.A. interrogation techniques constituted torture.

Yet many concur with former president George W. Bush’s belief that it is necessary to do whatever it takes to ensure the protection of American lives in the face of what many perceive to be a growing national threat. “We need to insure that those questioning terrorists can continue to do everything within the limits of the law to get information that can save American lives,” Bush stated in 2006.

Indeed, many advocates of procedures like waterboarding proclaim that while such practices may be considered torture, they are essential to “loosening the lips” of suspected terrorists.

According to a poll conducted in 2007, although most Americans view waterboarding as torture, approximately 40 percent of respondents said that it would be acceptable for the government to employ the procedure to procure vital intel.

Whether or not it is more prudent to condemn or condone torture, it is necessary for the United States to consider the impact that previous measures such as the suspension of habeas corpus and former president Bush’s veto of waterboarding ban have on a long-standing reputation of upholding civil liberties.

American Torture

By Rachel Oppenheimer

Thursday, the Justice Department released four memos that lay out the interrogation methods authorized by the Bush administration. “We've enhanced America's image abroad,” said Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in response to criticism that the release undermined national security. The memos exposed the authorization of interrogators to keep detainees naked, in painful standing positions, and in cold cells for long periods of time. Guards deprived prisoners of solid food, slapped them, deprived them of sleep, and threatened their families.

The memos also revealed that CIA interrogators used waterboarding on Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the admitted planner of the 9/11 attacks, 183 times. They used the technique 83 times on another Al Qaeda suspect. One footnote from a memo actually describes wateboarding as falling within the Bush administration's definition of torture. Another footnote says that waterboarding “was used with greater frequency” and “intensity” than advised, to the extent that medical personnel could not confirm the safety of the detainees.

Bush secretly signed off on waterboarding and trapping prisoners with insects while publicly condemning the use of torture.

President Obama banned the use of waterboarding, overturning a Bush administration policy that did not consider it torture.

On Sunday, former CIA Director Gen. Michael V. Hayden said the Obama administration's release of interrogation memos would limit the agency's ability to pursue terrorists in the future. “I think that teaching our enemies our outer limits, by taking techniques off the table, we have made it more difficult in a whole host of circumstances I can imagine, more difficult for CIA officers to defend the nation." From 2002 to 2005, the CIA used harsh techniques – like waterboarding – on detainees before Hayden became director.

President Obama defended his choice and said that the intelligence officials who followed the memos' guidance will not be prosecuted. However, he did not say the same for former administration officials who designed the legal justification for their illegal actions. On Thursday night at UCLA, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said “I think if we say that people are immune because of the policy, then it raises the question of how that policy was shaped.” Might prosecution be the next step to enhancing our damaged image abroad?

Citizens of the World, Dealing with Global Issues

By Jaya Spier

Climate change. This issue seems to come up a lot these days. The younger generation has become very involved in the environment, global warming and its affects on our planet. Older generations are pushing the topic into politics, using it to bring together the international community because this issue concerns, not just individual countries but the global population as a whole.

On Thursday April 16, 2009 former Deputy Secretary (Clinton administration) Strobe Talbott spoke for the Chace Lecture Series at the Levin Institute in New York. He was there to discuss the topics of his recent book The Great Experiment: The story of Ancient Empires, Modern States, and the Quest for a Global Nation. In his book, Talbott states that there are three big issues that the world faces today. These are climate change, nuclear war, and the economic meltdown.

During his lecture Talbott focused mostly on how the world is going to deal with the ongoing threat of the first issue, climate change. Earlier this year Michael Levi spoke at the Levin institute to discuss the report (Confronting Climate Change: A strategy for U.S. Foreign Policy) that he and a task force of people from the Council on Foreign Relations had put together. Levi had five elements that could decrease the affects of global warming and decrease green house gas emissions by 2050. The elements were cap and trade, traditional regulation, directly reducing oil consumption, research development and promoting infrastructure. Levi believes that America must take the lead on this otherwise nothing will change.

As someone who has been heavily involved in government, Talbott seemed more concerned with what the international community has planned. He is very interested in the idea of people being “citizens of the world” and writes that

Just as a nation is a gathering of tribes, so the international community is a gathering of nations—an incipient global nation, in the sense that humanity is learning to govern itself as a whole on those issues where it can do so to the benefit of all, and especially on those where it must do so to avert planetary disaster. (The Great Experiment)

We must work together to slow the damage of climate change and use international leverage to do so. Foreign policy and pressure from allies can make a big impact. Talbott agreed that America’s influence may help move the process along but in the end everyone must be involved.

One of the problems that stands in the way, according to Talbott, is that in the past international progress has been reactive. States make progress after disasters, wars, the dropping of nuclear bombs, only then do governments get together to fix what they have broken. In this case countries must work together now before the damage becomes to great and can’t be reversed.

Anti-Communist Protests in Moldova

By Ioana Botea


Over 10,000 people gathered in Moldova’s capital last week to denounce the results of the parliamentary election that saw the communists return to power. According to the preliminary results, the incumbent Communist Party received over 50 percent of the votes. The parliamentary majority allows it to select the next president unilaterally. Outside monitors declared the April 5 elections fair, but there are accusations of vote rigging and voter lists that allegedly included deceased people.

Protesters threw stones, broke windows, and ultimately raided government buildings in Moldova’s capital Chisinau. When the police intervened to thwart the anti-communist rallies, violence erupted and a score of people were injured. Valeriu Boboc, 23, died in the confrontations. By Wednesday, 200 people had already been arrested.

President Vladimir Voronin accused neighboring Romania of instigating the protests,
by consulting with opposition leaders and mobilizing young people. He expelled Romania’s ambassador and introduced a new visa regime for Romanians. However, there is no evidence of Romanian involvement in the anti-government protests of last week.

Moldova, the poorest country in Europe, was part of Romania until 1940 when it was occupied by Soviet troops. Since its independence in 1991, it has been ruled by the Communist Party which maintains close links to Kremlin. In recent years, demands for closer ties with Romania, a new E.U. member, have strengthened. Despite the fact that the majority of Moldovans favor getting closer to Europe, the mainly Soviet-trained and Russian-speaking political elite has been reluctant to break ties with Russia.

Most of last week’s protesters were young people, who were organized via Twitter, and other social-networking sites. Because the overwhelming majority of demonstrators were students, the State Ministry of Education emitted a document forcing professors to keep students from participating in rallies. Mark E. Tkachuk, adviser to Mr. Voronin, explained, “We have told parents to keep their children in school. Because this is not about 3,000 people; it’s about hundreds of thousands. When we saw what happened at Parliament, what happened at the presidential palace – well, this means civil war, which cannot be allowed.”

Supporting the anti-communist opposition in Chisinau, its mayor, Darin Chitimacha, declared that, “the young people threw out portraits of Voronin and Lenin and others because they have come to hate them. They understand that their future has been stolen. They understand that their votes in the parliamentary elections were stolen. Regimes that use terror end badly.” (The New York Times)

Moldova’s Constitutional Court authorized a recount of the votes from the April 5 election. Results are expected to be publically announced in 9 days. In the meantime, the European Union is expected to take quick diplomatic actions to restore stability on in the region. Since the Georgian war in August 2008, and the Ukrainian crisis in January 2009, there have been increasing concerns regarding more violence and instability erupting on its eastern flank. A summit between the E.U. and its six eastern neighbors – Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, is scheduled in Prague on 7 May.

Thailand pendulum to swing?

By Rachel Oppenheimer

Thai troops closed in on thousands of red-shirted demonstrators in Bangkok yesterday. They killed two of the anti-government demonstrators – the first known fatalities in a week of unrest. The two opposition forces clashed in a gun battle outside Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva’s office.

The violence began on Friday when the red-shirted protesters broke into the Pattaya resort venue where the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was to hold their 14th ASEAN Summit from April 10-12. Surin Pitsuwan, ASEAN secretary general, called for a peaceful end to the protests. Vejjajiva had Asian summit leaders airlifted from the area.

Sunday, running street battles left at least 110 injured. In a mostly Muslim neighborhood, hundreds of demonstrators threw things at residents, burned tires, marched into the local mosque and tried to set food stalls on fire. Residents fought back with wooden sticks, inciting chaos.

On Monday, Vejjajiva declared an “extreme state of emergency.” Protesters gathered in the streets, climbed on armored military vehicles and attacked the prime minister’s motorcade. In response, army soldiers tried to suppress the chaos by firing automatic weapons and releasing tear gas into the air, clearing a major Bangkok road as Thailand began celebrating its 3-day New Year’s water festival. Demonstrators responded by firing at least one gasoline bomb at a line of troops. At the end of the day, the conflict resulted in 70 more wounded.

The clash between the two sides started one day after the country’s ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra called for a revolution and said he might return from exile to lead it. Some believe he may hope to exploit the situation, returning as the only person who can control his following.

Vajjajiva vowed to prosecute the protesters who forced the cancellation of Saturday’s summit, and only time will tell of each camp’s future consequences and reactions. “Right now the red shirts are on the resurgence, and we don’t know where they are going with it,” said Chulalongkorn University Professor Thitinan Pongsudhirak. “But the pendulum is likely to swing to very suppressive tactics and brutal and harsh reactions from the right, the establishment.”

Rising Tide of Violence in Somalia

By Michael Burgevin

An American Congressman narrowly escaped an attack in Somalia just 24 hours after a hostage standoff involving Somali pirates ended in a victory for the United States. Insurgents fired mortars at Rep. Donald Payne’s airplane as he departed from the capitol city of Mogadishu on Sunday. Rep. Payne (D-NJ), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee's subcommittee on Africa and global health, was in the country to discuss how the international community could lend assistance to the war torn Somali government. Although police claim that no one was injured during the attack, local residents reported that three people were wounded when a mortar dropped on a nearby neighborhood.

The attack came just one day after Navy SEALS shot and killed three pirates during the rescue of an American captain. Captain Richard Phillips had been held hostage since early last week when gunmen boarded his ship off the Somali cost. The rescue ended a five-day standoff between the world’s largest navy and the pirates’ small lifeboat. After F.B.I. Hostage negotiators failed to secure Capt. Phillips’s safe return, President Obama authorized the use of military force should the captain’s life be placed in imminent danger. The President praised Capt. Phillips, saying that his courage was a “model for all Americans.”

Many have cited the Captain’s release as an early victory for President Obama, stating that his decision to authorize military action should Capt. Phillips’s life be threatened demonstrated his capability to act as Commander in Chief of the armed forces. “This was an incredible team effort,” said Admiral William Gortney, who was involved in the operation. “I am extremely proud of the tireless efforts of all the men and women who made this rescue possible.” The reaction from Somali pirates was notably less positive. The sentiment felt in pirate communities was, you kill our men, and we kill your men. “From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill (the hostages),” Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old pirate, told the Associated Press.

Somali pirates currently hold more than a dozen ships and over 200 hostages in the Indian Ocean, none of them American. Both NATO and the European Union have launched policing efforts in the seas around Somalia, but some have criticized the dual forces as being counterproductive. "The two separate missions won't cooperate as they should. They will needlessly duplicate already expensive effort, and the resulting disarray might even give pirates the upper hand,” explained Bjoern Seibert, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London.

Violence in Thailand

By Jaya Spier

On Saturday a meeting of Asian leaders was canceled in Thailand due to anti-government protests in Pattaya. A state of emergency was declared as foreign leaders were flown out of the country. This was the second time the Association of South-East Asian Nations (Asean) summit has been canceled. The previous time was in December because of political turmoil.

The summit was going to be the first meeting held for Asia-Pacific leaders since the G-20 conference that was held in London earlier this month. Heads of state from Japan, South Korea, India, China, Australia and New Zealand along with Managing Director of the IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn, World Bank President Robert Zoellick and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon were planning to attend (Bloomberg.com.) The summit was to be held in Thailand since it currently holds Asean’s chairmanship.

The protests were reportedly a deep embarrassment for Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and the recently reformed Thai government. Vejjajiva came to power in December after protesters closed down airports in November in an effort to evict the previous Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra. The airports were closed for days. Foreigners were stuck in Bangkok and couldn’t go anywhere in case the airports reopened. It was a waiting game. My friend’s parents were in Thailand at the time and their flight was postponed for almost a week.

The protests that occurred during the summit were in support of the previous Prime Minister. The so called “Red shirts” wanted to show world leaders that Vejjajiva was unwelcome. Just as the meet was about to begin Shinawatra supporters broke into the resort in Pattaya and entered the media center next to the hall where the conference was taking place. Luckily all the leaders made it out and the state of emergency ended after they had all left.

The summit was supposed to take place April 11^th and 12^th to discuss global finances. Now the meeting has been postponed once again as the Thai government seems to be falling to pieces.

Thaksin, who continues to wield considerable political influence in the country despite being mostly in exile since September 2006, called on his supporters to overthrow the government on Sunday, promising to return if the government moved to crack down on protests. (Al Jazeera)

The Asia and Pacific director at Amnesty International USA, T Kumar, has stated that the only real option to prevent civil war is to hold elections. Otherwise revolution and extreme violence will descend upon the country. He also noted that the action of the military against Thaksin supporters this weekend was a contrast to the inaction against anti-Thaksin protesotrs last year.

Violence did break out this weekend, some protesters were shot and others wounded. There is a danger of the military continuing to hurt civilians, which could lead to more violent protests.

We will just have to see how Vejjajiva handles his responsibilities and deals with the humiliation caused by this weekend’s demonstrations.

Obama brings air of thaw at G-20 summit

By Imola Unger

The top 20 world leaders met last Thursday in London to discuss strategies to improve the current world economy. The G-20 summit was of crucial importance in reaching an international agreement and developing strategies that could efficiently end the crisis and put the world economy back on track. However, China and France refused to sign the final communiqué, thus reeling close to danger the success of the meeting.

American President Barack Obama seemed to have cracked the ice at the G-20 meeting when smoothing the serious dispute between the two states, encouraging a more dynamic approach to the summit. As Obama later remarked, the meeting was a further proof that the world is no longer ruled by an exclusive group of a few Western superpowers. Now all countries have a say and are given the opportunity of substantial involvement in international matters, with promising results.

However, even though a general consensus was reached by the 20 leaders and the meeting was pronounced successful, little has been said to the effect of immediate action and short-term recovery. In an anti-protectionist atmosphere, increasing the presence of the IMF, a $1.1 trillion bailout of developing countries, stimulation of the world trade, and the regulation of financial firms were the main measures the participants agreed on, failing to provide satisfaction to those who sought immediate and concrete remedy to mending the economy in the largest countries affected by the crisis. That the all-affecting question of the environment was only mentioned fleetingly , in broad terms, gave way to further public dissatisfaction with the summit.

However, lenience seems to have gone a longer way than perseverance, and the kinds of compromises reached are an inevitable asset of summits between such a number of countries, all with their own problems and interests. Navigating the sometimes stormy waters of the discussion brought more efficient results than obstinately repeating an unswayable point. This approach seems to signal a new kind of rhetoric in international dialog, and the pledges reached thus leave ample way for the individual countries to implement the measures decided upon as they see fit.

Obama Saves the Day at G20 Summit

By Alyssa Landers

On Saturday, leaders of the world’s largest and most powerful nations gathered in London at the G20 Summit to discuss plans for international economic reform. On the agenda were issues central to economic recovery, including tougher bank regulation policies, trade stimulation between nations, and bailouts for the developing world.

Yet surprisingly enough, one of the central issues that almost toppled the precarious coming together of nations was the seemingly trivial topic of tax havens.

France—a nation that, like most of Western Europe, has put big pressure on nations like the United States to implement strict regulatory measures on its banks—sharply emphasized, in addition to advocating stringent bank reform, the necessity of elimination tax havens in places like Switzerland, the Caribbean, as well as Hong Kong and Macao in China.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy brought specific attention to the word “endorse” in the document, highlighting the fact that all G20 nations should be active in “naming and shaming” such tax havens.

Chinese president Hu Jintao, however, was not impressed. Not only was Jintao angered by Sarkozy’s demand that China adhere to endorsements by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (a coalition of wealthy nations that does not yet include China), but was also furious at the implicit accusation that China, a Communist nation with a history of severe state control, does not keep a close eye on its constituents. Accordingly, the Chinese president refused to agree to the document while the word “endorse” remained.

Reportedly, it was President Obama, who had spent much time with Sarkozy in France in the days preceding the conference, who intervened in the dispute. The president took each leader into a corner of the room, urging them to “see the big picture.” Finally, an agreement was reached as the word “endorse” was changed to “note.”

The final communiqué from the conference emphasized the point that “prosperity is indivisible” and that “growth, to be sustained, has to be shared,” and made clear that open and active global trade is the only way to sustain economic recovery. President Obama openly acknowledged the fact that he is committed to pursuing an open market economy and supports the stimulation of international trade in this time of crisis, and that the prosperity of the American people is his top priority right now.

“It is…my responsibility to lead America into recognizing that its interests, its fate, is tied up with the larger world.”

G-20 Meeting Marks a 'Turning Point'

By Ioana Botea


The G-20 meeting in London on April 2 represented Barack Obama's debut on the international arena. The fact that the American president was surrounded by 19 other leaders - and not just a few, suggests hid diminished importance and leadership on the global scene. Obama welcomed the change in America's power relationship, indicating the end of a world where Roosevelt and Churchill could rewrite the international financial system over a glass of brandy. In the new global context where the U.S. can no longer take decisions unilaterally, he assumed the responsability "to lead America into recognizing that its interests, its fate, is tied yp with the larger world." Gordon Brown concuured that the summit represents the end of the Washington Consensus, and that, "This is the day the world came together to fight against the global recession. Our message today is clear and certain: we believe that global problems require global solutions."

Obama insisted that the summit marks a "turning point in our global economic recovery." He also restated its historic relevance given not only by the magnitude and urgency of the task, but also by the unprecedented imperative to work together. After applauding his counterparts' efforts in the "very productive" meeting, the American president concluded that, "today the world's leaders have responded with an unprecedented set of comprehensive and coordinated actions." In order to revive the global economy and restore confidence, the leaders of the world's largest economies committed $1.1 trillion in suplementary loans and guarantees to facilitate trade, repair financial systems and bail out troubled countries. In addition, Obama emphasized the importance of bridging the divide between advanced and developing economies. He warned that by neglecting poor countries, "not only are we depriving ourselves of potential opportunities for markets and economic growth, but ultimately that despair may turn to violence that turns on us." The G-20 leaders also agreed to triple the resources of the International Monetary Fund to $750 billion.

It has been argued that some parts of the world are "decoupling", with China expected to register a growth rate of 6-7 percent, India of 5-6 percent, and Brazil of 1-2 percent in 2009. However, it is extremely difficult to gauge the power shift of emerging markets while the global crisis is still unfolding. At the same time, Obama's privileged position at the G-20 summit indicates the persistent superiority of the United States on the global arena. In an interview with Fareed Zakaria, Financial Times chief economic commentator Martin Wolf points out that, "the U.S. is central for good and ill. A big financial crisis in the U.S. has turned out to be a big world crisis. What better demonstration can there be of the centrality of the U.S.?"

New Goals for IMF

By Michael Burgevin

At the Group of 20 meeting last week, global leaders agreed to provide over $1 trillion in a new funding to combat the international financial crisis. The agreement included $750 billion of new lending commitments and credit guarantees for the International Monterey Fund (IMF), which will quadruple the fund’s current budget. Leaders believe that $1 trillion is the largest possible amount that could be pumped into the global economy without the risk of a ballooning effect on national budgets. The G20 also agreed to increased regulation on tax havens and tighten control over large hedge funds, forcing financial institutions to be held accountable on a more global level.

Many new pledges were formed last week to increase the IMF’s funding. Both Japan and the European Union have already promised $100 billion each to the fund. Rich countries, such as the United States, will work as a conglomerate to open a new line of credit, known as the “New Arrangements to Borrow.” Most notably, the IMF will print $250 billion of its own currency, allotting sums to IMF member countries according to their quotas. As of now, it is unclear whether or not this funding can be reallocated from rich to poor countries. IMF administrators were thrilled by the news. “Today is the proof that the IMF is back,” said the fund’s managing director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

Some however worry that the IMF is ill suited for distributing the new financial assistance. Criticism has been focused on the IMF’s image as a policy enforcer as opposed to a free lender. Many worry that normal IMF demands such as national budget cuts could easily harm fragile economies in the current economic crisis. Supporters of the IMF have pointed to Mexico’s new loan under the recently created “Flexible Credit Line,” which does not place traditional IMF restrictions on the borrowing country. In a promising sign, the Peso has already risen 12 percent from its 16 year low in early March.

President Obama played a significant role in the G20 meeting, successfully mediated a disagreement between French President Nicholas Sarkozy and Chinese President Hu Jintao over whether to impose sanctions on tax havens that do not provide enough information to the government. German Chancellor Angela Markel praised the freshman President’s role in the meeting. Although world leaders approved of President Obama’s cooperative approach, those in Washington may find his initial promise of $100 billion of U.S. aid to the IMF hard to swallow. The President has the support of many democratic leaders on Capital Hill, including D-Rep. Gregory Meeks, the head of the House Financial Service Subcommittee. However, many Republicans who have protested the national bailouts balked at the idea of funneling U.S. currency into the international market.

Can 85% of the economy represent and serve the whole?

By Rachel Oppenheimer


Leaders of the Group of 20 (G-20), who represent 85 percent of the global economy's output, faced a long list of agenda items when they gathered on April 2 in London, England for their second summit, and many affected by the global crisis had their livelihoods resting on the event. Thousands of protesters had gathered in London on April 1st and 2nd to demonstrate against a variety of issues, mostly anti-capitalist or pro-environmental in nature. As the world combats a great recession, its leaders addressed how to stabilize financial markets, re-start economic growth, reform the global financial system, and aid developing and emerging economies.

The leaders of the world's largest economies reached an agreement following the summit to tackle the world's largest financial crisis with measures worth $1.1 trillion (£681 billion). Global G-20 media reacted with a mixture of cautious optimism and skepticism. While the French press praised G-20 politicians for regaining power over the world of finance and the pro-Kremlin Russian press credited Dmitri Medvedev for meeting other leaders with “proposals rather than evaluations,” India's Business Standard detailed the decline in Indian exports and expressed concern that “more countries will increase their levels of protection against imports despite the emphasis [at the G20] on preventing this.” President Barack Obama praised the agreement: “The only way out of a recession that is global in scope is with a response that is global in coordination,” he said.

To help countries with troubled economies, the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) resources will be tripled to $750 billion. “We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250 billion (£170 billion) into the world economy and increase global liquidity,” said a clause in the comunique issued by the G20 leaders. SDRs, or Special Drawing Rights, are a synthetic paper currency issued by the International Monetary Fund that has lain dormant for 50 years. By activating the IMF's power to create money, the G20 leaders have put a de facto world currency into play. One can only hope such monetary injections can strategically and positively impact international and family economic stability in the months to come.

"Meeting" may lead to further hostility

By Jaya Spier

At the Afghan Donor’s Conference on Tuesday there was a reported meeting between Richard Holbrooke, an American envoy and the Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammad Mehdi Akhundzadeh from Iran. This interaction was a step forward after American President Obama stated he would like to start fresh with Iran and improve relations between the two countries.

In a speech made on March 21^st President Obama stated, “The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right, but it comes with real responsibilities. And that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization” (CNN.com).

Additionally, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did reveal that the issue of the release of three Americans who are currently being held in Iran was touched upon through a letter. “Levinson is a former FBI agent who went missing two years ago while on a business trip to Iran. Saberi is an Iranian American freelance journalist who has been detained since January, and Momeni is an Iranian American student who was detained last year” (washingtonpost.com).

The conversation between Holbrooke and Akhundzadeh was kept to the sidelines and the American government claimed that it was not planned but that it could lead to future meetings. During the conference Clinton did ask that Afghanistan’s neighbors help provide aid in any way possible. While Iran was not referenced directly, Akhundzadeh did say that Iran would be willing to assist. However he also stated that the Iranian government was in direct opposition of Obama’s plan to boost American troops in Afghanistan and that “the presence of foreign forces has not improved things in the country and it seems that an increase in the number of foreign forces will prove ineffective, too” (news.xinhuanet.com).

As reports of the meeting between the United States and Iran spread, the Iranian foreign ministry decided on Wednesday to deny that any such interaction had occurred. The spokesperson, “Hassan Ghashghavi also denied that the Iranian delegation had received any letter from the US officials asking about the whereabouts of three American nationals reportedly jailed or gone missing in the Islamic republic” (AFP).

It looks like the Iranian government is unhappy with what occurred at the donor conference and rather than resolving any issues, this interaction between the United States and Iran may lead to further confusion and conflict.