The PIIGS of Europe( part II) - The Downfall of Big Brother

by Esme Ellis

The Irish conceded on Sunday and reached out for a bailout for debt that signaled the end of resistance on the part of Northern Ireland. Due to a failure of Irish banks rather than state saving programs, the Irish have had to resort to bailout. 85 billion euros have been thrown at the Irish coffers from four different directions: 22.5 Bil euros from the European Financial Stability Fund, 22.5 from the UK, Sweden, and Denmark, another 22.5 from the International Monetary Fund and the last 22.5 billion euro was siphoned from the National Pension Reserve Fund and other programmes. There is a proposed 5.8% interest rate, a great deal larger than the Greek interest rate, despite the 30 billion dollar decrease that the Irish relief package represents to the Greek one.

The Europeans are looking around nervously at weak nations with impending debt crises, particularly the PIIGS, (Portugal,Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain). With two of the five knocked out of the running, Europeans are bracing themselves for a hit from either Spain or Portugal.
There's dialogue about the precarious position of the Euro in state relations, and all eyes have turned to France and Germany for a response. Any sign of significant doubt or unwillingness to continue on the current currency from either could spell the end of the European conglomerate.

French foreign minister Christine Lagarde assured yesterday on French radio station RTL that a comparison between French debt and Irish debt "was not economically a suitable comparison", and that France was in no danger of defaulting itself." We are the best of those at risk in Europe,". Yes Lagarde, very comforting indeed-if you're going to be in trouble, you might as well be standing on the heads of those who are sinking below you.

"We'll save the Euro," pledged French budget minister Francois Baroin also on Monday.
He went even father in his proclamations than Laguarde. " This moment records the absolute determination of Europe- of France and Germany- to save the Eurozone," he said. It was a reassuring gesture- over reaching perhaps, and slightly over assuming, but for the most part, true.

The Germans, for their part, are broadcasting warnings on the likelihood of Portuguese defaults , and are, as usual, prescribing remedies mostly along the lines of creating banks that take responsibility for their own losses, and work, through careful planning and perhaps clairvoyance, to avoid defaults. There's an exasperation in the German state for the large role European taxpayers have played in the bailouts- but should we remind them that is was Merkel herself who made the decision in round one of " The Euro Goes Bust" to use tax payer money for the Greek bailout?

France and Germany are pillars of the Eurozone, and they, along with the UK, will shoulder many of the financial costs of being so closely dependent on negligent neighbors, as one so often is in the Eurozone. The long term concern is that these two states will tire of their role as economic crutch in the larger European Community, and that they will start to weigh the benefits of community against the benefits of insolvency, which are, it must be admitted, rather few.

Media Watchdog Becoming a Bulldog?

By Michelle Consorte

America prides itself on a system of checks and balances, not the least of which is the media's check on government actions. Indeed, a well-functioning democracy requires the solid foundation of a civil society below it. This includes an open space for the media to operate freely without backlash or restraint from the government, even when much of the coverage focuses on governmental policies and actions in a negative light. Yet, when does the media "watchdog" become an offensive media "bulldog," generating more problems for the government, especially in terms of security, than solutions for the public? Is the recent exposure of 250,000 internal cables between diplomats by self-proclaimed media watchdog Wikileaks going too far?

Generally speaking, information is leaked for two reasons: 1) Politically to test the waters, i.e. figure out public reaction to an idea before the real move/policy is enacted so as to avoid backlash or future problems. 2) Vengefully or rightfully (depending on whose side you're on) to expose something or someone; "the truth" let's say for posterity's sake.

Yet, what was really exposed here? The fact that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was called the "Robin" to Vladimir Putin's "Batman?" Or that German Chancellor Angela Merkel was portrayed as "risk averse and rarely creative?" These accounts sound more like notes being passed in high school than legitimate security concerns or bold, defaming statements.

But is all of this chaos being down-played by the U.S. government as yet another smoke and mirrors illusion that needs to be exposed by the media, continuing the cycle? Or is the lack of threat in what was leaked legitimate?

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said she was "confident that the administration’s diplomatic relationships would withstand the upheaval" caused by the Wikileaks exposé. During a news conference, Clinton said that many of her counterparts around the world had shrugged off any insults. One of them apparently told her, “Don’t worry about it. You should see what we say about you.” I'm not sure that's comforting...

Meanwhile, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes that the cables are "organized to be released on a regular basis" as an attempt to hurt Iran, pointing to the depiction within several cables of a number of Arab leaders urging the U.S. to take strong action against Iran. On the opposite side of the spectrum is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who says, vindicated, that the information in the cables confirms Israel's own assessment of the real Iranian threat.

In this case, the U.S. government's attempts to limit the damage caused by internal conversations between diplomats may be a charade in the hopes that Iran and other countries will play along and dismiss the event as nothing more than petty gossip. After all, the pen is mightier than the sword, and those slighted by the U.S.'s words supposedly behind closed doors may not be so apt to join the side of this great power. But I doubt the depiction of Russia's government leaders as cartoon characters will completely destroy Moscow-Washington relations. If it does, the world may have bigger problems than previously thought.

So, what did Wikileaks really prove? Did they read through the information before releasing it or just hit send in a frenzied euphoria about the wealth of internal correspondence they had just received?

In my mind its not what was exposed that matters here but more the fact that it was exposed, and with such ease. More of a quantity over quality matter. Wikileaks is flexing its muscles, commanding attention and saying "look what we have the potential to do," rather than "look what we did."

What does this say about Wikileaks? Instead of a reactionary watchdog and check on U.S. government secrecy, Wikileaks has taken the offensive role in the relationship; drawing a line in the sand and telling the government that it needs to shape up and not cross that line. Otherwise it will be in some serious trouble from which it may not return completely intact. While, yes, there does need to be a check on the government and a continuous aim at transparency, how can we condone threats abroad and then allow them against our own government?

I also have to point out that if Wikileaks is indeed powerful enough to expose the deepest darkest secrets of the government, as it claims to be, isn't it possible for such sensitive information to fall into the wrong hands? While the German Chancellor's lack of ingenuity isn't exactly a measure of "good relations," it isn't top secret information like—hypothetically—a U.S. mission into the make-shift government of Rwanda would be. Exposing such—again, hypothetical—information would be an extremely dangerous breach of security for all parties involved. A case such as this would be chaotic, and the fact that Wikileaks flaunts its ability to create such a scenario, and prides itself on this, is frightening.

Yes, it's true that various treaties and documents including the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, reserve citizens the right to free speech and free expression, and no one has a the ability or legitimacy to take that right away. I want to be very clear on that. However, I also want to point to the Supreme Court case in 1919 of Schenck v the United States in which Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. did not uphold Schenck's right to free speech in that particular case because he claimed it presented a "clear and present danger," and was akin to "falsely shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded movie theater." In other words, that the well-being of the masses trumps the free speech of one. Holmes is quoted below:

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

We most definitely do need an open media and a check on government because this is what keeps democracy going. This is the bread and butter of a society in which the public takes precedent and has a high level of control over what its government does; a society with a government whose primary purpose is to serve the people. But, we also need some checks on the media for security purposes, which currently do not exist. We don't need a lot of them. But enough that a "clear and present danger" is not created by reporting.

Human Rights in Iran: The Role of the International Community

by Elizabeth Dovell

The 2009 Iranian election protests marked an undeniable turning point within the Islamic Republic. The regime continues its repressive measures against its own citizens, and the question of what the international community should do remains. Has the United States and the European Union turned their backs on the Green Revolution, missing a golden opportunity to induce positive change in Iran?

World Policy Institute and CDS International co-hosted a Political Salon on Monday, November 15 concerning the human rights situation in Iran and what role, if any, the international community should play in this hot-button issue. The panel, moderated by Sebastian Gräfe of Heinrich Böll Stiftung North America, included Barbara Lochbihler, German Member of the European Parliament and head of the EU’s Iran Delegation in the European Parliament, and Geneive Abdo, WPI fellow and Iran analyst at The Century Foundation.

The Iran-U.S. advisory group, organized by The Century Foundation’s insideIRAN project, Heinrich Böll Stiftung North America, and the National Security Network, commenced its second meeting last summer in Brussels, bringing together European and American diplomats, Iranian academics, and former Iranian government officials who have defected to the opposition. In introducing Iranian activists to U.S. and E.U. policymakers, the advisory group provided a beneficial forum in which policymakers could glean firsthand information from activists.

The group discussed the grave human rights situation in Iran, and exchanged ideas for what measures the United States and the European Union should take. A former Iranian diplomat who defected in January encouraged Western diplomats to discuss the human rights situation with Iranian diplomats, as the nuclear issue often dominates diplomatic dialogue.

The conclusions of the Iran-U.S. advisory group were presented in the Boell & Century Foundation's policy paper “Placing Human Rights Violations in Iran on Top of the Foreign Policy Agenda” by Genieve Abdo and Sebastian Gräfe.

Ms. Abdo and Ms. Lochbihler echoed the paper’s sentiments during Monday's panel: Iran is indeed sensitive to the international community’s opinion on its human rights abuses, a fact that can be advantageous to the US and the EU. Both panelists emphasized the importance of pinpointing specific violations, promoting the efforts of the opposition, and combating any language in which Iran may imply that the West is meddling in human rights cases for the purpose of toppling the regime; Iran’s government may point to the Iranian Revolution as an example of this.

The panel agreed that it is essential for the U.S. and the E.U. to make a collective effort to bring human rights violations to light, and voice their support of Iranian civil society. President Obama has taken such positive steps as issuing an executive order in September 2010 sanctioning eight individuals the U.S. has identified as war criminals. Iran’s Green Movement greatly benefits from international recognition and support in the face of government oppression.

Since the June 2009 election that ensured President Ahmadinejad’s power, the Iranian government has taken such measures to crush dissidents as dissolving social networks they deem a threat to the regime, monitoring and punishing those in the media and academia who express dissent, and abolishing down civic organization such as students groups and women’s rights groups.

Additionally, the regime has been proactive in pursuing preventative measures to combat dissidents, such as stifling non-government administered media broadcast and using “soft tools” such as cracking down on other technological forms of communication such as cellular phones and the Internet. Keeping the public in the dark is yet another method of controlling the population

Iran has stringent policies concerning how many journalists can enter the country at a time, and keeps strict track of every bit of media coverage concerning Iran- yet another example of their domination and heavy monitoring of the media.

Thousands of Iranian citizens have been thrown into jails, victims of unspeakable acts of torture. From online bloggers to members of religious minority leaders, the regime has extended the same harsh treatment to all.

The preservation of documentation and evidence of torture is vital in supporting Iran’s citizens. The U.S. and E.U. must assist activists and lawyers to preserve this evidence for future legal procedures.

Ms. Lochbihler maintained that it is too early to see empirical developments in Iran but is looking forward to further progress.

An entire section of the report is devoted to the issue of Iranian refugees in Turkey. The number of Iranian civilians fleeing their country- legally and illegally- for neighboring Turkey has increased, partially because Turkey has no state asylum law. Refugees have received less than a warm welcome, as certain minorities within the refugee groups such as LGBT refugees are being attacked. The application process for political asylum may take years, and many refugees have become stuck in Turkey with no options for employment. While the U.S. helping them to resettle, the E.U. has been more resistant.

According to Ms. Abdo and Mr. Gräfe’s report, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is working on reducing the time period asylum applications generally take.

Ms. Lochbihler identified the three areas of recommendation at which the group arrived:

1. Monitor and Highlight Iran’s Human Rights Violations

2. Support the Rights and Needs of Iranian Refugees

3. Increase Assistance to NGOs that Support Iranian Civil Society

The U.S. and the E.U. must cooperate on the issue in order to produce the most effective policy responses. “Each side of the Atlantic thinks the other is doing much better in terms of the issue,” said Mr. Gräfe.

Since a military attack on Iran is unlikely at present, it would be more beneficial to offer support to the social movement. “Real transformation has to come from inside Iran,” claimed Ms. Lochbihler.

The PIIGS of Europe- the beginning of the end?

by Esme Ellis

There is a Sisyphean quality to the frequency with which the Euro has failed the Euro zone. It is November, and for the second time this year, the Europeans are faced yet again with the task of shouldering the burden of the Euro. When Greece admitted bankruptcy earlier this year, Europe plunged into crisis mode, squaring their shoulders, and pushing back against the impending collective market failure with a 110 billion Euro bailout. The euro zone took the collective decision on umbrella sovereignty and made a decisive commitment toward a united Europe with the bailout.

The commitment has a price however, that not all are willing to pay. Most recently, the Austrians refused to handover the latest support installment to the Greeks, citing an insufficient move towards reducing Greek debt as the cause.

Put this action in the context of growing concern about Irish bankruptcy, and the future of the European conglomerate seems very bleak indeed.

For the Irish, the question revolves around taking the bailout or not. Other states have urged the Irish to take it, for the health of the common currency, while the Irish have protested, labelling the issue as a mere "liquidity problem". They insist that there is more than a year left until Irish debt is no longer covered, and that there are other paths to take than an appeal to the IMF or the European Financial Stability Fund.

The sick men of Europe, the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece , and Spain) are considered the weak economies in European, and are predicted as most likely to fail within the next five to ten years. The concern is this: the EU could stave off the effects of a failed Greece or Ireland. A failed Spain however, presents the potential end of European unity and the common currency. In the EU, there are extremely diverse economies functioning under the same monetary standard, and despite allowing for the perpetuation of less competitive economies, the European dream of preservation and incorporation may be over. Size matters, and what the Europeans consider their greatest strength is also their greatest weakness.

Is the EU intended as a marriage of sovereignty, in sickness or in health? The currency is both the focal point for union and infection in the EU- it sacrifices sovereignty in the name of collective. The rise of the PIIGS as concern, however, calls into question the feasibility of European style nationalism and institutionalism.

Self-Critical Views From Bryant Park – Where do the interests lie in Mid-term Elections?

Self-Critical Views From Bryant Park – Where do the interests lie in Mid-term Elections?

By Andres Arevalo, Rebecca Brown and Adrienn Kácsor

NEW YORK, Manhattan, November 2 – A bad day for the Democrats, as everyone had expected the day of the 2010 Mid-term Elections to be. It is a sunny but freezing Tuesday at Bryant Park in the heart of Manhattan. Students, families, and businessmen, who spend their afternoon break at everyone's favorite New York park, all turned out to be quite pessimistic. Not just about the Democrats' election results, but also about the positive effects of the midterm elections on international affairs.

Three in four of those asked say that they do not believe that the mid-term elections would produce progress on the United States' foreign affairs issues. This result may not be completely surprising, considering the fact that most Americans (75 per cent of US population, according to CNN's Poll conducted before the Elections) have showed little interest in international politics but absolutely towards the US economy. “The top concern remains unemployment, with 58 percent saying it's the most important economic issue facing the country today,” points out the poll. It seems that most Americans’ interests today lie inside the United States, not abroad.

Still, instead of stressing the internal economical situation, when asked about challenges of U.S. foreign affairs, most people seem to believe that the United States has an important role and responsibility on the world stage of politics. “The United States is doing too much outside, but I think it is okay. America has a responsibility to do as much as possible,” says Nasreen Hussain, a 43-year old teacher. While three in four interviewed at Bryant Park, including Ms Hussain, say that the US has a responsibility, two of them also thought that America is doing too much abroad. A rather contradictory way of thinking, although not so surprising, as the newest terror threats posed by two package-bombs from Yemen were announced just a few days before the mid-term elections.

However, the interviewees' opinions are absolutely clear and homogenous about China. “Yes, China is causing economic problems to us, but it is not bad; that is the way it is. The US should be more competitive,” a common opinion voiced by Steve Demedrano-Hilling, a dual resident of both Spain and the United States. Although the majority of people criticize rather the United States than China for its growing power, it has also been mentioned that China should act fairly and according to international market rules. “I’m fine with the economy as long as it is fair. China has to play by the rules,” says Sergio Cannella, a middle-aged unemployed New Yorker.

The most divisive issue turns to be the question of Iran and what policy should the United States take towards the Iranian nuclear program. While Liz, a student, thinks that no country should have nuclear weapons, Steve Demedrano-Hilling counterpoised that Iran has the same rights to have nuclear weapons as Russia or Israel does. The most passionate but level-headed answer came from Ms Hussain, who says that “If there is an absolute way that they can find out if in fact Iran's nuclear program does exist, the US should take some diplomatic actions, but until such time, we don’t want another Iraq.”

At the end of the day, after interviewing many people, we have the impression that New Yorkers at Bryant Park think not only responsibly, but also quite self- critically about their country’s foreign policy.

“No We Can’t”- The Populace of the Diamond District Wants Greater Focus on Economy

By Michelle Consorte
Contributed reporting by Andras E. Kovacs and Joanna Kurylo

NEW YORK, Nov. 2 — In the heat of the midterm elections, workers in Manhattan’s diamond district call for economic relief and more jobs.

“We are spending too much money on everyone, and it’s putting us in dept. We can’t keep on helping everybody else. We need to help ourselves first,” said Scott Erickson, a bustling businessman making his way through the diamond district on the evening of Election Day.

This was the sentiment of most people hanging around the neighborhood. Enclosed within tall, dark buildings are thousands of shining diamonds, but very little light emanating from hope.

“The recession hit the diamond industry hard. And it’s because, essentially, the middle-class got wiped out” explained Mike Abramov, while trying to entice passer-bys with his gleaming wares. “All these stores here, you see,” he gestured broadly to the line of grimy buildings covered in diamond advertisements, “just a year ago, most of them were closed. In 2008 a lot of the people here just went out of business overnight.”

Indeed the economic downturn was the talk of the diamond-encrusted town. It’s no wonder, since when the economy takes a turn for the worse, spending on luxury items, like diamonds, is the first to go.

According to a July 2010 article by USA Today: “Luxury spending slid 7.8% last year to $10.1 billion. It's bounced back up for the first five months of 2010. But even affluent customers continue to seek out discounts, bargains and sales, says Tim Murphy, chief product officer at MasterCard. In a recent MasterCard poll, some 64% of all consumers said they were shopping sales. ‘A few years ago, you'd just market access to the affluent. Now, you must market access — with a discount.’”

In issuing blame for the U.S.’s financial troubles, China was a prime target. Apparently, people are increasingly angered by the fact that a good portion of the world’s manufacturing is in the People’s Republic.

“China is a big part of the problem: all the work is there, none is here” said Abe Blumenberg one of the seemingly idle workers in the district, playing on his mobile phone in front of the door of a store.

Others highlighted more specific malignant aspects of the U.S. - China economic relationship. Mr. Abramov explained to us that “China is going to be a problem. We are indebted to them. And, you know, it’s simple. If you owe me something, I’m going to do something to make you pay me back.”

Mr. Erickson, also reinforced this notion, with his brief comment: “There is so much debt-- way too much,” while firmly resisting the wooing of the diamond sellers.

According to a Washington Times article from May 2010, while China officially qualifies as the second largest creditor to the United States, after Japan, holding approximately $750 billion of the government debt, the actual figures may be as high $1.7 trillion.

Several of those interviewed offered solutions for the country’s financial woes.

“Production of everything is everywhere else. We need more production here to get more jobs here.” emphasized Jacob Selznick, a diamond seller.

Abe Blumenberg echoed this idea, “Production of big things, small things, everything, has to be brought back,” he added, “The U.S. should do things for people elsewhere. They need the U.S. to do it. But as long as it costs money from me, you know, I’d rather have them do things here.”

Jerry, who refused to give his last name, was standing in front of a diamond store, with a make-shift cardboard sign hung around his neck with twine, advertising today’s sale.

“The economy’s awful,” he said, “that’s why I’m out here, doing this.”

On Election Night in Grand Central, Opinions on the Issues Vary

by Elizabeth Dovell

Group: Elizabeth Dovell, Esmé Ellis, Maeve Dwyer

On Election Night in Grand Central Station, sentiments regarding the day's election and its issues fluctuate from patron to patron. No matter how they cast their ballots, our small sampling of voters appear disillusioned with the United States government as it stands today. In response to questions about foreign policy issues in the midterm elections, voters seem most concerned with Iran’s nuclear program and whether the elections would produce progress. Our sampling is not an anomaly: a study published on October 24 of this year showed that, when polled over the last few years on the subject, a substantial amount of Americans understand the threat of a nuclear Iran.

When it comes to our question of what the U.S. should do concerning Iran's nuclear program, interviewees express concern about the subject, but none of them identify any policy initiatives the U.S. should take. When it comes to whether the midterm elections are a true catalyst for change, opinions are mixed.

"I am hugely disappointed with the projected outcomes of this particular election," says Patrick, who declined to give his surname.

Commuter Bill Alletzhauser responds enthusiastically to the question of whether the day's election would produce progress: “I hope so, yes, I hope so. Man, we’ve had enough of President Obama. He just didn’t work out.” When asked whether the United States is overextending its global presence, Alletzhauser answers that the country is not, and responds enthusiastically when asked what the U.S. should do about Iran’s nuclear program. “Stop. Just go in and grab it. They’re out of control.” He waves off a query into his opinion on whether China is causing economic problems for the U.S., citing outsourcing as the reason: “They need us more than we need them.”

Another customer of the bustling station, Donald Zuckert, feels similarly that Iran is a problem, but does not think the U.S. is too involved in global affairs. “I think there’s nothing to be done [about Iran’s nuclear program]. Nuclear capability to going to spread inevitably, probably to Pakistan.” When asked his opinion on China’s economy possibly being a threat, Zuckert responds with a resolute “No.” Zuckert also doubts that any real progress will be made on Tuesday towards resolving any of these issues because “the two parties are so far apart.”

Nineteen-year-old Rebecca Ma views Iran as a threat, and believes that the U.S. too interfering. Ma says the election “would [be a catalyst for change], but I don’t think there’s enough people voting, enough awareness being raised.” Another traveler, Jesse Hutchinson, expresses a little more optimism than most of the interviewees, stating his belief that the election would indeed produce progress on the list of foreign policy issues. He believes there will be progress if the U.S. is more active in disarming Iran: “I think we should intervene and stop them.”

Andrea Golst, a Jehovah’s Witness distributing literature in the station, says simply “We don’t believe in armament,” but cannot specify any actions for the U.S. to take. Despite the shared opinion that Iran’s nuclear program is indeed a threat, nobody else we speak with on Tuesday identifies any specific U.S. foreign policy responses-- from either side of the political aisle-- that they want to see implemented.