Ινφογνώμων Πολιτικά: FT: Η θέση της Κύπρου στη Γερμανική Ευρώπη
Διαβάστε περισσότερα...
Τετάρτη 27 Μαρτίου 2013
The Dirge of Cyprus
Harold James
Harold James is Professor of History
and International Affairs at Princeton University and Professor of History at
the European University Institute, Florence. A specialist on German economic
history and on globalization, he is the author of The Creation and
Destruction of Value: The Globalization Cycle, Krupp: A History of the
Legendary German Firm, and Making the European Monetary Union.
26 March 2013
PRINCETON – Europe can choose its own
musical accompaniment to its latest crisis. In Berlin, 50 Cent’s “All Things
Fall Apart” has just had its premiere, so that soundtrack might be appropriate.
Or the continent can reach back to Giuseppe Verdi, born two hundred years ago,
whose penultimate, and probably greatest, operatic achievement starts on the
coast of Cyprus with a storm of fantastic violence and the opening words of its
hero, Otello: Esultate, rejoice! The war has been won; but Otello’s
achievement is later destroyed by his jealousy.
Today, Cyprus appears to have been
rescued. But the rescue has fueled a growing rift that jeopardizes the future
of European integration, partly owing to the way that the upheaval of the early
twentieth century – especially the Great Depression – has been reenacted in the
debates about the post-2008 financial meltdown and the subsequent euro crisis.
The interwar economic slump became
intractable because it was also a crisis of social stability, democracy, and
the international political order. Widespread bankruptcy and unemployment
increased social tension, ultimately making normal democratic politics
impossible. In Germany, the epicenter of democracy’s collapse, radicals on both
the right and the left raged against the postwar peace settlement and the
Versailles Treaty.
In the last years of the increasingly
unstable Weimar Republic, as democracy was fraying, German governments started
to use their opponents’ radicalism in an effort to extract security concessions
from the Western powers. Domestic political pressure became a source of
heightened international tension.
That is true in today’s Europe as
well. Democracy has become a central target of complaints by the European
elite. Luxembourg’s prime minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, a former chairman of
the Euro group, has lamented that European leaders know what the right policies
are, but do not know how to be reelected after implementing them. Similarly,
after his recent crushing election defeat, Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti
wistfully explained that Italy’s voters were too impatient to bear reforms
whose benefits would only become evident beyond the electoral cycle.
Events in Cyprus have exposed two
other dimensions to the clashes over Europe’s dual sovereign-debt and banking
crisis. First, the discussion of a levy on bank deposits, and whether small
customers should be exempted, put class conflict front and center. Second, the
question of foreign, and especially Russian, depositors – along with proximity
to Syria – has turned the rescue of the Cypriot banking sector into an
international relations problem.
The initial proposal to impose a
one-time tax on accounts holding less than €100,000 came not from the European
Union or from Germany, but from the Cypriot government, which must have known
that it was likely to generate outrage, and that the Cypriot parliament would
never vote for it. Perhaps the government believed that mass protests – with
placards denouncing the EU as a fig leaf for revived German domination of
Europe – would strengthen its hand. After all, even moderate Cypriots were
outraged by the bullying of their small island by Germany and by Europe.
The other side in the negotiations
also played class politics. At one of the tensest moments, as Cyprus was
seeking an alternative rescue package from Russia, the German Bundesbank
announced the results of a new European Central Bank study indicating that average German wealth was lower than in the southern European
states, largely because fewer Germans own their own houses. The message
seemed clearly intended to influence the negotiations: Why should poorer
Germans be expected to sacrifice to support Mediterranean millionaires?
In the aftermath of the financial
crisis, income and wealth distribution have moved to the center of political
debate. Even the Catholic Church seems to reflect the new mood: The election of
Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Pope Francis is a clear reference to St. Francis of
Assisi and the Church’s mission to stand up for the poor.
On the international-relations front,
after 2010, as deposits from Europe left Cypriot banks, deposits from Russian
businesses and individuals increased – and Russia has many reasons to use money
as a way of buying political control. Cyprus is a crucial staging post for
American security operations in the eastern Mediterranean, and the gas fields
off the Cypriot coast might be developed as an energy source that would – at
least after 2017 – reduce European dependence on Russian supplies.
In an earlier phase of the crisis,
Russia gave Cyprus a $3 billion credit. Now, however, a new credit would serve
only to make the burden of government debt unsustainable; what is needed is a
purchase of all or some of the problematic Cypriot banks. In the aftermath of a
crisis that has been intensified by the rhetoric of class conflict, Russia
might be able to extend its control more significantly, and at a lower price.
Deepening social polarization, its use
in financial negotiations, and the intrusion of a new security element provide
further evidence of what most economists and commentators on Europe have long
argued: a monetary union is impossible to sustain in the absence of a political
union. A state, especially in the modern form of the European welfare state,
depends on effective mechanisms for arbitrating and resolving social disputes –
mechanisms that, as the turmoil surrounding Cyprus has shown, the EU lacks. As
long as that remains true, European integration may be doomed by the time the
music stops.
This article is available online at:http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-cypriot-crisis-and-the-future-of-european-integration-by-harold-james
Turks in Germany are a Time Bomb
by DR. SAMI ALRABAA March 22, 2013
Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/print/turks-in-germany-are-a-time-bomb#ixzz2OmBBxjF4
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Διαβάστε περισσότερα...
"The Turks in Germany are a time bomb, at least the majority of them". This is the statement with which Peter Cohen, an American visiting professor at Munich University, concludes his recent study in Germany.
Three million Turks live already in Germany already, while 2.5 million of them have German nationality, and the majority of them are conservative Muslims.
Are they integrated in the German society? Not really.
The majority of them speak broken German, especially the elderly.
"They don't want to integrate in the German society," says Hartmut, who doesn't want to be identified for fear of reprisals by violent Turks. "They even hate to be called ‘migrants'. They feel very Turkish. They happen to be in Germany as the elderly generation in the 1960s had been recruited to work in the car and coal industries. Now, culturally the majority of Turks, even the young, here in Germany feel very Turkish. " Adds Hartmut, who is a social scientist at a German university.
Professor Cohen subscribes to what Hartmut says about Turkish migration, "In the USA, for instance, migrants usually integrate in the American society, latest when the second generation is there. My survey indicate that the majority of Turks insist on keeping their Turkish identity and their cultural heritage. They feel at home in the Turkish culture."
Very few Turks in Germany have a regular job; about 20%. The other 80% live on the so-called Hartz IV (state social benefits). 70% of their children have no GCSE; they left school before they finished their basic education.
"They cannot find a job? That is not true. There are jobs out there. But they prefer to live on state benefits and lead an easy life. Why should they work? Further, the German social benefit system doesn't encourage them or force them to accept any job." Says Hartmut.
Hartmut also said, "Some of those who live on state benefits have very often a part-time job of which neither the Job Center nor the Finance Office are aware of.
According to the German state benefit system, every adult citizen who possesses the German nationality, unemployed and cannot find an appropriate job, is entitled to get monthly 482 € ($627). Additionally, parents get for each child under 18 years old, 200 € ($261), plus all their monthly expenditures in terms of rent, heating, power, health insurance, and public transport.
"Amazingly enough some Turks who live on the generous state benefits can afford to buy a house or an apartment and drive luxurious cars like Mercedes or BMW." Says Klaus, a landlord whose tenants are a case in point.
Kamal (46 years old) and his wife Shadia (42 years old) have ten children under 18 and live on Hartz IV (the German social benefit system). They have a monthly net income of about 3000 €. In addition, all their spending on rent, health care, transport, heating, etc. are paid by the state.
Kamal never worked or had a regular job, never finished school, and never learned a profession. Now he claims that he is "ill." Klaus, the landlord of Kamal says, "The man is fit." He even confessed to Klaus that he lies when he says he is ill. "He told me once, 'Why should I work if I can live well without/'" Klaus quotes Kamal.
Kamal is obliged to regularly report his joblessness to the Federal Employment Office (Bundes Agentur für Arbeit) in his town. He does so when he is invited for a job interview. But he always alleges that he is "sick:" He allegedly has "unbearable pains in his back and joints." Therefore, he cannot take any job. The only one who knows the truth about Kamal is his landlord Klaus.
Klaus and many other Germans are outraged about Kamal and his like. "It is us, taxpayers who have to finance odd buggers like Kamal. This makes me sick." Klaus frowns at me.
On the other hand, Kamal's neighbour, Dieter works for a mail company. For working 8 hours daily, he merely get 800 € ($1000) at the end of the month. From this salary he has got to pay his rent and the rest of his expenditure. Left for him is something around 400 € ($500).
Besides, for Turks living in Germany, having children is a lucrative business. Some Turks turn to corruption to make this work.
Generally speaking, German citizens can enter Turkey with simply showing their personal identity card. Hence German Turks, particularly women, travel to Turkey and come back with a "leased" baby. They get the baby temporarily from relatives and claim at the German border that it is their baby who was recently born in Turkey.
Khaled, a Turk, told me that you can get "a false birth certificate" in Turkey for $10.
Back in Germany, the "new" baby is registered at the town hall administration, and the "mother of the baby" starts getting 200 € ($261) monthly.
Living on the state benefit system has become a basic part of the culture of the Turkish community in Germany.
Nicole, a German school teacher told me once, when she asks her students what they want to become in the future, the majority of Turkish students say, "Hartz IV Empfänger" (state benefit receiver). When she asked one of her students, "Why is that?" The girl answered, "My parents live on Hartz IV and lead an easy life. They sleep longer in the morning, and always have got enough money."
In private, German policemen and women complain about the "Germans" of Turkish descent. Helmut in Berlin told me, "Most car accidents are caused by Turks or east Europeans. They are really careless motorists. They do not respect traffic rules." Then he turned to his colleague and added, "But who dare say that in public?"
Indeed, the German media and politicians always talk about "integration," but they never point their fingers at the Turkish community and demand abiding by the law like all citizens.
Hartmut asserts that "The German public, are better informed. They know that it is the Turks who do not respect rules, and don't want to integrate in the German society."
"I don't know what kind of experience the others have made, but my experience is very clear. I live in an area where the speed limit is 30 km per hour. But guess who drives fast in this area? It is mostly Turks." Jürgen said.
His friend Michael added, "But who dare say that? Then you're accused of being an old Nazi. This is bizarre! The NPD is a Nazi party, but they are not so violent as some Turks are. Some Turks are really violent, in particular those Salafists amongst them. During a demonstration a couple of months back, a Salafist stabbed two policemen with a sharp knife. "
Ulrich, a German citizen, agrees. "I drive almost every day. Who steals your right of way? It's often Turks. They are usually rude and reckless. My wife works as a teacher at a primary school. She says, most students who disturb classes are usually of Turkish descent, and their parents never attend school parents assemblies."
To add insult to injury, when Turks are killed or burn to death, they rush to point their fingers at the right-wing party, the NPD and ideologically similar organisations.
A couple of years back, 8 Turks, owners of restaurants, were killed. Promptly and without delivering any evidence, the Turkish community accused the NPD of carrying out these killings. Until now, however, and despite intensive investigation, the police have not been able to establish who killed the 8 Turks. Some even claim that those killings were maybe carried out by the Turkish mafia.
Most recently, a Turkish woman and her seven children died over the night by fire. Again, the Turkish Ambassador to Berlin and the Turkish media accused the NPD of deliberately sparking the fire.
Experts, however, indicated that the fire was most probably ignited by the woman's wood stove, which most probably was faulty.
Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/print/turks-in-germany-are-a-time-bomb#ixzz2OmBBxjF4
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Πρόσκληση
Το Κυπριακό Κέντρο Μελετών (ΚΥΚΕΜ)
σας προσκαλεί στην παρουσίαση
του βιβλίου του Παρασκευά Χαραλάμπους
Η Ιστορία της Ελληνικής Σημαίας
Το βιβλίο θα παρουσιάσουν
Φώτης Παπαφώτης, Θεολόγος, Τομεάρχης
ΕΟΚΑ
Χρήστος Ιακώβου, Διευθυντής ΚΥΚΕΜ
Αντιφώνηση από το συγγραφέα
Παρασκευά Χαραλάμπους
Παρασκευή, 29 Μαρτίου, 7.30 μ.μ.
Κτήριο Ανδρέας Θεμιστοκλέους
Αμφιθέατρο Πεύκιος Γεωργιάδης
ΤΕΠΑΚ
Λεμεσός
Πληροφορίες: 99648151
Διάρκεια εκδήλωσης 45 λεπτά
Ο Οτζαλάν και ο τουρκο-ισλαμικός μηχανισμός του Ερντογάν
| ||||||
Stubborn and Egotistical: Europe Is Right to Doubt German Euro Leadership
A Commentary by Jakob Augstein
An Undeserved Apology to Islamist Turkey
Posted By Joseph Klein On March 26, 2013 @ 12:33 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 179 Comments
Thanks to President Barack Obama, Turkey’s Islamist Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan extorted an undeserved apology from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in return for promising to restore normalized diplomatic relations with Israel and dropping trumped up charges against Israeli military personnel. After exacting his pound of flesh, Erdogan then began to backtrack on both of his own promises.
Before departing Israel for Jordan on the last leg of his trip to the Middle East, President Obama arranged for Prime Minister Netanyahu to submit to Erdogan’s demand to apologize for the deaths of eight Turkish nationals and one Turkish-American citizen resulting from Israel’s interdiction of the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish ship that was part of an anti-Israel activist flotilla attempting to break Israel’s lawful naval blockade of Gaza in 2010. Israel will also be paying several millions of dollars in compensation to the victims’ families.
“In light of the Israeli investigation into the incident, which pointed out several operational errors,” according to an Israeli government statement issued following the apology, “Prime Minister Netanyahu apologized to the Turkish people for any errors that could have led to loss of life and agreed to complete the agreement on compensation.”
Prime Minister Erdogan accepted the Israeli apology on behalf of the Turkish nation. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s apology, and his offer of compensation and to further ease restrictions along the Gaza border with Israel, satisfied all of Turkey’s demands. Erdogan himself reportedly delivered the message that Israel had acceded to his conditions in a call to Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal. But Erdogan did not wait long to draw back from his reciprocal promises to restore normal diplomatic relations and put an end to the legal proceedings against the Israeli soldiers who took part in the operation to prevent the Mavi Mamara from breaking Israel’s lawful naval blockade.
Just a day after receiving Netanyahu’s apology, Erdogan told Turkish reporters that it was too early to talk about dropping the Mavi Marmara case against the Israeli soldiers, and that normalizing diplomatic relations would come gradually. “We will see what will be put into practice during the process. If they move forward in a promising way, we will make our contribution. Then, there would be an exchange of ambassadors,” Erdogan said.
The spokesperson for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had issued a statement on the day of Israel’s apology last Friday stating, “The Secretary-General welcomes that Governments of Israel and Turkey have agreed to restore normal relations between them.” When I asked him the following Monday whether he had any comment on Erdogan’s quick backtracking from his promises, the answer was “I don’t have anything further beyond the statement.”
Moreover, Erdogan failed to offer any apology of his own for his recent speech at a United Nations sponsored Alliance of Civilizations conference in Vienna, where he equated Zionism with fascism and characterized Jews’ quest for their own nation in their historic homeland as a “crime against humanity.” In fact, he said just days before Netanyahu’s apology that he stood by his remarks in Vienna, although he claimed they had been misunderstood.
What makes this forced submission to Erdogan’s demands, engineered by Obama, so galling, however, is not just Erdogan’s backtracking within 24 hours of receiving the apology he had demanded, or his refusal to back down from his blood libel against Zionism. Most galling is the evidence that Erdogan himself helped precipitate the Mavi Marmara episode with full knowledge that it could lead to the type of tragedy on board that ensued. The flotilla was not an innocent humanitarian mission, as the Islamists and their “useful idiot” supporters would have the world believe. Israel had proposed to transfer any humanitarian supplies into Gaza via its Mediterranean seaport of Ashdod, but was rebuffed by the Mavi Marmara crew.
The flotilla was organized, and the Mavi Marmara ship purchased, by the Turkish Islamist IHH organization which had about 40 of its operatives on the Mavi Marmara ship. While the crew and passengers of the other five ships in the flotilla cooperated peacefully with Israel’s forces whom had boarded their ships and did not suffer any injuries, the IHH operatives aboard the Mavi Marmara were readying themselves for a fight.
IHH has close ties with Hamas and the Turkish government led by Erdogan, who reportedly saw the flotilla as an opportunity to goad Israel into a potentially embarrassing confrontation. If true, as appears to be the case, the evidence summarized below of the Erdogan regime’s part in the Mavi Marmara episode puts the onus of the deaths aboard the blockade-running ship squarely on Erdogan’s shoulders for which Erdogan, not Netanyahu, should apologize and make amends.
A 2010 report by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC), that relied in part on statements by Mavi Marmara passengers and computer files, stated:
Additional evidence of the close links between the IHH and the Erdogan regime was found in computer files in laptops confiscated from Mavi Marmara passengers.
On board, according to the report, “the ordinary passengers were separated from the hard core of IHH operatives,” whom had been permitted to board the ship in Istanbul without undergoing a security check that the other passengers had to undergo. This supports the conclusion that the Erdogan regime was easing the way for the IHH operatives to board and assume control of the ship.
The IHH operatives had a free hand to prepare for a violent confrontation with the Israeli forces once they attempted to board the ship. The IHH operatives armed themselves, the report stated, with “cold weapons which had been collected and manufactured on board the ship,” including “knives, axes, tools, metal cables and metal clubs which had been sawed off the ship’s railings.”
The Israeli forces who boarded the Mavi Marmara did not draw lethal weapons as they began their mission, but had to resort to using live ammunition in self defense once they realized they were in severe danger of being killed. As recounted in Briefing Number 285 published by “Beyond Images,” the following is testimony from two Israeli soldiers included in the final report of the Turkel Commission, an independent Israeli panel which investigated the incident:
“The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history,” President Obama told the Turkish Parliament in a speech he delivered in Ankara, Turkey on April 6, 2009. “Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans… I know that the trust that binds the United States and Turkey has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced. We will be respectful, even when we do not agree. We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.”"
Obama wanted to return home from his first presidential trip to Israel with a diplomatic feather in his cap. A restoration of relations between Israel and Turkey, gained by forcing Netanyahu to submit to Erdogan’s extortion with an apology, seemed to be the most achievable tangible accomplishment of a trip that consisted mostly of nice-sounding speeches and ceremonies. In doing so, however, Obama played right into Erdogan’s hands as the devious Turkish prime minister prepares to visit with the Hamas terrorists in Gaza next month.
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/an-undeserved-apology-to-islamist-turkey/
Before departing Israel for Jordan on the last leg of his trip to the Middle East, President Obama arranged for Prime Minister Netanyahu to submit to Erdogan’s demand to apologize for the deaths of eight Turkish nationals and one Turkish-American citizen resulting from Israel’s interdiction of the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish ship that was part of an anti-Israel activist flotilla attempting to break Israel’s lawful naval blockade of Gaza in 2010. Israel will also be paying several millions of dollars in compensation to the victims’ families.
“In light of the Israeli investigation into the incident, which pointed out several operational errors,” according to an Israeli government statement issued following the apology, “Prime Minister Netanyahu apologized to the Turkish people for any errors that could have led to loss of life and agreed to complete the agreement on compensation.”
Prime Minister Erdogan accepted the Israeli apology on behalf of the Turkish nation. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s apology, and his offer of compensation and to further ease restrictions along the Gaza border with Israel, satisfied all of Turkey’s demands. Erdogan himself reportedly delivered the message that Israel had acceded to his conditions in a call to Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal. But Erdogan did not wait long to draw back from his reciprocal promises to restore normal diplomatic relations and put an end to the legal proceedings against the Israeli soldiers who took part in the operation to prevent the Mavi Mamara from breaking Israel’s lawful naval blockade.
Just a day after receiving Netanyahu’s apology, Erdogan told Turkish reporters that it was too early to talk about dropping the Mavi Marmara case against the Israeli soldiers, and that normalizing diplomatic relations would come gradually. “We will see what will be put into practice during the process. If they move forward in a promising way, we will make our contribution. Then, there would be an exchange of ambassadors,” Erdogan said.
The spokesperson for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had issued a statement on the day of Israel’s apology last Friday stating, “The Secretary-General welcomes that Governments of Israel and Turkey have agreed to restore normal relations between them.” When I asked him the following Monday whether he had any comment on Erdogan’s quick backtracking from his promises, the answer was “I don’t have anything further beyond the statement.”
Moreover, Erdogan failed to offer any apology of his own for his recent speech at a United Nations sponsored Alliance of Civilizations conference in Vienna, where he equated Zionism with fascism and characterized Jews’ quest for their own nation in their historic homeland as a “crime against humanity.” In fact, he said just days before Netanyahu’s apology that he stood by his remarks in Vienna, although he claimed they had been misunderstood.
What makes this forced submission to Erdogan’s demands, engineered by Obama, so galling, however, is not just Erdogan’s backtracking within 24 hours of receiving the apology he had demanded, or his refusal to back down from his blood libel against Zionism. Most galling is the evidence that Erdogan himself helped precipitate the Mavi Marmara episode with full knowledge that it could lead to the type of tragedy on board that ensued. The flotilla was not an innocent humanitarian mission, as the Islamists and their “useful idiot” supporters would have the world believe. Israel had proposed to transfer any humanitarian supplies into Gaza via its Mediterranean seaport of Ashdod, but was rebuffed by the Mavi Marmara crew.
The flotilla was organized, and the Mavi Marmara ship purchased, by the Turkish Islamist IHH organization which had about 40 of its operatives on the Mavi Marmara ship. While the crew and passengers of the other five ships in the flotilla cooperated peacefully with Israel’s forces whom had boarded their ships and did not suffer any injuries, the IHH operatives aboard the Mavi Marmara were readying themselves for a fight.
IHH has close ties with Hamas and the Turkish government led by Erdogan, who reportedly saw the flotilla as an opportunity to goad Israel into a potentially embarrassing confrontation. If true, as appears to be the case, the evidence summarized below of the Erdogan regime’s part in the Mavi Marmara episode puts the onus of the deaths aboard the blockade-running ship squarely on Erdogan’s shoulders for which Erdogan, not Netanyahu, should apologize and make amends.
A 2010 report by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC), that relied in part on statements by Mavi Marmara passengers and computer files, stated:
According to statements from the passengers, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan maintains close contacts with IHH. The flotilla set sail with the full knowledge and agreement of Erdogan, who expressed personal interest in its success and his intention to exploit it [sic] promote his status in Turkey and the Arab-Muslim world. Passengers said that before the flotilla set sail, Prime Minister Erdogan constructed a scenario based on a possible confrontation with Israel which he could use to further his own needs. The statements were supported by descriptions found in files on laptop computers belonging to the passengers.A journalist on board the Mavi Marmara with “good connections with the heads of the Turkish government and with Bülent Yildirim, head of IHH” was quoted by the report as saying, “The Turkish government was behind the flotilla to the Gaza Strip and its objective was to embarrass Israel: ‘The Turks set a trap for you and you fell into it.’ The flotilla was organized with the support of the Turkish government and Prime Minister Erdogan gave the instructions for it to set sail. That was despite the fact that everyone knew it would never reach its destination.”
Additional evidence of the close links between the IHH and the Erdogan regime was found in computer files in laptops confiscated from Mavi Marmara passengers.
On board, according to the report, “the ordinary passengers were separated from the hard core of IHH operatives,” whom had been permitted to board the ship in Istanbul without undergoing a security check that the other passengers had to undergo. This supports the conclusion that the Erdogan regime was easing the way for the IHH operatives to board and assume control of the ship.
The IHH operatives had a free hand to prepare for a violent confrontation with the Israeli forces once they attempted to board the ship. The IHH operatives armed themselves, the report stated, with “cold weapons which had been collected and manufactured on board the ship,” including “knives, axes, tools, metal cables and metal clubs which had been sawed off the ship’s railings.”
The Israeli forces who boarded the Mavi Marmara did not draw lethal weapons as they began their mission, but had to resort to using live ammunition in self defense once they realized they were in severe danger of being killed. As recounted in Briefing Number 285 published by “Beyond Images,” the following is testimony from two Israeli soldiers included in the final report of the Turkel Commission, an independent Israeli panel which investigated the incident:
Israeli Soldier: “Before I managed to touch my feet on the deck, about ten people jumped onto me and began brutally beating me from every direction using clubs, metal rods and fists…. At this stage I was not armed.In short, it would appear from the evidence that the tragic confrontation President Obama pressured Prime Minister Netanyahu into apologizing for was put into motion by the Hamas-allied Turkish Islamist IHH organization with the help of the Turkish prime minister to whom Netanyahu apologized. The IHH operatives intended to kill or seriously maim the Israeli soldiers who were attempting to carry out their mission as peacefully as had been accomplished successfully aboard the other flotilla vessels. But this would not faze Obama, our nation’s apologizer-in-chief, who has no problem with delivering his own mea culpas for the United States, as he demonstrated during his trip to Turkey at the beginning of his first term.
….A number of attackers grabbed me by the legs and my torso and threw me over the side to the deck below, about 3.5 meters.
Upon landing on the middle deck, I fractured my arm, and a mob of dozens of people attacked me and basically lynched me – including pulling off my helmet, strangling me, sticking fingers into my eyes to gouge them out of their sockets, pulling my limbs in every direction, striking me in an extremely harsh manner with clubs and metal rods, mostly on my head. I truly felt that I was about to die, way beyond what we define as life-threatening. The behaviour of the people at this stage was definitely like fighters of an enemy which has come to kill the other side, that is, me. I felt at any moment I would take a blow to the head which would kill me…..”
Israeli Soldier: “As I reached the deck, I saw a terrorist with an iron crowbar waiting to strike me on the head, but when he tried to hit me, I pushed him, and immediately another four terrorists jumped onto me while one of them wrapped the chain around my neck and strangled me. While I am struggling with them I thought of drawing my pistol but I felt that if I drew it, because they were up against me and kicking me, I wouldn’t be able to shoot and they would grab the pistol from me. At this stage, I lost consciousness (apparently from the strangling – I saw stars) and when I awoke, I felt that I was in the air, and three/four terrorists are throwing me from the upper deck to the bridge deck. I was very heavy, and I felt a very quick and forceful fall. About 20 men were waiting for me there with poles, axes and more, and as I fell they grabbed me and dragged me inside the ship….”
“The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history,” President Obama told the Turkish Parliament in a speech he delivered in Ankara, Turkey on April 6, 2009. “Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans… I know that the trust that binds the United States and Turkey has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced. We will be respectful, even when we do not agree. We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.”"
Obama wanted to return home from his first presidential trip to Israel with a diplomatic feather in his cap. A restoration of relations between Israel and Turkey, gained by forcing Netanyahu to submit to Erdogan’s extortion with an apology, seemed to be the most achievable tangible accomplishment of a trip that consisted mostly of nice-sounding speeches and ceremonies. In doing so, however, Obama played right into Erdogan’s hands as the devious Turkish prime minister prepares to visit with the Hamas terrorists in Gaza next month.
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/an-undeserved-apology-to-islamist-turkey/
Fear and Uncertainty in Cyprus
Shattering the Myths of Luxury
Fear and Uncertainty in Cyprus
Nicosia.
The municipal theatre of Nicosia sits directly behind the Cypriot parliament. Its prominence within the capital suggests the importance of such civic buildings to a population seeing itself as the inheritors to the grand heritage of Greek tradition stretching back millennia.
On the dusty window of the theatre’s box office, set behind the neo-classical columns of the building’s exterior, a poster advertises a production of classic Greek tragedies. Given the events unfolding in the Greek portion of this divided Mediterranean island over the past week the choice of production seems poignant.
The irony is compounded by the fact that the poster is from the summer of 2008. Performances of the production were cut short when the theatre’s roof collapsed that June – months before the onset of the global financial crisis which brought sharp shocks to European Union economies, including Cyprus. After extensive renovations in 2004, during the boom years when Cyprus enjoyed the benefits of its newfound position as a growing financial centre and member of the EU, the building now sits empty, unused and unusable.
Many Cypriots may now feel their country went the way of Icarus who, according to Greek mythology, thrilled by the exhilaration of flight, flew too near to the sun before the wax holding his wings together melted – sending him plummeting into the sea.
The comparison may be an obvious one but it certainly looks to be the scenario facing the financial services sector of the Cypriot economy.
Fear and uncertainty pervade the atmosphere in Cyprus.
Last week’s announcement that the Cypriot government would seize a portion of all bank account holders’ deposits sparked anger in Cyprus and concern for a bank run in other euro zone economies affected by the debt crisis.
While it may be difficult to sympathise with financial institutions and their managers whose unquenchable thirst for profit has led their countries to the brink, it should be remembered that human lives are being affected too – in the form of the hardworking people being made to pay for the mess and unsure of the security of their savings, jobs and livelihoods. A basic tenet of the social contract in our market capitalist society – that workers can trust banks to safely keep their finances – has been breached.
“People were making millions selling air and now they say we were all responsible for it. It was like there was a party on for years and I was never invited,” said Panayiotis Stavrindis, a psychology professor at the University of Cyprus. “Now I wake up and the party’s a funeral and they’re burying me. “
To tempt investors the lowest corporate tax rate in Europe was offered, at 10 percent. Foreign money looking for safety in the euro zone arrived and the region’s third smallest economy, with an annual GDP of €18 billion, accumulated bank deposits to the value of €70 billion. Many Russian investors arrived in Cyprus to establish companies and the ratings agency Moody’s estimates Russian deposits account for €24 billion of the total. It is thought that last year alone saw more than €192 billion transferred between Cyprus and Russia.
Allegations of Cyprus being a centre for money laundering are commonplace. A November 2012 article in Der Spiegelcited German foreign intelligence reporting the main beneficiaries of any European assistance to Cyprus would be “Russian oligarchs, businessmen and mafiosi who have invested illegal money in Cyprus”.
While lax scrutiny from national regulators attracted money launderers it was also the undoing of the entire system and placed Cyrpus into its current crisis.
Last May the Cypriot government nationalised part of the Cypriot Popular Bank – or Laiki – and took over management in order to avoid requesting a bailout from the European Union. Cypriot leaders feared Europe would impose austerity measures should they request financial assistance – ruining its attractiveness to foreign investors. Nonetheless that appeal was made just several weeks later, making Cyprus the fifth euro zone economy to seek funds from the EU after Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal.
Last decade, business, as they say, was booming and in 2006 the Greek investment company Marfin Investment Group acquired Laiki with a cash injection from Dubai Financial, an arm of the state-owned Duabai Investment Group, by purchasing HSBC’s 21 percent share. By year’s end MIG had acquired a controlling stake in the bank. The purchase of Laiki coincided with MIG’s acquisition of Greece’s Egnatia Bank and the pair were merged to create Marfin Popular Bank – later renamed Cyprus Popular (Laiki) Bank.
Between 2007 and 2009, as the economic bubble burst and financial crisis set in, Laiki acquired around €3 billion in Greek sovereign bonds. In 2011, Greek bonds lost over 70 percent of their value and Laiki registered a loss of €2.5 billion for the financial year. The Cypriot government borrowed the same amount of money from Russia in December of 2011.
In addition to Laiki’s Greek bond purchases, many questions have been asked regarding hundreds of millions of euros in loans to Greek companies and investors that used the money to invest directly back into MIG.
The bank’s plight has sucked the national economy into a spiral.
Michaelis Sarris was the government-appointed non-executive chairman at Laiki and now serves as the country’s finance minister. A June 2012 Reuters report quoted him as calling for an investigation into the loans used to buy MIG shares.
“We now have a loan portfolio in Greece of about €12 billion and funding of €6-7 billion,” Sarris was reported to say. “There is a lot of smoke, which means there is some fire but how much of it, and to what extent can it be justified, I am not sure.”
The Cypriot government’s intervention into Laiki diluted MIG’s holdings to 1.5 percent. In January, MIG announced its intention to sue the Cypriot government for the losses.
Cyprus was said to need €17 billion in assistance in order to prevent the collapse of its banking system. By Friday 15 March, it was apparent that when the banks reopened the following Tuesday, after a national holiday on Monday, Laiki would be bankrupt before lunchtime. It was feared this would trigger a run on the entire sector and cause national paralysis.
Following meetings in Brussel’s Cyprus’s president Nicos Anastasiades, emerged from talks with the European Central Bank, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund to announce a plan that would seize a percentage of all of the country’s private bank accounts in order to recapitalize two ailing banks, raising close to €7 billion and securing€10 billion in emergency loans from Europe.
Despite the insistence of EU officials to the contrary, the announcement – in addition to prompting anger amongst Cypriots fearing for their savings – caused panic in other troubled European economies, where people feared the Troika was establishing a precedent of raiding bank accounts in order to secure public finances.
Anastasiades, elected president in February, lacked support within the legislature to pass the tax into law and delayed the implementation of the plan in order to consider other options, including financial assistance from Russian investors. Last Tuesday, parliament met to reject the tax. Anastasiades’s own party abstained during the vote.
With no alternative forthcoming the government determined to hit accounts with more than €100,000 with a 30 percent tax and to split Laiki into so-called “good” and “bad” banks. The Bank of Cyprus, the country’s second largest bank, would acquire the good portion and the bad would be sold off.
As Cypriot authorities continue to seek to minimise the effects to the national economy, banks remain closed until Thursday and limits have been placed on daily cash machine withdrawals from customers’ accounts.
The situation last week in Cyprus was fluid, with people not knowing what the next day would bring. An economist with Laiki, I met Stavros (name changed on request) in his home on the Monday following the announcement. He sat in his tracksuit glued to the television in his modest domestic surroundings on the outskirts of Nicosia. Frustration crossed his face as he flicked through satellite channels offering a stream of talking heads giving their perspective on the crisis.
“This is a time for the economists and all we are hearing is the opinions of politicians and idiots,” he said, changing the channel with an exaggerated flick of the remote control.
He offered a frank analysis of the state of Laiki.
“If the bank opens tomorrow we will collapse within one or two hours,” he said. “We’ll need police protection because there will be desperate people willing to do something crazy to get their money.”
Intermittently he glanced at a mobile phone and laptop sitting on the side table next to the couch. He was waiting for a phone call or email to say whether the bank would open the next day for him to go to work. For all he knew it might ring for someone to tell him he no longer had a job to go to.
“The Germans are sending a message to the banks, that’s all this is,” he said of the demands Cypriot account holders cough up to contribute to the bail-out.
Stavros believed Europe’s hard-line stand on depositor contributions to the refinancing was an attempt to move money from Cyprus into other European countries.
“The Germans talk about dirty money from Russia in Cypriot banks but when you use their matrix for determining the amount there is more in Germany or the Netherlands than in Cyprus,” he claimed. “They see us as a small country and they can send a message to the Russians through our suffering.”
The final deal implemented by the Cypriot government, and agreed with the EU, saves ordinary Cypriots the severity of a raid on their savings while targeting the big money that has arrived on the island. Things will not be the same when banks reopen on Thursday.
“All of the confidence will be gone from the Cypriot banking system now regardless of what happens next,” he said fatally.
That was certainly the view of Andriyanova Natalia Patsalidou a Russian living in Cyprus for over a decade and working in financial services.
“For the past two days I’ve done nothing but answer emails from clients in Russia seeking to move their entire accounts,” she said at a protest in front of the Cypriot parliament on the Monday following Anastasiades’s Saturday announcement.
Many Cypriots are sympathetic towards Russia, whose political support during the partition of the island and shared Christian Orthodox faith offers a stronger tradition of loyalty than with Western Europe.
“The Russians have always helped Cyprus,” said Paris Mavronikis, a 26-year-old lawyer, who attended last week’s protests in front of the Cypriot parliament. “They helped us become a leading economic centre so why should we throw them away? We are throwing investors out of Cyprus.”
Panayiotis Stavrindis, who in addition to his university work engages in political activism and commentary, explained the people’s rejection of the government’s original plan in a collective psychological context.
“There is a great disappointment and sense that in Brussels they don’t care about how people will be made to suffer,” he said. “This is not what the people believed in when the European project was launched after the Second World War. We were sold the idea of solidarity.”
He sees dangers in the use of stereotypes to justify the imposition of harsh economic treatment on Europe’s weaker economies.
“We have to stop stereotyping. It’s the worst thing we can do. First we had the ‘lazy Greek’. Now we are the ‘Cypriot money launderer’. Who’s next the Italians and the Spanish?”
In Cyprus, with a militarised population (every male is conscripted to the army) and a convenient ‘other’ in the form of Turkish Cypriots, Stavrindis sees the emergence of extremist politics as a serious threat.
“Things are changing and moving very fast. In times of conflict and crisis, new and dangerous ideas come to the front. The nationalist movement and the bigotry that is hidden during the prosperity years emerge,” he said.
Stavrindis cites the Golden Dawn in Greece as an example of the movements currently gaining momentum in Europe’s economic periphery. “They offer people a sense of dignity and being able to stand on their feet through bigotry and strong language,” he said. “In the past few years they have gone from two and a half percent to around 15 percent in popularity. They’ve gone from being a clique of criminals to part of the normal political establishment.”
The youth of Cyprus, Stavrindis says, have been raised on myths – with an identity gained from the separation of the island and its Turkish and Greek populations. He describes people in their early 20s as possessing “an exaggerated sense of their economic and political safety”.
“The young generation today grew up with physical and psychological walls of separation. They saw these as evidence of how much better off we were without the Turkish Cypriots. The first wall to fall apart was the prosperity delusion.”
For Cypriots of an older generation, the shock of reverting to more simplistic expectations is challenging many assumptions taken for granted a few years ago.
“I told myself I was safe but I don’t feel safe now,” says Maria Polli, a working mother of five and resident of Nicosia. “It is a strange feeling when you don’t know what tomorrow will bring.”
Polli is struggling to find the money to continue living in her rented family home. She works as an assistant to a manager at a pharmaceutical factory and her husband runs a business fixing computers, making between €60-100 on a good day.
In Cyprus, a country which contributed to each of the other four EU member states’ receiving bailouts, there is a sense of abandonment.
“We thought to be a member of the EU would mean each member would help each other. But they don’t care,” she said. “Now they’re pushing us, they’re threatening us.”
She sees many people as not ready for the changes about to come into their life, resulting from economic hardship.
“People had faith in money,” she said. “It came so suddenly and we lost the meaning of being human beings. It’s good to have a smack in the face to realize the meaning of real life.”
Stavrindis asks similar questions about the needs of people and the origins of their expectations.
“Can we live by spending less and reading more? Producing our own goods and consuming less exotic commodities? Do we need holidays in Disneyland or is a tent on a remote beach with some good food and music enough?”
The luxury of time to consider these questions may well have disappeared.
Nigel O’Connor is a journalist based in the West Bank.
Cyprus, Seriously
THE NEW YORK TIMES
A
correspondent whom I respect has (gently) challenged me to say plainly what I
think Cyprus should do
— leaving aside all questions about political realism. And he’s right: while I
think it’s OK to spend most of my time on this blog working within the limits
of the politically possible, and relying on a combination of reason and
ridicule to push out those limits over time, once in a while I should just
flatly state what I would do if given a chance.
So here it
is: yes, Cyprus should leave the euro. Now.
The reason
is straightforward: staying in the euro means an incredibly severe depression,
which will last for many years while Cyprus tries to build a new export sector.
Leaving the euro, and letting the new currency fall sharply, would greatly
accelerate that rebuilding.
If you
look at Cyprus’s trade profile, you see just how much damage the country is
about to sustain. This is a highly open economy with just two major exports,
banking services and tourism — and one of them just disappeared. This would
lead to a severe slump on its own. On top of that, the troika is demanding
major new austerity, even though the country supposedly has rough primary
(non-interest) budget balance. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a 20 percent fall
in real GDP.
What’s the
path forward? Cyprus needs to have a tourist boom, plus a rapid growth of other
exports — my guess would be agriculture as a driver, although I don’t know much
about it. The obvious way to get there is through a large devaluation; yes, in
the end this probably does come down to cheap deals that attract lots of
British package tours.
Getting to
the same point by cutting nominal wages would take much longer and inflict much
more human and economic damage.
But is it
even possible to leave the euro? The Eichengreen point — that even a hint of
exit would cause panicked capital flight and bank runs — is now moot: the banks
are closed, and capital is controlled. So if I were dictator, I’d just extend
the bank holiday long enough to prepare for the new currency.
OK, what
about the bank notes? I’m no kind of expert in such matters, but I’ve heard
suggestions to the effect that it might be possible to rush debit cards into
circulation, so that business could resume without having to wait for someone
to run the printing presses. The government might also be able to issue
temporary scrip, IOUs that don’t look like proper bank notes, as a transitional
measure.
Yes, it
all sounds kind of desperate and improvised. But desperation is appropriate!
Otherwise, we’re talking about Greek-level austerity or worse in an economy
whose fundamentals, thanks to the implosion of offshore banking, are much worse
than Greece’s ever were.
My guess is that none of this will happen, at least not right away, that
the country’s leadership will fear the leap into the unknown that would come
from euro exit despite the obvious horror of trying to stay in. But as I said,
I think euro exit is now the right thing to do.
Even with hindsight the Iraq war was the best option for all concerned
Let me be blunt; I think we were right to play our own small part in the destruction of the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a far from perfect operation, mistakes were made and the sectarian violence which followed was appalling. But there are three reasons why the world is better off for the demise of the Hussein regime.
Brutal regime: Saddam Hussein. Photo: AFP
The first is simple humanity. Hussein’s regime was one of extreme brutality. He murdered thousands of his people – Shiites and Kurds – to consolidate his dictatorial hold on power. He used chemical weapons against his own people.
For many, foreign policy realism meant accepting appalling human rights abuses, particularly in the Arab world. Realists argue the international community has no right to decide how individual countries are governed; I don’t accept that. Sovereignty is important but not more important than humanity. It has always made sense to me that if freedoms are oppressed with egregious cruelty, then the world should not stand by and ignore it.
I supported the NATO campaign in 1997 against the Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic; I set up the human rights dialogue with China; I was an early champion of the International Criminal Court; and I championed the overthrow of the brutal regime of Hussein.
Plenty of critics argued 10 years ago that to contain Saddam was enough. Well, it wasn’t if you were an Iraqi Shiite or a Kurd. Which, by the way, is most Iraqis.
The destruction of Saddam Hussein’s regime began a slow, rickety, imperfect process of spreading democracy and freedom through the Arab world. Lebanon held democratic elections, Jordan liberalised, albeit under a monarchy, the Palestinians began the march towards democracy and, more recently, we’ve seen the so-called Arab Spring.
These democratic reforms, including in Iraq, have been imperfect to say the least. There is still a long way to go. But the fashion for kleptocratic dictatorship in the Arab world, led by Nasser in Egypt in the 1950s, has gradually passed.
Second, there is the issue of chemical and biological weapons. These days it’s fashionable to proclaim Hussein didn’t have any. The whole issue of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction arose not because poor old Saddam was some benign and misunderstood gentleman, but because he did have these weapons and he used them. He used them against the Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war which he started.
After the Iraq war, the unit charged with the task of finding Hussein’s stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons – known as the Iraq Survey Group – found none. The assumption is that the regime had destroyed its stockpiles sometime between 1992 and 2003. That remains an unanswered question. The UN inspectors were never happy this had happened. Nor were Western and Israeli intelligence agencies.
But what the Iraq Survey Group did find was that Hussein planned to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction programs once the UN inspection team had been sent packing. Had that happened, the Middle East would have been a much more dangerous place than it already is.
Which brings me to the third point; geopolitics. More than two decades ago an international coalition went to war with Hussein’s regime to drive the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. Hussein’s ambition was clear. He wanted to become the dominant political figure of the Arab world and he was prepared to go to war with his neighbours to gain that status.
It is one thing to complain we evicted him by force from office, but what would have been the consequence of leaving this deeply anti-Western dictator in power? Iraq would have increasingly become a threat to Israel, to its neighbours and to Western interests.
None of this is to say the Americans did a great job after the Iraqi regime was defeated. They shouldn’t have taken over political control of the country, destroyed the Iraqi army or pursued the de-Baathification program with such vigour. We – and the British – made those arguments at the time. So did a lot of Iraqis.
And it is true, the sectarian conflict which followed was brutal and it still goes on.
But if the threshold question is, should we have played a part in getting rid of Saddam Hussein a decade ago, my answer is an unequivocal yes. We played a small part in evicting the world’s most brutal dictator who made President Assad of Syria look moderate. We played a tiny part in starting to change theologies of the Middle East from dictatorship to democracy. And we helped spare the region and the world from a dictator who aspired to dominate the Arab world and threaten Israel.
That was the thing about the Howard government: we stood for something. And one of the things we stood for was freedom.
Alexander Downer was foreign minister from 1996 to 2007.
http://agora-dialogue.com/?p=59212
How the European Union killed Cyprus in one day
Commentary: Bailout for Cyprus could become euro zone’s problem
ReutersAnti-bailout protesters hold a banner and a Cypriot flag in capital city Nicosia.
SYDNEY (MarketWatch) — With no other source of aid available and the European Central Bank threatening withdrawal of emergency funding, Cyprus faced default and rapid economic collapse.
After balking at the original, controversial bailout provision that required ordinary depositors to pay a “tax” or “solidarity levy” on Cypriot bank deposits, Cyprus struck an amended deal early Monday with the European Central Bank, the European Commission and the International Monetary Fund — collectively known as the troika.
The new measure staves off the risk of immediate collapse and the threat of Cyprus’s having to abandon the euro. But the plan doesn’t solve Cyprus’s problem. Or the euro zone’s.
The Cypriot bank-restructuring plan may not raise sufficient funds. It will encourage deposit flight, compounding the problems. As with Greece, there is a risk that Cyprus will need additional assistance, entailing further write-offs of depositors’ funds. And, as with Greece, privatization proceeds and the revenue from increased taxes may not reach targeted levels.
In 147 banking crises since 1970 tracked by the IMF, no depositors, irrespective of the amounts held and the banks with whom the deposits were placed, suffered losses.
The proposed restructuring also destroys the Cypriot banking industry.
The transfer of losses to depositors and imposition of capital controls make it highly likely that activity will shift to other locations. Given that banking is a major economic activity, this reduces Cyprus’s capacity to pay back its creditors.
Russian businesses are unlikely to continue to patronize Cyrus. Press reports quoted one Russian businessman’s wry observation that the EU had killed Cyprus in one day: “When the Russians leave, who is going to stay at the Four Seasons for $500 a night? Angela Merkel?”
Greater risk to euro zone
Irrespective of the fate of Cyprus, the solution adopted for the country will exacerbate the European debt crisis.
First, the transfer of losses to depositors creates a dangerous precedent. In 147 banking crises since 1970 tracked by the IMF, no depositors, irrespective of the amounts held and the banks with whom the deposits were placed, suffered losses.
Depositors in weak banks in weak countries now may consider the risk of loss or confiscation. This may trigger capital flight from banks in Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain.
If depositors withdraw funds in significant size and capital flight accelerates, then the ECB, national central banks and governments will have to intervene, funding affected banks and potentially restricting withdrawals and electronic fund transfers and imposing cross-border capital controls.
Israel Apologizes; Turkey Steps Back
Pedestrians look at billboards with the pictures of Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan and his Israeli counterpart Netanyahu in Ankara, March 25, 2013. The billboard reads: "Israel apologized to Turkey. Dear Prime Minister (Erdogan), We are grateful that you let our country (Turkey) experience this pride." (photo by REUTERS/Umit Bektas)
For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to call Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan [on March 22] to declare that his country is apologizing to Turkish people for the mistakes during the 2010 flotilla affair, that Israel has accepted to pay compensation to victims' relatives and even has agreed to soften the Gaza blockade is an important development.
Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/03/erdgoan-acceptance-netanyahu-apology-syria.html#ixzz2Om7UxRtZ
Η ΙΣΛΑΝΔΙΑ ΒΓΑΙΝΕΙ ΑΠΟ ΤΗΝ ΧΡΕΩΚΟΠΙΑ, ΠΩΣ ΤΑ ΚΑΤΑΦΕΡΕ ΧΩΡΙΣ ΜΝΗΜΟΝΙΟ;
ΟΧΙ ΜΕ ΜΝΗΜΟΝΙΟ ΚΑΙ ΣΤΗΡΙΞΗ ΤΟΥ ΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΟΥ, ΑΛΛΑ ΑΦΟΥ ΑΦΗΣΕ ΤΙΣ ΤΡΑΠΕΖΕΣ ΝΑ ΧΡΕΩΚΟΠΗΣΟΥΝ...
Η Ισλανδία γελά, η Ιρλανδία κλαίει.
Θεαματική είναι η ανάκαμψη της ισλανδικής οικονομίας μετά την επιβλητική αντίσταση του λαού της, ο οποίος με δημοψήφισμα συνέτριψε την ψοφοδεή πολιτική της σοσιαλδημοκρατικής κυβέρνησης που είχε υποκύψει στους ξένους δανειστές και την εξανάγκασε να μην πληρώσει στους ξένους καταθέτες τις οφειλές των ιδιωτικών ισλανδικών τραπεζών, αφήνοντας τες να χρεοκοπήσουν. «Η ύφεση αποδείχθηκε λιγότερο βαθιά από όσο προβλεπόταν», ομολογεί ο Μαρκ Φλάνιγκαν, επικεφαλής της αποστολής του ΔΝΤ στην Ισλανδία, δηλώνοντας εντυπωσιασμένος από το γεγονός ότι οι Ισλανδοί κατόρθωσαν να διαφυλάξουν «το πολύτιμο σκανδιναβικό μοντέλο κοινωνικής προστασίας»..
Η Ισλανδία, η οποία δεν ανήκει στην ευρωζώνη, αντιμετώπισε τη χρεοκοπία της χώρας με μια συνολική πολιτική.
Πρώτον, υποτίμησε το εθνικό νόμισμα, την ισλανδική κορώνα, και επέβαλε ελέγχους και περιορισμούς στην κίνηση κεφαλαίων. Αρχικά η κορώνα υποτιμήθηκε έναντι του δολαρίου κατά 50%, αλλά ήδη η υποτίμηση έχει περιοριστεί στο 30% και συρρικνώνεται.
Η χαμηλότερη ισοτιμία της κορώνας οδηγεί αμέσως στην αύξηση των εξαγωγών και στη μείωση των εισαγωγών, αντικαθιστώντας ένα τμήμα τους με τοπικά προϊόντα, με
αποτέλεσμα το εμπορικό ισοζύγιο της Ισλανδίας να παρουσιάζει ήδη πλεόνασμα από ελλειμματικό που ήταν.
Το ΑΕΠ της χώρας αυξήθηκε κατά 1,2% το τρίτο τρίμηνο του 2010. Ο πληθωρισμός, ο οποίος είχε εκτιναχθεί στο 18,6%, έπεσε ήδη κοντά στο 2,5%, που είναι ο στόχος της ισλανδικής κεντρικής τράπεζας. Το έλλειμμα του προϋπολογισμού θα είναι 6,3% φέτος, και ταχύτατα, ίσως και μέσα στο 2011, θα οδηγηθεί σε πλεόνασμα. Το δημόσιο χρέος, το οποίο έχει εκτιναχθεί στο 115% του ΑΕΠ, θα μειωθεί σταδιακά στο 80% του ΑΕΠ μέχρι το 2015.
Το δεύτερο μέτρο που πήραν οι Ισλανδοί ήταν ότι άφησαν τις ιδιωτικές τράπεζες να χρεοκοπήσουν. Κατόπιν τις εθνικοποίησαν, αλλά υπό τους εξής όρους:
Πρώτον, οι εθνικοποιημένες τράπεζες αναγνώρισαν όλες τις καταθέσεις των Ισλανδών πολιτών ώστε κανένας Ισλανδός να μη χάσει ούτε μία κορώνα από τις καταθέσεις του.
Δεύτερον, τα δάνεια που είχαν πάρει οι Ισλανδοί μεταφέρθηκαν στις εθνικοποιημένες τράπεζες, αλλά επειδή το νόμισμα είχε υποτιμηθεί, μειώθηκε και το ονομαστικό ύψος των δανείων, πέρα από τις σοβαρές άλλες διευκολύνσεις αποπληρωμής που έκανε το κράτος στους Ισλανδούς οφειλέτες για να αντιμετωπίσουν τις δυσκολίες που προκάλεσε η κρίση, ιδίως τον πρώτο καιρό (πάγωμα της πληρωμής δόσεων για μήνες κ.λπ.).
Τρίτον, οι εθνικοποιημένες τράπεζες δεν αναγνώρισαν καμιά υποχρέωση των ιδιωτικών χρεοκοπημένων τραπεζών σε χώρες του εξωτερικού. Ετσι οι Ισλανδοί φορολογούμενοι φορτώθηκαν τα βάρη διάσωσης των καταθέσεων των δικών τους και των συμπατριωτών τους, ενώ φόρτωσαν στους ξένους επενδυτές και καταθέτες τον λογαριασμό των συναλλαγών τους με τις ιδιωτικές ισλανδικές τράπεζες που χρεοκόπησαν. Απολύτως σωστό.
Η ανάκαμψη της ισλανδικής οικονομίας, γράφει το βρετανικό περιοδικό «Εκόνομιστ», δείχνει ότι «το έξτρα κόστος για μια χώρα που δεν στηρίζει τις τράπεζές της μπορεί να είναι εκπληκτικά μικρό. Η Ισλανδία άφησε τις τράπεζές της να χρεοκοπήσουν και το ΑΕΠ της έπεσε αθροιστικά κατά 15% από το ανώτατο στο κατώτατο σημείο πριν αρχίσει να ανακάμπτει. Η Ιρλανδία "έσωσε" τις τράπεζές της και είδε το ΑΕΠ της να πέφτει 14%».
Αν συνυπολογίσει κανείς ότι το έλλειμμα του προϋπολογισμού της Ιρλανδίας απογειώθηκε στο ασύλληπτο 32% του ΑΕΠ και το δημόσιο χρέος της εκτινάχθηκε από το 25% του ΑΕΠ το 2007 στο 100% φέτος και θα φτάσει στο 120% του ΑΕΠ το 2013, με την ανεργία να ανέρχεται στην Ιρλανδία στο 14,1% έναντι 7,3% στην Ισλανδία, βγαίνει αβίαστα το συμπέρασμα ότι η «υπάκουη» Ιρλανδία βρίσκεται σε πολύ χειρότερη μοίρα από την «απείθαρχη» Ισλανδία.
«Το ηθικό δίδαγμα της ιστορίας είναι ότι αν το σοκ μιας υποτίμησης μπορεί να πυροδοτήσει μια βίαιη κρίση και πολύ επώδυνη, μια πολιτική λιτότητας και αποπληθωρισμού εξαιτίας του χρέους καταλήγει να προκαλεί περισσότερες ζημιές» συμπεραίνει η βρετανική εφημερίδα «Ντέιλι Τέλεγκραφ».
«ΕΚΟΝΟΜΙΣΤ»
Οταν το ευρώ γίνεται παγίδα
Ενα μάθημα των αντίθετων επιλογών Ισλανδίας και Ιρλανδίας είναι ότι «τα οφέλη τού να ανήκει μια μικρή χώρα σε μια μεγάλη νομισματική ένωση δεν είναι καθόλου αυτά που κάποτε εκθειάζονταν ότι είναι» γράφει το περιοδικό «Εκόνομιστ» και συνεχίζει: «Οταν πανικόβλητοι επενδυτές εγκατέλειπαν τα μικρά νομίσματα το φθινόπωρο του 2008, το ευρώ φαινόταν καταφύγιο.
Δύο χρόνια μετά, το ευρώ μοιάζει περισσότερο με παγίδα για χώρες που αγωνίζονται να ξανακερδίσουν εξαγωγική ανταγωνιστικότητα. Η Ελλάδα και η Ιρλανδία έχασαν την εμπιστοσύνη των αγορών, παρόλο που και οι δύο εκδίδουν ομόλογα σε ευρώ». Οσο για τους Ισλανδούς, που αρχικά θεώρησαν το ευρώ σωτηρία, τώρα δεν θέλουν ούτε να το ακούσουν!
Πηγή http://parganews.com/
Εγγραφή σε:
Αναρτήσεις (Atom)