Globalaffairs

By Senia Bachir Abderahman

Algeria, Refugee camp

15/04/08

Issue 8/April-May 2008
By Juan Luis Dorado Merchán

A few years ago, when questioned about the future of Cuba after Fidel’s death, the philosopher Senel Paz said that the only thing he could confirm is that there would be a funeral.

Today, in 2008, the funeral of the Cuban leader is the only sure thing after his death. After retiring from active politics in February 2008, news that, although expected, shook the foundations of international politics, leaving open multiple options for the political, economic and social future of the Island.

All of this was foreseen and planned by the agile political mind of the leader of the Revolution: his brother Raúl’s succession, predicted many years ago; and the time that it was implemented.

Fidel Castro wanted to go out on the front line, as he would be following in the footsteps of the ideological soul of the Cuban regime, leaving everything neatly tied up.

He chose the right moment. On the one hand, parliamentary elections taking place in Cuba, which does not seem like giving up power, rather a more natural procedure; on the other, the electoral whirlpool of the United States, in full political campaign mode.

Continue reading »

Issue 8/April-May 2008
By Javier Guerra

On the 15th of January 2008, the governments of Singapore, Kuwait and South Korea invested more than 21 billion dollars in Citigroup and Merrill Lynch, two of the banks that were most affected by the “Subprime” mortgage crisis. In the following weeks, the Singapore and Chinese governments invested more capital in banks such as UBS and Morgan Stanley. These investments were made using sovereign funds, which are investment funds managed by governments. In the last few years, these funds have played a fundamental role in the world financial markets, having brought 69 billion dollars in total to the recapitalisation of some of the largest global investment banks.

Countries that manage these funds are countries that have benefited from high petrol prices (like the United Arab Emirates) or the increase in exportations from Asian countries (like in China’s case.) The reason for creating funds of this type is the professionalisation of investments and an attempt to obtain better profitability from their investments, in place of investing in activities with very low profitability, as they can be the bonus for the American Treasury. However, these investments generate a series of worries in the countries that receive these massive entries of capital, the main problem being the reactions that these provoke on the level of protection and nationalism. For the directors of these businesses that are being invested in, this can be a blessing due to the long time that they have been looking for these investments, fleeing from the short-termness of some investors.

Continue reading »

Issue 8/April-May 2008
By Denis M. Mallo

Before evaluating the disquieting social and political climate in this country, let us remind ourselves of some basic facts. Cameroon, which is situated in the West Coast of the African continent, shares borders with Nigeria to the west, Chad and Central African Republic to the East, and the Republic of Congo and Gabon to the South. The country is comprised of well over 200 ethnic groups or tribes and, though English and French are the official languages, there are about 270 local languages spoken. The population is estimated to be about 18 million according to a 2006 census.

This oil-rich nation is also endowed with several other natural resources, including bauxite, iron ore, timber, and hydropower. Unlike most sub-Saharan African countries, Cameroon had enjoyed a relative stability within a regional context of widespread civil unrest. As a result of this comparative advantage, the country has increasingly become a dependable political and economic ally to most sub-Saharan African countries and powerful countries such as the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, China, and Brazil. The Cameroonian government has been courted by these different economic powers to assist in the fight against terrorism, money laundering, drug trafficking, poverty, and various pandemics. In 2007, the French officials at the United Nations selected Cameroon as location for the future UN International Center for African Police in charge of peacekeeping missions on the continent. The United Stated recently invested $54 million to build a state of the art embassy that would support most of their future diplomatic work in the region. The United States has also shortlisted Cameroon as potential location for its future U.S. Africa Command, in charge of overseeing security cooperation, building partnership capability, providing defense support for non-military missions, and military operations on the African continent. These allies have used various incentives to woo the Cameroonian government, including admission to the Bristish Commonwealth or the support of Cameroon’s application to international financial organizations for debt forgiveness amid a continuously poor human rights record, fiscal indiscipline, and decades of overt public corruption.

Continue reading »

Issue 8/April-May 2008
By Sumra Salem

The successfully democratic and capitalist United States became the world’s sole superpower after defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War. The nation subsequently began to dominate the globe militarily, politically, economically, technologically and also culturally, leading to the establishment of what some refer to as the American century. Krastev acknowledges that in the post-September 11 era, we are in fact entering the anti-American century. It is thus that anti-Americanism today is a response to grievances against the U.S. more so than simply a prejudice against America as often argued, particularly in regards to anti-Americanism in the Middle East.

Despite its prominence as a recent political issue and its presently immense proportions, anti-Americanism boasts a long history, originating in France during the 18th Century. France has always been seen as a country possessing some of the strongest anti-American sentiments and indeed the most fervent within Europe. There are several definitions of the term though the American Heritage Dictionary defines it simply as, “opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the United States”.

Critics and opponents of the superpower not only comprise of disgruntled foreigners, but also home grown Americans. Spanning across the globe from Australia to Europe, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and North America itself, the reasons for widespread and virulent anti-American attitudes are as vast and diverse as the locations in which they are found.

Continue reading »

Issue 8/April-May 2008
By Glen Ruffle

Since the low point of 1998, Russia’s economy has only got stronger. Despite being constantly criticised in the West, Putin must be doing something right! Putin’s Russia is now in a strong position to win back lost international influence and this scares the West.

It is popular for politicians in the West to spend their time criticising Vladimir Putin and his new Russia. Yet under Putin, Russia has turned from a broken and chaotic state into a strong and assertive international actor. After 1991, Russia went from global superpower, to total ruin, and is now back to the status of respected international power. The story of how Russia was reborn explains a lot about the current cold attitude displayed by the Russian government to the Western powers.

After the collapse of Communism, Russia emerged onto the world stage with a leader being influenced heavily by foreign advice. Yeltsin was the hero of the moment, and the US, IMF, Western powers and Europe welcomed him onto the world stage, offering money and advice on how to turn the Russian economy into a money-making machine.

However, politics quickly took over and the advice offered and given began to be directed towards the interests of the major world powers. Dimitri Simes, a top Washington policy advisor, recalled that the Clinton administration realised Russia was vulnerable, saw that Yeltsin was easily manipulated, and deliberately chose to exploit this situation for the benefit of the USA.

Continue reading »

Issue 8/April-May 2008
By Daniil Gorbatenko

The release of the National Intelligence Estimate (the NIE) on Iran by the US intelligence community last autumn the main point of which being that Iran has with a high degree of probability suspended its military nuclear program in 2003 has further diminished the already weak resolve of the international community to exert additional pressure on Tehran. In such circumstances the question about what the international community should demand from Tehran may seem inadequate to many. Why should we demand anything at all? – They may ask - meaning that from now on the suspicions of Iran should be lifted and Iran should be allowed to enjoy its “inalienable rights” to conduct unlimited enrichment on its soil.

And yet this is simply not the case. The fact that Iran allegedly suspended its military program in 2003 most probably for fear of US military action (1) does not mean that it is not going to put it back on track it in the future. Moreover, according to the majority of commentators what Iran really needs for going nuclear is a sufficient amount of weapons-grade fissile material (2) (highly-enriched uranium or HEU) which is relatively easy to produce if Iranian uranium-enrichment activities are not limited.(3)

At the same time, Iran has a highly compromising track record of cheating and defying the international community on its nuclear activities. Iran has ignored four successive virtually unanimously adopted binding UN Security Council resolutions and has up to very recently exhibited poor level of cooperation with the IAEA on resolving the outstanding issues related to its past undeclared nuclear activities. These activities included Iranian contacts with the infamous A.Q. Khan network, operations with P-2 centrifuges, the so called “green salt project” and experiments with plutonium, to name only few. (4) Iranian economic justifications for the need to have a robust industrial-level enrichment program have been as much unconvincing as the anti-Israeli rhetoric of its president, and the alleged support by Iran of Hezbollah and Hamas widely regarded as terrorist organizations has been alarming.(5)

Continue reading »

Issue 8/April-May 2008
By Adrien Majourel and Serena Fasso

250,000 is, according to the latest UN report (1), the count of child soldiers worldwide. Called «Kadogo», «Atfal mujannadun» or «Meninos-lobos» depending on their homeland, 250,000 children are currently fighting somewhere in the world. During the past 10 years, over a million children have participated in conflict either directly as fighters or as cooks, servants, carriers or sexual slaves.

Under international law (2) a child soldier is a person engaging in hostilities under 15 or 18. Mainly used during civil wars or by paramilitary groups, they are present in armies on every continent and sometimes account for over 50% of the country’s armed forces (3).

The child soldier problem is two-faceted. On the one hand, it is urgent to remove those 250,000 children from the killing fields. It is also crucial however to ask ourselves how those children, and the thousands who have known this fate, can be efficiently reintegrated into society. As the chief executive of Plan, one of the leading child-focussed NGOs, says, « Failure to act will create a ticking time bomb of angry, alienated and traumatised youth whose only skills they have to rely on are those they learnt at war (4) ».

Continue reading »

Issue 8/April-May 2008
By Eva Díez Ajenjo

The aim of this article is to suggest several proposals wherein peaceful coexistence among different cultures, religions and identities is possible and to debate their plausibility. The common underlying assumption is the rejection to the idea that cultural and religious differences lead to inescapable conflict. The proposals are classified according to the area that they tackle: challenge to the concept of democracy, state policies over immigration, cultural dialogue and education, establishment of common principles, and the role of global communications and technology.

Immigration integration

As to state policies over immigration Hofstede (2001: 420) suggests that policies of integration rather than assimilation are preferable in order to deal with immigrants. Assimilation policies have as a target to equal migrants to natives by losing their distinctiveness. On the other hand, integration policies allow minority citizens, although accepted as full members of the host society, to retain links with their roots and their cultural identity. However, Hofstede (2001: 429) argues that policies aiming at integration have led to better adaptation of migrants than have assimilation policies. States which adopt integration policies have a big cultural values spectrum within the country, which could lead to tolerance and respect among different ideologies and cultures, therefore it should be easier to coexist and cooperate because states are aware of the others’ values.

Continue reading »

Issue 8/April-May 2008
By Faye Karavasili

It was not that long ago when what became known as the “Shaffron Revolution” in a formerly little-known Asian country with two names and a barbaric regime took the Western media world by a storm. Our television sets and comfortable lives were filled with the colors of raw violence; a striking shade of yolk-yellow for the robes worn by the monks marching down the streets of Rangoon and red for the blood that was spilled in the name of “stability”. The junta’s “reaction” to the protests was harsh and immediate but also, unfortunately for them, very public indeed. Few will ever forget the images of the on-camera-execution of that unfortunate Japanese photographer by a soldier or the emotions those cruel images provoked. After September 2007, we all became painfully aware of the existence of Burma, otherwise known as Myanmar since the military junta came into power, and of the atrocities that have been going on in this country for years. The Western world was accordingly appalled. Demonstrations were organized, petitions were signed, protests sprung like mushrooms and the public as a whole agreed with what human rights organizations had been shouting for years. Something needed to be done.

The crackdown in Burma was massive. Even before the dramatic climax in Rangoon dragged Burma into the international spotlight for all the wrong reasons, the situation was a ticking bomb just waiting to explode. Burma had been suffering under the tyranny of an absolutist regime for the greatest part of its modern history. The military rule has been in power ever since 1962 and it has not ceased to oppress its subjects on a daily basis, stripping them of their rights completely at will, suppressing all dissent and committing unspeakable violations of human rights against unfavorable minorities and opposing voices alike. International politics, delicate regional considerations and various economic interests in the area ensured a certain degree of tolerance by the West so the junta remained more or less unhindered in order to exercise their complete and utter power on their unfortunate subjects. The unsuccessful uprising of 1988 was to this day the most serious threat this absolutist regime ever had to face before the events in 2007 and even that was crushed easily and, as to be expected, in an equally violent fashion.

Continue reading »