La Respuesta de EUA al Incidente de la Flotilla Turka Conformará el Futuro del Medio Oriente
Global Viewpoint - Spanish
http://bit.ly/dyFyia
Suat Kiniklioglu es el vicepresidente de asuntos externos del partido AK (Justicia y Desarrollo) y miembro del Consejo Ejecutivo Central del Partido AK.
Suat Kiniklioglu
ANKARA, Turquía -- Soy el único político turco que ha visitado Israel desde que desataron la Guerra de Gaza, y el incidente de Davos entre el presidente israelí Shimon Peres y el primer ministro truco Recep Tayyip Erdogan acentuó las diferencias entre nuestros países. Tengo muchos amigos en Israel, y no dudé en visitar Israel cuando un grupo intelectual israelí me extendió una invitación. A pesar de los muchos retos, mantuve mi optimismo de que Turquía e Israel podría resolver sus diferencias a pesar de los desacuerdos sobre la situación humanitaria en Gaza.
Sin embargo, el lunes fue un punto clave para mí y los 72 millones de ciudadano de mi país. El lunes, Turquía se conmocionó al saber que comandos israelíes estaban atacando una flotilla turca cargada de abastos médicos, juguetes y alimentos con destino a Gaza, matando cuando menos a nueve activistas de la paz en el proceso. El ataque en sí fue ilegal ya que ocurrió en aguas internacionales y, según el exembajador británico Craig Murray, equivale a una "guerra ilegal." Los 600 activistas del barco incluían al Premio Nobel Mairead Corrigan-Maguire, abogados, periodistas y empresarios alemanes y un superviviente del Holocausto de 86 años de edad -- difícilmente objetivos que pudieran presentar una amenaza para los bien armados comandos de Israel.
Los reportes de algunos activistas liberados indican claramente que los comandos israelíes que abordaron el más grande barco de la flotilla dispararon a matar y usaron armas eléctricas paralizantes. Estos reportes difieren agudamente de los que vienen de los políticos y del ejército israelí. Por ello es imperativo que se realice una oportuna, imparcial creíble y transparente investigación conforme a estándares internacionales sobre las muertes de cuando menos nueve civiles a manos de comandos israelíes. La ONU, los turcos y la opinión pública internacional demandan saber qué ocurrió, por qué y quién es responsable de la muerte de estos nueve activista de la paz.
La misión de la flotilla tiene dos dimensiones. Primero, ha dañado irrevocablemente las relaciones entre Turquía e Israel al nivel bilateral. Turquía demanda -- al igual que la ONU -- una investigación independiente por el asesinato de nueve activistas y quiere una disculpa y compensación para aquellos asesinados por comandos israelíes. Ankara también quiere que los responsables de este crimen sean castigados. Nada menos que estas medidas será suficiente. Lo que el gobierno israelí actual no parece comprender es que este asesinato premeditado ha hecho que se pase un umbral crítico en las percepciones turcas vis-a-vis Israel sin importar la persuasión política.
Desde el lunes, los turcos consideramos al actual gobierno israelí como no amigo. No hay duda de que el rompimiento tiene el potencial de escalar si Israel no responde rápida y responsablemente.
Segundo, Hay una importante dimensión internacional en el fiasco de la flotilla. El asesinato de nueva activistas de la paz por Israel de nuevo demostró el claro desacato de las normas internacionales y la ley por parte del gobierno israelí. Más importantemente, La respuesta de los EUA al desproporcionado uso de violencia por los israelíes contra civiles inocentes constituye una prueba para la credibilidad de los EUA en el Medio Oriente. Como muchas naciones europeas, la ONU y la opinión pública, EUA tiene la responsabilidad moral de condenar la violencia de Israel como lo que es. Turquía monitorea estrechamente la respuesta de EUA. Como elocuentemente observó el ministro turco del exterior Ahmet Davutoglu, esta no es una decisión entre Turquía e Israel. Es una decisión entre el bien y el mal. Entre lo legal y lo ilegal.
En muchos aspectos, el Medio Oriente se aproxima a una importante encrucijada.
EUA determinará con qué clase de Medio Oriente estará tratando en el futuro por su respuesta a las acciones de Israel. Esto no podría ser más urgente dada la tensión alrededor del programa nuclear israelí, la precaria situación en Irak y la continua guerra en Afganistán
Además, el ataque contra la flotilla ha acentuado una vez más que el bloque en Gaza no es ya sostenible. Israel no puede ya justificar su inhumano bloqueo en contra de los palestinos en Gaza. Gaza constituye actualmente una prisión al aire libre. Según Amnistía Internacional, 1.4 millones de palestinos son sometidos al castigo colectivo que pretende sofocar a la Franja de Gaza. Desempleo masivo, extrema pobreza y aumentos en los pecios de los alimentos causados por las crisis han dejado a cuatro de cada cinco habitantes en Gaza dependiente de la ayuda humanitaria. Por ello es que la Flotilla de la Libertad quería entregar los auxilios que transportaba. También quería señalar la necesidad de permitir que los habitantes de Gaza comercien e interactúen con el resto del mundo.
Los turcos dimos la bienvenida a los judíos que escapaban de la inquisición en España en 1492. Nuestros diplomáticos han arriesgado sus vidas para salvar a los judíos europeos de los nazis. El Imperio Otomano y Turquía han tradicionalmente sido hospitalarios para los judíos por siglos. Habiendo dicho eso, no podemos ya tolerar las brutales políticas del actual gobierno de Israel, especialmente al costo de las vidas de nuestros ciudadanos. Ni la conciencia de Turquía ni la de la comunidad internacional pueden continuar soportando el peso de las irresponsables políticas del gobierno de Netanyahu.
Como concluye el editorial del Washington Post, el Sr. Netanyahu necesita también ampliar su gobierno para incluir a los partidos pacifistas; uno de los principales problemas son los halcones de su gabinete que han hecho que el término diplomacia israelí sea una incongruencia.
Tanto Israel como Turquía merecen algo mejor.
http://bit.ly/dyFyia
(c) GLOBAL VIEWPOINT NETWORK/TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES
jueves, 3 de junio de 2010
martes, 1 de junio de 2010
GOOD FITNESS GOALS ARE MORE THAN MIND OVER MATTER
Good Fitness Goals Are More Than Mind Over Matter
By Eric Heiden, M.D., Tribune Media Services
Eric Heiden
http://bit.ly/b1dY5p
This time of year, everyone is talking about their fitness goals for the summer. It's a pleasant reprieve from all the news about rising obesity levels and our nation's lack of attention to fitness, no doubt.
I get worried, however, when I hear about the money, sweat and enthusiasm people are investing in outsized fitness goals -- say, a marathon veteran working to trim two hours off her marathon time, or someone trying to go from couch-condition to super athlete in a few weeks. Many people are led to believe that they can succeed at anything they put their mind to, if only they want it badly enough.
It's very easy to fall prey to such utterly unfounded proclamations. Throughout much of my life I have been considered a very goal-oriented person. Much of the success I have had has been the result of some dreaming, lots of planning, plenty of hard work and sweat, and a great deal of focus, dedication and concentration. But it's important to distinguish between the scientifically measurable motivation of realistic goals and "mind over matter" thinking.
Goals are key. They can play a significant role in your getting out the door every day to exercise. You need to harness that motivation in your quest for fitness. Your brain holds a great deal of power over exaggerating or minimizing the way you experience training. You often see this in top athletes: At the end of a grueling event, when everyone is exhausted, something happens that motivates them, and they are suddenly fresh and able to take off with renewed power. This shows how dramatically your brain can modulate the way you feel fatigue and other sensations. But it's crucial that your goals work in tandem with reality and that they do not inadvertently thwart your efforts by handing you disappointments instead. Here are some guidelines.
-- If your purpose is to excel at a certain sport, and you have been at it for some time with little improvement, you may have already topped out. If so, concentrate on sharpening components of your performance -- your muscular endurance, skills, flexibility, nutrition and mental focus; carefully plot your training and tapering; or work on achieving a personal best.
-- If you're new to exercise this summer, you may discover steady improvement, but if your improvement isn't as fast or dramatic as you hope, don't give up. People often stop exercising even when they do improve or lose weight because they were hoping they would get even faster or lose even more weight. In other words, they cease their quest for fitness not because they aren't achieving it, but because they aren't achieving some unrealistic ideal of it. So along the way, remember that any improvement is improvement.
-- Likewise, keep a clear head about what to expect regarding physical changes to your body. A person who gets fit does not look like the people in the "after" pictures in the fitness advertisements so ubiquitous this time of year. Many people who have never been exposed to the science of fitness expect real fitness to look like the images used in the marketing of fitness. Models used to market fitness products look that good only with the benefit of special lighting, makeup, airbrushing and other effects.
The real-world reward of fitness is not as dramatic as those 60-second commercials would lead you to expect. Instead, be on the lookout for indications that you have achieved a new level of health, vitality or ability.
(Eric Heiden, M.D., a five-time Olympic gold medalist speed skater, is now an orthopedic surgeon in Utah. He co-authored "Faster, Better, Stronger: Your Fitness Bible" (HarperCollins) with exercise performance physician Max Testa, M.D., and DeAnne Musolf. Visit www.fasterbetterstronger.com.)
http://bit.ly/b1dY5p
(c) 2010 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
By Eric Heiden, M.D., Tribune Media Services
Eric Heiden
http://bit.ly/b1dY5p
This time of year, everyone is talking about their fitness goals for the summer. It's a pleasant reprieve from all the news about rising obesity levels and our nation's lack of attention to fitness, no doubt.
I get worried, however, when I hear about the money, sweat and enthusiasm people are investing in outsized fitness goals -- say, a marathon veteran working to trim two hours off her marathon time, or someone trying to go from couch-condition to super athlete in a few weeks. Many people are led to believe that they can succeed at anything they put their mind to, if only they want it badly enough.
It's very easy to fall prey to such utterly unfounded proclamations. Throughout much of my life I have been considered a very goal-oriented person. Much of the success I have had has been the result of some dreaming, lots of planning, plenty of hard work and sweat, and a great deal of focus, dedication and concentration. But it's important to distinguish between the scientifically measurable motivation of realistic goals and "mind over matter" thinking.
Goals are key. They can play a significant role in your getting out the door every day to exercise. You need to harness that motivation in your quest for fitness. Your brain holds a great deal of power over exaggerating or minimizing the way you experience training. You often see this in top athletes: At the end of a grueling event, when everyone is exhausted, something happens that motivates them, and they are suddenly fresh and able to take off with renewed power. This shows how dramatically your brain can modulate the way you feel fatigue and other sensations. But it's crucial that your goals work in tandem with reality and that they do not inadvertently thwart your efforts by handing you disappointments instead. Here are some guidelines.
-- If your purpose is to excel at a certain sport, and you have been at it for some time with little improvement, you may have already topped out. If so, concentrate on sharpening components of your performance -- your muscular endurance, skills, flexibility, nutrition and mental focus; carefully plot your training and tapering; or work on achieving a personal best.
-- If you're new to exercise this summer, you may discover steady improvement, but if your improvement isn't as fast or dramatic as you hope, don't give up. People often stop exercising even when they do improve or lose weight because they were hoping they would get even faster or lose even more weight. In other words, they cease their quest for fitness not because they aren't achieving it, but because they aren't achieving some unrealistic ideal of it. So along the way, remember that any improvement is improvement.
-- Likewise, keep a clear head about what to expect regarding physical changes to your body. A person who gets fit does not look like the people in the "after" pictures in the fitness advertisements so ubiquitous this time of year. Many people who have never been exposed to the science of fitness expect real fitness to look like the images used in the marketing of fitness. Models used to market fitness products look that good only with the benefit of special lighting, makeup, airbrushing and other effects.
The real-world reward of fitness is not as dramatic as those 60-second commercials would lead you to expect. Instead, be on the lookout for indications that you have achieved a new level of health, vitality or ability.
(Eric Heiden, M.D., a five-time Olympic gold medalist speed skater, is now an orthopedic surgeon in Utah. He co-authored "Faster, Better, Stronger: Your Fitness Bible" (HarperCollins) with exercise performance physician Max Testa, M.D., and DeAnne Musolf. Visit www.fasterbetterstronger.com.)
http://bit.ly/b1dY5p
(c) 2010 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
EU FUNDING PROPOSAL IS ONLY THE BEGINNING
EU Funding Proposal Is Only the Beginning
By Ian Bremmer and Preston Keat, Tribune Media Services
Bremmer, Ian
The dramatic EU funding proposal is an important first step. Next comes enforcement of tough fiscal reform guidelines, which introduces a series of new political challenges and risks.
EXCITEMENT AND APPREHENSION
The high-stakes deal among the key member states to provide a huge lending facility for "fiscally challenged" countries was a historic breakthrough. Exhausted EU policy makers expressed a mixture of and excitement and apprehension. Their jobs just got more important, and harder.
On the excitement front -- it buys the eurozone time in the eyes of market participants, and also demonstrates that in a moment of true crisis, the big players (i.e. Germany and France) can compromise and take bold, coordinated policy moves. The deal also implies at least a partial "federalization" of the EU budget, so if all goes well, the primacy and relevance of the EU will be enhanced. Finally, there was a sense of relief that the "fiscal laggards" will finally be held to account in a more credible and systematic manner.
On the apprehension front -- the hard work now begins. It's one thing to announce a huge headline number, but quite another to devise, negotiate and implement that more "credible and systematic" fiscal policy regime.
The tensions and competing fiscal reform agendas were papered over but not truly resolved. The bureaucratic coordination and country-level political challenges will be persistent and real.
EU policy makers think there are a number of possible outcomes: (1) an exit from the euro by one of the "big two" troubled countries (Spain and Italy); (2) a German exit from the euro in the intermediate term (4-5 years); (3) the crisis has effectively been resolved by the funding announcement and initial implementation moves, and the eurozone returns to sustainable growth and stability; (4) a muddle-through story where the euro remains credible and generally resilient, but this is accompanied by ad-hoc responses to mini crises, generally constrained growth and a real risk of political tensions over time among a number of core EU member states.
Scenario four is by far the most likely scenario. The crisis has generated a fiscal consolidation consensus in Europe. And there will be mechanisms to enforce fiscal reforms. In broad terms this consensus will hold in for the rest of 2010.
But there will also be serious tensions, particularly in the intermediate term. At the strategic level, Germany and France still have fundamentally different views about how to manage the trade-offs between inflation and growth (with Germany being more hawkish with regard to inflation), and this will continue to inform their approaches to fiscal reform. At the national level, countries such as Spain will be making dramatic cuts to spending and entitlements. This may prove to be politically unsustainable over time. And at a third, cross-regional level, Eastern European EU member states such as Poland will be inclined to agree with Germany's push for deep fiscal reform in Southern Europe.
What this sets us up for is a complex process of negotiation among competing bureaucracies and countries. If the eurozone is to survive as we know it, this entire new enterprise needs to work well enough. But there will be interconnected political risks emerging in Brussels, among coalitions of EU member states and within individual countries, regarding the costs and benefits of reform.
(Ian Bremmer is president of Eurasia Group, a political-risk consultancy, and the author of "The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations?" Preston Keat is director of research for Eurasia Group. They can be reached via e-mail at research@eurasiagroup.net.)
http://bit.ly/bb5SSJ
(C) 2010 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
By Ian Bremmer and Preston Keat, Tribune Media Services
Bremmer, Ian
The dramatic EU funding proposal is an important first step. Next comes enforcement of tough fiscal reform guidelines, which introduces a series of new political challenges and risks.
EXCITEMENT AND APPREHENSION
The high-stakes deal among the key member states to provide a huge lending facility for "fiscally challenged" countries was a historic breakthrough. Exhausted EU policy makers expressed a mixture of and excitement and apprehension. Their jobs just got more important, and harder.
On the excitement front -- it buys the eurozone time in the eyes of market participants, and also demonstrates that in a moment of true crisis, the big players (i.e. Germany and France) can compromise and take bold, coordinated policy moves. The deal also implies at least a partial "federalization" of the EU budget, so if all goes well, the primacy and relevance of the EU will be enhanced. Finally, there was a sense of relief that the "fiscal laggards" will finally be held to account in a more credible and systematic manner.
On the apprehension front -- the hard work now begins. It's one thing to announce a huge headline number, but quite another to devise, negotiate and implement that more "credible and systematic" fiscal policy regime.
The tensions and competing fiscal reform agendas were papered over but not truly resolved. The bureaucratic coordination and country-level political challenges will be persistent and real.
EU policy makers think there are a number of possible outcomes: (1) an exit from the euro by one of the "big two" troubled countries (Spain and Italy); (2) a German exit from the euro in the intermediate term (4-5 years); (3) the crisis has effectively been resolved by the funding announcement and initial implementation moves, and the eurozone returns to sustainable growth and stability; (4) a muddle-through story where the euro remains credible and generally resilient, but this is accompanied by ad-hoc responses to mini crises, generally constrained growth and a real risk of political tensions over time among a number of core EU member states.
Scenario four is by far the most likely scenario. The crisis has generated a fiscal consolidation consensus in Europe. And there will be mechanisms to enforce fiscal reforms. In broad terms this consensus will hold in for the rest of 2010.
But there will also be serious tensions, particularly in the intermediate term. At the strategic level, Germany and France still have fundamentally different views about how to manage the trade-offs between inflation and growth (with Germany being more hawkish with regard to inflation), and this will continue to inform their approaches to fiscal reform. At the national level, countries such as Spain will be making dramatic cuts to spending and entitlements. This may prove to be politically unsustainable over time. And at a third, cross-regional level, Eastern European EU member states such as Poland will be inclined to agree with Germany's push for deep fiscal reform in Southern Europe.
What this sets us up for is a complex process of negotiation among competing bureaucracies and countries. If the eurozone is to survive as we know it, this entire new enterprise needs to work well enough. But there will be interconnected political risks emerging in Brussels, among coalitions of EU member states and within individual countries, regarding the costs and benefits of reform.
(Ian Bremmer is president of Eurasia Group, a political-risk consultancy, and the author of "The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations?" Preston Keat is director of research for Eurasia Group. They can be reached via e-mail at research@eurasiagroup.net.)
http://bit.ly/bb5SSJ
(C) 2010 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
miércoles, 12 de mayo de 2010
LA LIBERTAD DE EXPRESION EN LA INTERNET ES UN DERECHO FUNDAMENTAL
La Libertad de Expresión en la Internet Es un Derecho Fundamental
Global Viewpoint - Spanish
Word Count: 972
Bernard Kouchner es ministro del exterior de Francia y fundador de Medecins Sans Frontieres.
Bernard Kouchner
PARIS -- En 2015, 3,500 millones de personas -- la mitad de la humanidad -- tendrán acceso a la Internet. Nunca ha habido una revolución así en la libertad de comunicación y libertad de expresión. Pero, ¿cómo será usado este medio? ¿Qué nuevas distorsiones y obstáculos desarrollarán los enemigos de la Internet?
La tecnología moderna se presta para lo mejor y lo peor. Los sitios de la red extremistas, difamatorios y racistas diseminan odiosas opiniones en tiempo real. Han convertid a la Internet rn una arma para la guerra y el odio. Los sitios web son atacados y usuarios de la web reclutados mediante salas de chat para destructivos planes. Violentos movimientos están infiltrando las redes sociales para extender propaganda e información falsa. Es muy difícil para las democracias controlarlos. No suscribo a la inocente creencia de que una nueva tecnología, sin embargo, por poderosa y eficiente que sea, habrá por su naturaleza de avanzar la libertad en todos los frentes.
Pero, al mismo tiempo, las distorsiones son la excepción más que la regla. La Internet es por encima de todo el más fantástico medio para romper los muros y límites que nos separan de los demás. Para los pueblos oprimidos a quienes se ha robado su derecho a la autoexpresión y el derecho a escoger su propio futuro, la Internet provee un poder que va más allá de sus más alocadas esperanzas. En minutos, nuevas imágenes grabadas por un teléfono pueden diseminarse por todo el mundo en el ciberespacio. Es crecientemente difícil ocultar una demostración pública, un acto de represión o violación a los derechos humanos.
En los países autoritarios y represivos, los teléfonos móviles y la Internet han dado cabida a la opinión pública y a la sociedad civil. También han dado a los ciudadanos un medio crítico de expresión, a pesar de todas sus restricciones.
Sin embargo, la tentación de reprimir la libertad de expresión siempre está presente. El número de países que censuran la Internet, que monitorean a los usuarios de la web y los castigan por sus opiniones, está creciendo a una tasa alarmante. La Internet puede usarse en contra de los ciudadanos. Puede ser una formidable herramienta para captar información y detectar a los potenciales disidentes. Algunos regímenes ya están adquiriendo sofisticada tecnología para la vigilancia.
Si todos los que tienen apego a los derechos humanos y a la democracia se negaran a comprometer sus principios y utilizaran la Internet para defender la libertad de expresión, esta clase de represión sería mucho más difícil. No hablo de la libertad absoluta que abre la puerta a toda clase de abusos. Nadie está promoviendo eso. En lugar de ello, hablo de la verdadera libertad, que se basa en los principios del respeto por la dignidad humana y los derechos humanos.
En los últimos pocos años, instituciones multilaterales como el Consejo para Europa, y las organizaciones no gubernamentales, como Reporteros Sin fronteras, junto a miles de individuos alrededor del mundo, han hecho un fuerte compromiso con estos temas. Esto es prueba, si se necesitara prueba, de que el tema no enfrenta a occidente contra el resto del mundo. No menos de 180 países reunidos para la Cumbre Mundial de la Sociedad de la Información reconocieron que la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos se aplica plenamente a la Internet, especialmente el artículo 19, que establece libertad de expresión y libertad de opinión. Aún así, alrededor de 50 países no cumplen con sus compromisos.
En ocasión del Día Mundial de la Libertad de Prensa la semana pasada, reuní a expertos, líderes de ONGs, periodistas, empresarios e intelectuales. Sus discusiones han confirmado mi convicción de que el camino que deseamos tomar es el correcto. Creo que debemos crear un instrumento internacional para monitorear los compromisos que han hecho los gobiernos y pedir que cumplan cuando fallen. Creo que debemos proveer asistencia a los ciberdisidentes, quienes han de recibir el mismo apoyo que otras víctimas de la represión política, y mostrar nuestra solidaridad con ellos públicamente, en estrecha colaboración con las ONGs que trabajan en estos temas. Creo que también debemos discutir la conveniencia de adoptar un código de conducta respecto a la exportación de tecnologías para censurar la Internet y seguir la huella de los usuarios de la red.
Estas cuestiones, junto con otras, como la protección de la información personal en la Internet y el derecho a la amnistía digital para todos, promovida por mi colega Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, debe promoverse dentro de un marco que una al gobierno, la sociedad civil y los expertos internacionales.
Otro proyecto está cerca de mi corazón. Será una larga y difícil tarea implementarlo, pero es crítico. Es dar a la Internet status legal que refleje su universalidad. Algo que la reconozca como espacio internacional, de manera que sea más difícil que los gobiernos represivos utilicen su soberanía como argumento contra las libertades fundamentales.
Esta es una cuestión crítica. Creo que la batalla de ideas ha comenzado con, de un lado, los defensores de una Internet abierta e universal, basada en la libertad de expresión y la libertad de asociación, en la tolerancia y respeto por la privacidad y del otro lado, quienes quieren transformar a la Internet en una multitud de espacios cerrados entre sí para servir a los propósitos de un régimen, propaganda y todas formas de fanatismo.
La libertad de expresión es "la base de todas las demás libertades." Sin ella, no hay "naciones libres," dijo Voltaire. El espíritu de la ilustración, que es universal, debe correr por todos los nuevos medios. La defensa de las libertades fundamentales y los derechos humanos debe ser la prioridad del gobierno del a Internet. Es asunto de todos.
(c) GLOBAL VIEWPOINT NETWORK/TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES.
Paging and Bottom Toolbar
Global Viewpoint - Spanish
Word Count: 972
Bernard Kouchner es ministro del exterior de Francia y fundador de Medecins Sans Frontieres.
Bernard Kouchner
PARIS -- En 2015, 3,500 millones de personas -- la mitad de la humanidad -- tendrán acceso a la Internet. Nunca ha habido una revolución así en la libertad de comunicación y libertad de expresión. Pero, ¿cómo será usado este medio? ¿Qué nuevas distorsiones y obstáculos desarrollarán los enemigos de la Internet?
La tecnología moderna se presta para lo mejor y lo peor. Los sitios de la red extremistas, difamatorios y racistas diseminan odiosas opiniones en tiempo real. Han convertid a la Internet rn una arma para la guerra y el odio. Los sitios web son atacados y usuarios de la web reclutados mediante salas de chat para destructivos planes. Violentos movimientos están infiltrando las redes sociales para extender propaganda e información falsa. Es muy difícil para las democracias controlarlos. No suscribo a la inocente creencia de que una nueva tecnología, sin embargo, por poderosa y eficiente que sea, habrá por su naturaleza de avanzar la libertad en todos los frentes.
Pero, al mismo tiempo, las distorsiones son la excepción más que la regla. La Internet es por encima de todo el más fantástico medio para romper los muros y límites que nos separan de los demás. Para los pueblos oprimidos a quienes se ha robado su derecho a la autoexpresión y el derecho a escoger su propio futuro, la Internet provee un poder que va más allá de sus más alocadas esperanzas. En minutos, nuevas imágenes grabadas por un teléfono pueden diseminarse por todo el mundo en el ciberespacio. Es crecientemente difícil ocultar una demostración pública, un acto de represión o violación a los derechos humanos.
En los países autoritarios y represivos, los teléfonos móviles y la Internet han dado cabida a la opinión pública y a la sociedad civil. También han dado a los ciudadanos un medio crítico de expresión, a pesar de todas sus restricciones.
Sin embargo, la tentación de reprimir la libertad de expresión siempre está presente. El número de países que censuran la Internet, que monitorean a los usuarios de la web y los castigan por sus opiniones, está creciendo a una tasa alarmante. La Internet puede usarse en contra de los ciudadanos. Puede ser una formidable herramienta para captar información y detectar a los potenciales disidentes. Algunos regímenes ya están adquiriendo sofisticada tecnología para la vigilancia.
Si todos los que tienen apego a los derechos humanos y a la democracia se negaran a comprometer sus principios y utilizaran la Internet para defender la libertad de expresión, esta clase de represión sería mucho más difícil. No hablo de la libertad absoluta que abre la puerta a toda clase de abusos. Nadie está promoviendo eso. En lugar de ello, hablo de la verdadera libertad, que se basa en los principios del respeto por la dignidad humana y los derechos humanos.
En los últimos pocos años, instituciones multilaterales como el Consejo para Europa, y las organizaciones no gubernamentales, como Reporteros Sin fronteras, junto a miles de individuos alrededor del mundo, han hecho un fuerte compromiso con estos temas. Esto es prueba, si se necesitara prueba, de que el tema no enfrenta a occidente contra el resto del mundo. No menos de 180 países reunidos para la Cumbre Mundial de la Sociedad de la Información reconocieron que la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos se aplica plenamente a la Internet, especialmente el artículo 19, que establece libertad de expresión y libertad de opinión. Aún así, alrededor de 50 países no cumplen con sus compromisos.
En ocasión del Día Mundial de la Libertad de Prensa la semana pasada, reuní a expertos, líderes de ONGs, periodistas, empresarios e intelectuales. Sus discusiones han confirmado mi convicción de que el camino que deseamos tomar es el correcto. Creo que debemos crear un instrumento internacional para monitorear los compromisos que han hecho los gobiernos y pedir que cumplan cuando fallen. Creo que debemos proveer asistencia a los ciberdisidentes, quienes han de recibir el mismo apoyo que otras víctimas de la represión política, y mostrar nuestra solidaridad con ellos públicamente, en estrecha colaboración con las ONGs que trabajan en estos temas. Creo que también debemos discutir la conveniencia de adoptar un código de conducta respecto a la exportación de tecnologías para censurar la Internet y seguir la huella de los usuarios de la red.
Estas cuestiones, junto con otras, como la protección de la información personal en la Internet y el derecho a la amnistía digital para todos, promovida por mi colega Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, debe promoverse dentro de un marco que una al gobierno, la sociedad civil y los expertos internacionales.
Otro proyecto está cerca de mi corazón. Será una larga y difícil tarea implementarlo, pero es crítico. Es dar a la Internet status legal que refleje su universalidad. Algo que la reconozca como espacio internacional, de manera que sea más difícil que los gobiernos represivos utilicen su soberanía como argumento contra las libertades fundamentales.
Esta es una cuestión crítica. Creo que la batalla de ideas ha comenzado con, de un lado, los defensores de una Internet abierta e universal, basada en la libertad de expresión y la libertad de asociación, en la tolerancia y respeto por la privacidad y del otro lado, quienes quieren transformar a la Internet en una multitud de espacios cerrados entre sí para servir a los propósitos de un régimen, propaganda y todas formas de fanatismo.
La libertad de expresión es "la base de todas las demás libertades." Sin ella, no hay "naciones libres," dijo Voltaire. El espíritu de la ilustración, que es universal, debe correr por todos los nuevos medios. La defensa de las libertades fundamentales y los derechos humanos debe ser la prioridad del gobierno del a Internet. Es asunto de todos.
(c) GLOBAL VIEWPOINT NETWORK/TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES.
Paging and Bottom Toolbar
martes, 11 de mayo de 2010
GREEK CRISIS IS ONLY TIP OF SOVEREIGN DEBT ICEBERG
http://bit.ly/djFwll
Roubini: Greek Crisis is Only Tip of Sovereign Debt Iceberg
By Nouriel Roubini
Global Viewpoint
Word Count: 944
Nouriel Roubini, a professor of economics at New York University and chairman of Roubini Global Economics has come to be popularly known as "Dr. Doom" for having predicted the recent financial crisis. He is author of "Crisis Economics: A Crash Course in the Future of Finance." His comments here are adapted from remarks at the Milken Global Conference in Beverly Hills, California, on Wednesday, April 28.
LOS ANGELES -- Financial crises have occurred very often in history. They are caused by unsustainable bubbles that go bust, and from excessive risk-taking and debt-leveraging by the private sector during the bubble. Then in the wake of, and as part of the response to, the economic downturn, government debts and deficits grow to unsustainable levels that can lead to default or inflation if not corrected. The crisis we are going through now follows this pattern.
Today there is a lot of talk about "de-leveraging," yet the data shows that de-leveraging has barely begun. Debt ratios in the corporate sector as well as households in the U.S. have essentially stabilized at high levels.
At the same time, we are seeing a massive "re-leveraging" of the public sector with budget deficits on the order of 10 percent of GDP. The IMF and OECD are projecting that the stock of public debt in advanced economies is going to double and reach an average level of 100 percent of GDP in the coming years.
This is all actually quite typical of what happens in a financial crisis. What explains this re-leveraging? First, "automatic stabilizers" (such as unemployment compensation) came into play during the recession. Second, countercyclical fiscal policies (such as tax cuts and spending increases) have been implemented by government to avoid depression because private demand is collapsing. Third, we have decided to socialize some of the private losses in the financial, corporate and housing sectors and put them on the balance sheet of the government.
So, there is a massive buildup of public debt. And the lesson of history is that unless this buildup of sovereign debt is tackled eventually by raising taxes and controlling spending, then there are only two outcomes: default or high inflation.
Historically, we have seen a series of defaults and sovereign debt crises in both advanced and emerging market economies. If you are a country like the U.S., the U.K. or Japan that can monetize its fiscal deficits, then you won't have a sovereign debt event but high inflation that erodes the value of public debt. Inflation is therefore basically a capital transfer from creditors and savers to borrowers and dissavers, essentially from the private sector to the government.
While the markets these days are worrying about Greece, it is only the tip of the iceberg, or the canary in the coal mine of a much broader range of fiscal crises. Today it is Greece. Tomorrow it will be Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Iceland. Sooner or later Japan and the U.S. will be at the core of the problem, shaking the global economy.
We need to recognize that we are in the next stage of financial crisis. The coming issue is not private-sector liabilities, but pubic-sector liabilities.
Revived economic growth alone will not generate enough tax revenue to relieve this sovereign debt crisis. Fiscal deficits are huge and structural. They are not due solely to a cyclical downturn in growth but to long-term commitments such as pensions, social security and health care. To avoid default or high inflation, the advanced economies will require some combination of raising revenues through taxes and cutting government spending.
In Europe, where tax rates are already very high, the right adjustment is cutting spending instead of raising taxes further. In the U.S., the average tax burden as a share of GDP is much lower than in other advanced economies. The right adjustment for the U.S. would be to phase in revenue increases gradually over time so that you don't kill the recovery while controlling the growth of government spending.
What worries me most is the political gridlock in Washington. While everyone agrees that $10 trillion deficits (by the Obama administration's own estimates) for the next decade are not sustainable, there is no political will to act. The two parties are completely divided. Effectively, the Republicans are against any form of revenue increases. The Democrats are against spending cuts, especially of entitlements.
If the Republicans take control of the House of Representatives in the next election and refuse any revenue increases while the Democrats veto spending cuts, the path of least resistance will be runaway fiscal deficits which will then be monetized by the Federal Reserve, which has already embarked on this path. In just the last year alone, the Federal Reserve has bought $1.8 trillion of Treasury securities and agency debt, a course that will inevitably lead to high inflation if sustained. It is what is popularly known as printing money.
In Greece (with yields higher than 12 percent on two-year bonds -- ed.) or Spain or Portugal, the bond markets are forcing an adjustment. In spite of the recession, the markets are telling them to either straighten out their problems or go bankrupt.
Unfortunately, there is no such adjustment being forced upon Washington at the moment because the bond market has not woken up to the dangers ahead. You can borrow at a zero percent rate on the short end and 3.6 percent on the long end. As a result, the political system is going to resist fiscal consolidation. This means the risk of something serious happening in the U.S. in the next two or three years is significant.
(c) GLOBAL VIEWPOINT NETWORK/TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES
Roubini: Greek Crisis is Only Tip of Sovereign Debt Iceberg
By Nouriel Roubini
Global Viewpoint
Word Count: 944
Nouriel Roubini, a professor of economics at New York University and chairman of Roubini Global Economics has come to be popularly known as "Dr. Doom" for having predicted the recent financial crisis. He is author of "Crisis Economics: A Crash Course in the Future of Finance." His comments here are adapted from remarks at the Milken Global Conference in Beverly Hills, California, on Wednesday, April 28.
LOS ANGELES -- Financial crises have occurred very often in history. They are caused by unsustainable bubbles that go bust, and from excessive risk-taking and debt-leveraging by the private sector during the bubble. Then in the wake of, and as part of the response to, the economic downturn, government debts and deficits grow to unsustainable levels that can lead to default or inflation if not corrected. The crisis we are going through now follows this pattern.
Today there is a lot of talk about "de-leveraging," yet the data shows that de-leveraging has barely begun. Debt ratios in the corporate sector as well as households in the U.S. have essentially stabilized at high levels.
At the same time, we are seeing a massive "re-leveraging" of the public sector with budget deficits on the order of 10 percent of GDP. The IMF and OECD are projecting that the stock of public debt in advanced economies is going to double and reach an average level of 100 percent of GDP in the coming years.
This is all actually quite typical of what happens in a financial crisis. What explains this re-leveraging? First, "automatic stabilizers" (such as unemployment compensation) came into play during the recession. Second, countercyclical fiscal policies (such as tax cuts and spending increases) have been implemented by government to avoid depression because private demand is collapsing. Third, we have decided to socialize some of the private losses in the financial, corporate and housing sectors and put them on the balance sheet of the government.
So, there is a massive buildup of public debt. And the lesson of history is that unless this buildup of sovereign debt is tackled eventually by raising taxes and controlling spending, then there are only two outcomes: default or high inflation.
Historically, we have seen a series of defaults and sovereign debt crises in both advanced and emerging market economies. If you are a country like the U.S., the U.K. or Japan that can monetize its fiscal deficits, then you won't have a sovereign debt event but high inflation that erodes the value of public debt. Inflation is therefore basically a capital transfer from creditors and savers to borrowers and dissavers, essentially from the private sector to the government.
While the markets these days are worrying about Greece, it is only the tip of the iceberg, or the canary in the coal mine of a much broader range of fiscal crises. Today it is Greece. Tomorrow it will be Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Iceland. Sooner or later Japan and the U.S. will be at the core of the problem, shaking the global economy.
We need to recognize that we are in the next stage of financial crisis. The coming issue is not private-sector liabilities, but pubic-sector liabilities.
Revived economic growth alone will not generate enough tax revenue to relieve this sovereign debt crisis. Fiscal deficits are huge and structural. They are not due solely to a cyclical downturn in growth but to long-term commitments such as pensions, social security and health care. To avoid default or high inflation, the advanced economies will require some combination of raising revenues through taxes and cutting government spending.
In Europe, where tax rates are already very high, the right adjustment is cutting spending instead of raising taxes further. In the U.S., the average tax burden as a share of GDP is much lower than in other advanced economies. The right adjustment for the U.S. would be to phase in revenue increases gradually over time so that you don't kill the recovery while controlling the growth of government spending.
What worries me most is the political gridlock in Washington. While everyone agrees that $10 trillion deficits (by the Obama administration's own estimates) for the next decade are not sustainable, there is no political will to act. The two parties are completely divided. Effectively, the Republicans are against any form of revenue increases. The Democrats are against spending cuts, especially of entitlements.
If the Republicans take control of the House of Representatives in the next election and refuse any revenue increases while the Democrats veto spending cuts, the path of least resistance will be runaway fiscal deficits which will then be monetized by the Federal Reserve, which has already embarked on this path. In just the last year alone, the Federal Reserve has bought $1.8 trillion of Treasury securities and agency debt, a course that will inevitably lead to high inflation if sustained. It is what is popularly known as printing money.
In Greece (with yields higher than 12 percent on two-year bonds -- ed.) or Spain or Portugal, the bond markets are forcing an adjustment. In spite of the recession, the markets are telling them to either straighten out their problems or go bankrupt.
Unfortunately, there is no such adjustment being forced upon Washington at the moment because the bond market has not woken up to the dangers ahead. You can borrow at a zero percent rate on the short end and 3.6 percent on the long end. As a result, the political system is going to resist fiscal consolidation. This means the risk of something serious happening in the U.S. in the next two or three years is significant.
(c) GLOBAL VIEWPOINT NETWORK/TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES
martes, 4 de mayo de 2010
LOOKING FOR THE MARK OF THE MEDITERRANEAN DIET.
ENVIRONMENTAL NUTRITION
(ATTENTION EDITORS: This column ends with the words, “…beautiful life ala Mediterranean.” If the column you see below concludes any other way, you have received an incomplete version. Please contact TMS customer service at 800-346-8798 for a retransmission.)
Looking for the Mark of the Mediterranean Diet
Tribune Media Services
You don’t have to live on a Greek island to appreciate the health benefits of a Mediterranean diet.
Well-publicized research links eating the Mediterranean way with a number of positive effects, including lengthened life, anti-cancer and anti-depression properties, weight management, protection against Alzheimer’s disease, improved symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis, and decreased risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol and diabetes. And don’t forget that Mediterranean cuisine is more than just healthy—it’s delicious.
With so many good reasons to dive into Mediterranean food, what’s keeping you from taking the plunge? For many people, the question is simple: “How do I get started?” Contrary to what you might think, the Mediterranean diet is not an exotic way of eating foods, or a “diet” in the sense of something you might go “on” or “off.”
Instead, consider the Mediterranean diet as a lifestyle followed by residents of the countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea (Egypt, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Algeria, Greece, Albania, Israel, Spain, Italy, France, Croatia, Lebanon, Libya and Malta). The main ingredients of the Mediterranean diet include:
Abundant amounts of whole grains, fruits and vegetables.
Moderate portions of cheese and yogurt.
Healthy fats, like olive oil, nuts, avocados and canola oil.
Wine in moderation, usually with meals, if you drink.
Fish and seafood.
Small amounts of red meat, only a few times per month.
Daily physical activity.
BRINGING THE MEDITERRRANEAN DIET HOME
Many of the principles of the Mediterranean diet can be applied to your own style of eating. Try switching your cooking oil to olive oil, eat more of your favorite whole plant foods like grains, fruits, vegetables and legumes, cook fish more often and exercise every day—and you’re just about there. Check out our examples of how to “Med–up” your diet to see how easy it is.
“Marking” Mediterranean. Another fun and tasty way to ease your way into Mediterranean eating is to look for traditional Mediterranean foods that bear the Med Mark (a program of the Mediterranean Foods Alliance), a symbol placed on food and beverages that represent the core foods and drinks of the Mediterranean diet.
The Med Mark, currently on more than 160 food and beverage products ranging from tomato sauce to extra virgin olive oil, means that the product meets nutritional criteria based on research on the Mediterranean diet and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s definition of “healthy.” A product must contain:
No added trans fats in any amount.
No more than 8 percent of total calories from saturated fat.
No more than 480 milligrams of sodium for side items and snacks or 600 milligrams for entrees.
No more than 4 grams of added sugar.
So now that you know how easy it is to “Med-up” your favorite dishes or find traditional Mediterranean foods in supermarkets, it’s time to get started and enjoy the beautiful life ala Mediterranean.
(Reprinted with permission from Environmental Nutrition, a monthly publication of Belvoir Media Group.
© 2009 BELVOIR MEDIA GROUP, LLC. 800-829-5384.
ENVIRONMENTAL NUTRITION NEWSLETTER
lunes, 19 de abril de 2010
The Euro's Fiscal Policy Will Give Pause to Reserve-Currency Allocators
(NOTICE: Please note the joint byline on this piece.)
The Euro's Fiscal Policy Will Give Pause to Reserve-Currency Allocators
By Ian Bremmer and Jon Levy, Tribune Media Services
Bremmer, Ian
Word Count: 801
Posted 03/15/2010 at 5:56 pm EST
For Release 03/15/2010
The Greek crisis is making clear a reality long ignored or glossed over: Eurozone fiscal policy is messy and opaque. This is not a short-term phenomenon, nor can any concerted action change this fact. Global central banks, sovereign wealth firms and other major entities are going to revise their currency-allocation strategies based on this new recognition. This process is just beginning, but it suggests a roadblock to the euro taking up a greater share of reserve-currency allocations.
At first glance, there is a strong case for the euro to emerge as an increasingly important part of the global reserve-currency mix. It is very liquid; is accepted in highly competitive, globalized economies; and has international convertibility. Eurozone monetary policy, hewing to a strict price stability mandate may be more predictable than in any other regime. European powers have few contentious political relationships in the world. In a non-polar, anti-hegemonic world, all of these factors can be seen by global reserve-currency allocators as attractive arguments for holding an increased share of euros relative to dollars.
Throughout the Greek crisis -- which is by no means over -- much attention has focused on a European solution, the idea that somehow Germany, France or the EU institutions could bring clarity and predictability to Greek budget politics. This vain expectation should signal the death knell of an era in which the euro was falsely considered to be analogous to the dollar, or a souped-up version of the old deutschmark, the pound, the yen or the Swiss franc.
In all of the above currency regimes, fiscal policy was the product of domestic decision-making. This is not the case in the eurozone because there is no such thing as a single domestic policy.
In the eurozone, fiscal policy decisions are made by 16 different governments. They are supposed to be guided by benchmarks governing the levels of government debt and deficits -- with limits set at 60 percent and 3 percent of GDP, respectively. When governments breach these limits, the European commission can launch an "Excessive Deficit Procedure," intended to force countries to correct violations. This procedure can lead to legal, administrative and financial punishments.
However, there is ample evident that the threat of punishment has little dissuasive weight: Greece has never complied with debt rules; only three countries are currently not under excessive deficit procedures, and two of those are effectively city-states; in 2005, the German and French governments, unwilling to meet deficit limits, simply forced through revisions to the rules of the game.
This policy structure means that to figure out what the eurozone's governments will tax and what they will spend is a complex, constantly evolving process.
The very notion of a reserve currency is conservative; it suggests a maximal interest in capital preservation, contingency planning and crisis management. A bias toward predictability and clarity naturally follows.
At any given time, exchange rates may reflect a set of assumptions about fiscal policy. However, it is the structural nature of eurozone fiscal policy, rather than any current trends, that present the most significant challenge to the idea of the euro as a reserve currency.
European policymakers cannot alter this reality. Trying to create consolidated eurozone fiscal policy is politically toxic -- particularly as it would be seen as a backdoor means to transfer wealth from countries with lower debt levels to those with higher levels.
Even if these political hurdles could be overcome, opacity and uncertainty would still prevail. In areas in which there is a great deal of centralized policy power -- such as trade policy -- national and other interest groups shape policy to a high degree. This creates a separate, but no less challenging, source of uncertainty. Thus, from a reserve allocation perspective, new fiscal policy mechanisms will do little to bring greater clarity. Just as with the Greek budget crisis, there is simply no European solution. The problem with the euro is a fundamentally European problem.
If there is to be any policy response to the Greek mess, it will probably be the establishment of a eurozone sovereign lender of last-resort facility -- a eurozone version of the IMF.
However, any new facility is unlikely to deal with yet another highly problematic issue in the EU: the lack of a formal mechanism to deal with a potential cross-border banking crisis that is too large to be managed by a single country. This is yet another potential surprise hiding in plain sight in the eurozone -- and yet another risk that will give any prudent central banker pause when thinking about ramping up relative euro exposure.
(Ian Bremmer is president of Eurasia Group, a political-risk consultancy. Jon Levy is the Europe analyst for Eurasia Group. They can be reached via e-mail at research@eurasiagroup.net.)
(C) 2010 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
The Euro's Fiscal Policy Will Give Pause to Reserve-Currency Allocators
By Ian Bremmer and Jon Levy, Tribune Media Services
Bremmer, Ian
Word Count: 801
Posted 03/15/2010 at 5:56 pm EST
For Release 03/15/2010
The Greek crisis is making clear a reality long ignored or glossed over: Eurozone fiscal policy is messy and opaque. This is not a short-term phenomenon, nor can any concerted action change this fact. Global central banks, sovereign wealth firms and other major entities are going to revise their currency-allocation strategies based on this new recognition. This process is just beginning, but it suggests a roadblock to the euro taking up a greater share of reserve-currency allocations.
At first glance, there is a strong case for the euro to emerge as an increasingly important part of the global reserve-currency mix. It is very liquid; is accepted in highly competitive, globalized economies; and has international convertibility. Eurozone monetary policy, hewing to a strict price stability mandate may be more predictable than in any other regime. European powers have few contentious political relationships in the world. In a non-polar, anti-hegemonic world, all of these factors can be seen by global reserve-currency allocators as attractive arguments for holding an increased share of euros relative to dollars.
Throughout the Greek crisis -- which is by no means over -- much attention has focused on a European solution, the idea that somehow Germany, France or the EU institutions could bring clarity and predictability to Greek budget politics. This vain expectation should signal the death knell of an era in which the euro was falsely considered to be analogous to the dollar, or a souped-up version of the old deutschmark, the pound, the yen or the Swiss franc.
In all of the above currency regimes, fiscal policy was the product of domestic decision-making. This is not the case in the eurozone because there is no such thing as a single domestic policy.
In the eurozone, fiscal policy decisions are made by 16 different governments. They are supposed to be guided by benchmarks governing the levels of government debt and deficits -- with limits set at 60 percent and 3 percent of GDP, respectively. When governments breach these limits, the European commission can launch an "Excessive Deficit Procedure," intended to force countries to correct violations. This procedure can lead to legal, administrative and financial punishments.
However, there is ample evident that the threat of punishment has little dissuasive weight: Greece has never complied with debt rules; only three countries are currently not under excessive deficit procedures, and two of those are effectively city-states; in 2005, the German and French governments, unwilling to meet deficit limits, simply forced through revisions to the rules of the game.
This policy structure means that to figure out what the eurozone's governments will tax and what they will spend is a complex, constantly evolving process.
The very notion of a reserve currency is conservative; it suggests a maximal interest in capital preservation, contingency planning and crisis management. A bias toward predictability and clarity naturally follows.
At any given time, exchange rates may reflect a set of assumptions about fiscal policy. However, it is the structural nature of eurozone fiscal policy, rather than any current trends, that present the most significant challenge to the idea of the euro as a reserve currency.
European policymakers cannot alter this reality. Trying to create consolidated eurozone fiscal policy is politically toxic -- particularly as it would be seen as a backdoor means to transfer wealth from countries with lower debt levels to those with higher levels.
Even if these political hurdles could be overcome, opacity and uncertainty would still prevail. In areas in which there is a great deal of centralized policy power -- such as trade policy -- national and other interest groups shape policy to a high degree. This creates a separate, but no less challenging, source of uncertainty. Thus, from a reserve allocation perspective, new fiscal policy mechanisms will do little to bring greater clarity. Just as with the Greek budget crisis, there is simply no European solution. The problem with the euro is a fundamentally European problem.
If there is to be any policy response to the Greek mess, it will probably be the establishment of a eurozone sovereign lender of last-resort facility -- a eurozone version of the IMF.
However, any new facility is unlikely to deal with yet another highly problematic issue in the EU: the lack of a formal mechanism to deal with a potential cross-border banking crisis that is too large to be managed by a single country. This is yet another potential surprise hiding in plain sight in the eurozone -- and yet another risk that will give any prudent central banker pause when thinking about ramping up relative euro exposure.
(Ian Bremmer is president of Eurasia Group, a political-risk consultancy. Jon Levy is the Europe analyst for Eurasia Group. They can be reached via e-mail at research@eurasiagroup.net.)
(C) 2010 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
