The NATO 1999 humanitarian intervention to rescue Muslim Kosovans from Serbian aggression, is controversial in that it did not have the backing of the UN Security Council.
But it can be understood from the perspective of the global balance of power.
Muslim Kosovans were engaged in a battle for independence from socialist Yugoslavia.
According to research done by student Marija Greenlee (Spring 2010), on October 1, 1999, US Congressman Engel made one of the strongest cases linking images of Serbian atrocities on CNN to the need for military action:
“We read about it in the paper today on the front page, that there were several massacres, that bodies were found of innocent civilians, men, women and children, as the Serbian police forces and military units continue their campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo…Mr. Speaker, it is time for action. We need to have immediate NATO air strikes on Serbian positions in Kosovo.” (Bahador 2006).
By why NATO? Why not coordinate with the UN Security Council? This is what the US did in 1990, to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.
Five days after NATO bombed socialist Serbia, accused of atrocities against Muslim Kosovans, the US Congress adopted the SILK ROAD STRATEGY ACT. This was to break Russia’s monopoly over pipeline routes in Central Asia and define American business interests in the region. Bombing and destabilizing Serbia was possibly an undeclared part of a strategy to create a corridor of power for America and her allies between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. This explains why Russia and China were not included in the humanitarian intervention to rescue Muslim Kosovans, and NATO was used instead, bypassing potential trouble at the UN Security Council.
In one of my lectures, I state that , “THE TRANS-BALKAN PIPELINE (AMBO) WILL PASS VERY NEAR KOSOVO, PUMPING CASPIAN OIL FROM THE BULGARIAN PORT OF VLORA, FOR TRANSPORTATION TO EUROPE AND THE US”.
Marija Greenlee wrote in her Spring 2010 paper: “This critical oil pipeline [AMBO], currently under construction and set to operate in 2011 will link up pipeline corridors between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. The Caspian Sea is the hub of the world’s largest unexplored oil reserves. Coincidentally, Camp Bondsteel, America’s largest US military base since Vietnam has been built in Kosovo.” The US took over 1000 acres of farmland in SE Kosovo at Uresevic, near the Macedonian Border, for the construction of Camp Bondsteel, the biggest such project since the war in Vietnam.
Marija also draws our attention to the newly discovered petroleum reserves in neighboring Albania, which is located on the Adriatic Sea.
According to Marija’s research, Kosovo is a place of religious history and national pride for Serbs. In an area that has become known as the Field of Blackbirds, thousands of Serbian “warrior saints” stood their ground in the 1389 Battle of Kosovo Polje, only to be slaughtered by the invading Ottoman Turks. And Kosovo is the historical seat of the Serbian Orthodox Church
Here are some casualty estimates, note (as always in these types of estimates) the discrepancies:
1. Kosovo (1998-99)
o Ethnic cleansing by Yugoslavs, before the war
29 April 1999 AP: 2,000 (in 1998)
Ploughshares 2000: 1-2,000 (1998)
o Ethnic cleansing during the war
18 July 1999 Baltimore Sun (NY Times News Service): 10,000 Albanians killed during 3-month campaign
5 July 1999 AP: 10,000
4 July 1999 Toronto Star: 10,000
9 Nov. 1999 Washington Times: 9,269
Ploughshares 2000: 2,500-10,000
o NATO Bombing (1999)
9 Feb. 2000 Slate, civilian deaths [http://slate.msn.com/code/Explainer/Explainer.asp?Show=2/9/2000&idMessage=4570]
Human Rights Watch: ca. 500; or specifically 488-527 ("confidently")
Serb propaganda: 1,200-5,000 ("stubbornly")
HRW: 500 civ. [http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/02/nato207.htm]
14 June 1999 Time: 5,000 military + 1,200 civilian = 6,200
4 Dec. 2001 WSJ: 500, citing Wm Arkin [http://wsjclassroomedition.com/tj_120401_casu.htm]
5 July 1999 AP: 1,200 civilians, citing Yugoslav state-run media
Ploughshares 2000: 500 civilians
11 July 1999 Washington Post
Official Serbian figures: 576 Serb military "casualties" (probably deaths)
NATO estimates: 5,000 to 10,000 Serb soldiers dead
Author's estimate: 1,600 civilians and 1,000 military "casualties"
Source: Historical Atlas of the 20th Century, http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/20centry.htm, accessed February 7, 2010.
As usual, pictures are worth a thousand words. See where Kosovo is located in the context of proposed pipeline routes.
For a map of proposed pipelines in the region, by US, China, Russia
See: http://leftwrite.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/lenins-epitaph-lessons-from-the-russia-georgia-war/
Compare to a map of Kosovo and the region:
Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/images/kosoregion.gif
References
Bahador, Babak. "The CNN Effect on Western Policy Before the Kosovo Intervention" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Le Centre Sheraton Hotel, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Mar 17, 2004, http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p72684_index.html
Monday, February 8, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
THE HAITIAN EARTHQUAKE and GLOBAL POWER RIVALRIES
By Philippa
Updated August 2, 2011
What are perspectives from international relations theories that we can apply to the devastating 2010 earthquake in Haiti?
Haiti is a model of a country which has been impacted by colonialism and postcolonialism. Realist Thomas Weiss writes about Somalia in the 19th century period of colonization: "CONSUMER GOODS WERE INTRODUCED INTO THE LOCAL MARKET, WITH ACCOMPANYING MONETIZATION AND OTHER CHANGES IN THE ECONOMY" (Weiss, 2005, p. 58). This happened to Haiti in the mid 1990s, when the International Monetary Fund loaned money to Haiti with strings: it had to accept low cost food imports, which in turn, led to the collapse of its agricultural economy. Allowing US imports of rice, part of the conditions of Structural Adjustment Loans (SALs) devastated local rice production. As student Robert Pampel (INTL 5400, Summer 2011) points out, an oil embargo imposed by the US and UN on Haiti after the first ouster of President Aristide, caused Haitians to turn to forests for fuel, which eroded the soil and caused flooding. A US-aid program to replace the indigenous Creole pig, considered to be diseased, turned disastrous. Rural farmers fled to the impoverished cities, where housing constructions were not built to be earthquake proof.
As Robert Pampel points out, SAPs do not work in a country that lacks governmental infrastructure: "SAPs were enforced on countries with little consideration for their infrastructure and ability to implement structural adjustments. This is one reason why middle-income developing countries like Brazil and Thailand had success implementing SAPs, while many lower-income developing countries with little to no infrastructure struggled."
NGOs in Haiti are tasked to act as state substitutes, but while some have proved very useful in food distribution, trash goes unpicked up, roads are not repaired, and a disaster response program is not institutionalized.
The liberal view is stated here:" RESCUING OTHERS WILL ALWAYS BE ONEROUS, BUT IF WE DENY THE MORAL DUTY AND LEGAL RIGHT TO DO SO, WE DENY NOT ONLY THE CENTRALITY OF JUSTICE IN POLITICAL AFFAIRS, BUT ALSO THE COMMON HUMANITY THAT BINDS US ALL (Teson in Holzgrefe and Keohane, p. 129). The cry from Haiti has been answered by billions of people around the world, including a massive relief effort led by the US government. There was no forced intervention, no violation of national sovereignty, in the strict legal sense.
But Haiti was already dependent on outside powers, as the realist Weiss points out was the case of Somalia during the 1990s. In the case of Somalia, according to Weiss, "MILITARY, ECONOMIC, AND FOOD AID PERPETUATED A POLITICAL SYSTEM THAT WAS NOT SELF-SUSTAINING, NOR DID IT FULFILL THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF A SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT (Weiss, 2005, p. 59).
The anti-imperialist Bricmont asks us to imagine "A WORLD IN WHICH CONGO, CUBA, VIETNAM, BRAZIL, CHILE, IRAQ, AND MANY OTHER COUNTRIES WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DEVELOP WITHOUT CONSTANT INTERFERENCE FROM THE WEST" (Bricmont, 2006, p.38). But now, China and Russia are shaping the economies of the poorer countries around the world. Here is a review of how I see Great Power rivalries in the Caribbean:
Before the Haitian earthquake struck, global power tensions in this part of the world had been escalating.
The western hemisphere (slice the earth in half length-ways and Haiti and the Americas are on the western side) is dubbed the US’s backyard. But N American policymakers fear their traditional influence is waning. US foreign policymakers are concerned with drug and terrorist sanctions in the area, as well as strategic resources – such as oil.
US oil imports from the Caribbean account for 15% of total oil imports to the US.
Russia and China have both recently staked a claim in the Caribbean.
In July 2009, Russia and Cuba signed a deal to jointly explore crude oil reserves off the Cuban coast. A meeting in Moscow in January 2009 renewed the pact, which had collapsed after the Cold War. While no mention was made of a military alliance, agreements were signed to cooperate in agriculture, manufacturing, science and tourism. In December 2009, a contingent of Russia’s North Sea Fleet docked in Havana after conducting exercises with Venezuela’s navy.
In September 2009, China sent Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) Wu Banggou to the Bahamas with 150 Chinese officials and business leaders. A number of economic deals were signed, including a multimillion dollar loan to help build a highway to Nassau’s international airport. This marked another step in the normalization of diplomatic relations between China and the Bahamas since1997.
Iran is another player. In 2008, St Vincent and the Grenadines established diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran and secured a commitment to assist in the construction of the US$200 million international airport. On January 21, 2010, the President of Guyana, Bharrat Jagdeo, arrived in Tehran to renew ties with the Islamic world.
Half a year earlier, on May 1, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laid bare US concerns, saying that “the Obama Administration is working to improve deteriorating US relations with a number of Latin American nations to counter growing Iranian, Chinese and Russian influence in the Western Hemisphere” (Associated Press, May 1, 2009). The Obama presidency however has welcomed China's bid to become an observer at the Organization of American States and a donor member of the Inter-American Development Bank. This is in line with a long term US policy of both collaborating with, and remaining wary of , ‘competitor peer’ major powers.
At a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization the following month, Brazil, Russia, India and China - or BRIC as the fast-growing countries are collectively coined - held their first summit. The BRIC leaders called for a ‘multipolar world order’, which in diplomatic language constitutes a challenge to US global dominance.
US’ wariness of BRIC is illustrated by policies on the military front. Washington is building its potential for nuclear and non-nuclear strikes in Latin America and the Caribbean. The US Southern Command’s 4th Fleet was recently reconstituted and patrols up and down the Latin American coastline. Part of its mission is humanitarian – dealing with hurricanes, for example. The other part of the mission has to do with national strategy. Forty percent of US trade and fifty percent of US oil imports come from this area.
Latin America leaders, however, are turning down requests for a US armed presence. For example, President Rafael Correa has asked US troops to leave their base in the port of Manta in Ecuador.
One principal reason for resistance against US military presence is the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (also known as the Treaty of Tlatelolco) which came into force in 1969. It obligates Latin American parties not to acquire or possess nuclear weapons, nor to permit the storage or deployment of nuclear weapons on their territories by other countries.
Back in Haiti, the people still urgently need help; the death toll was past 300,000.
Let us hope Haiti’s needs inspire global cooperation, not competition.
References:
Bricmont, Jean, Humanitarian Imperialism, Using Human Rights to Sell War, New York: Monthly Review Press, 2006.
Teson, Ferdinando in Holzgrefe, JL Ed and Keohane, Robert, Humanitarian Intervention, Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas, Cambridge University Press, 2003
Weiss, Thomas G, Military-Civilian Interactions, Humanitarian Crisis and the Responsibility to Protect, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005.
Updated August 2, 2011
What are perspectives from international relations theories that we can apply to the devastating 2010 earthquake in Haiti?
Haiti is a model of a country which has been impacted by colonialism and postcolonialism. Realist Thomas Weiss writes about Somalia in the 19th century period of colonization: "CONSUMER GOODS WERE INTRODUCED INTO THE LOCAL MARKET, WITH ACCOMPANYING MONETIZATION AND OTHER CHANGES IN THE ECONOMY" (Weiss, 2005, p. 58). This happened to Haiti in the mid 1990s, when the International Monetary Fund loaned money to Haiti with strings: it had to accept low cost food imports, which in turn, led to the collapse of its agricultural economy. Allowing US imports of rice, part of the conditions of Structural Adjustment Loans (SALs) devastated local rice production. As student Robert Pampel (INTL 5400, Summer 2011) points out, an oil embargo imposed by the US and UN on Haiti after the first ouster of President Aristide, caused Haitians to turn to forests for fuel, which eroded the soil and caused flooding. A US-aid program to replace the indigenous Creole pig, considered to be diseased, turned disastrous. Rural farmers fled to the impoverished cities, where housing constructions were not built to be earthquake proof.
As Robert Pampel points out, SAPs do not work in a country that lacks governmental infrastructure: "SAPs were enforced on countries with little consideration for their infrastructure and ability to implement structural adjustments. This is one reason why middle-income developing countries like Brazil and Thailand had success implementing SAPs, while many lower-income developing countries with little to no infrastructure struggled."
NGOs in Haiti are tasked to act as state substitutes, but while some have proved very useful in food distribution, trash goes unpicked up, roads are not repaired, and a disaster response program is not institutionalized.
The liberal view is stated here:" RESCUING OTHERS WILL ALWAYS BE ONEROUS, BUT IF WE DENY THE MORAL DUTY AND LEGAL RIGHT TO DO SO, WE DENY NOT ONLY THE CENTRALITY OF JUSTICE IN POLITICAL AFFAIRS, BUT ALSO THE COMMON HUMANITY THAT BINDS US ALL (Teson in Holzgrefe and Keohane, p. 129). The cry from Haiti has been answered by billions of people around the world, including a massive relief effort led by the US government. There was no forced intervention, no violation of national sovereignty, in the strict legal sense.
But Haiti was already dependent on outside powers, as the realist Weiss points out was the case of Somalia during the 1990s. In the case of Somalia, according to Weiss, "MILITARY, ECONOMIC, AND FOOD AID PERPETUATED A POLITICAL SYSTEM THAT WAS NOT SELF-SUSTAINING, NOR DID IT FULFILL THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF A SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT (Weiss, 2005, p. 59).
The anti-imperialist Bricmont asks us to imagine "A WORLD IN WHICH CONGO, CUBA, VIETNAM, BRAZIL, CHILE, IRAQ, AND MANY OTHER COUNTRIES WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DEVELOP WITHOUT CONSTANT INTERFERENCE FROM THE WEST" (Bricmont, 2006, p.38). But now, China and Russia are shaping the economies of the poorer countries around the world. Here is a review of how I see Great Power rivalries in the Caribbean:
Before the Haitian earthquake struck, global power tensions in this part of the world had been escalating.
The western hemisphere (slice the earth in half length-ways and Haiti and the Americas are on the western side) is dubbed the US’s backyard. But N American policymakers fear their traditional influence is waning. US foreign policymakers are concerned with drug and terrorist sanctions in the area, as well as strategic resources – such as oil.
US oil imports from the Caribbean account for 15% of total oil imports to the US.
Russia and China have both recently staked a claim in the Caribbean.
In July 2009, Russia and Cuba signed a deal to jointly explore crude oil reserves off the Cuban coast. A meeting in Moscow in January 2009 renewed the pact, which had collapsed after the Cold War. While no mention was made of a military alliance, agreements were signed to cooperate in agriculture, manufacturing, science and tourism. In December 2009, a contingent of Russia’s North Sea Fleet docked in Havana after conducting exercises with Venezuela’s navy.
In September 2009, China sent Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) Wu Banggou to the Bahamas with 150 Chinese officials and business leaders. A number of economic deals were signed, including a multimillion dollar loan to help build a highway to Nassau’s international airport. This marked another step in the normalization of diplomatic relations between China and the Bahamas since1997.
Iran is another player. In 2008, St Vincent and the Grenadines established diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran and secured a commitment to assist in the construction of the US$200 million international airport. On January 21, 2010, the President of Guyana, Bharrat Jagdeo, arrived in Tehran to renew ties with the Islamic world.
Half a year earlier, on May 1, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laid bare US concerns, saying that “the Obama Administration is working to improve deteriorating US relations with a number of Latin American nations to counter growing Iranian, Chinese and Russian influence in the Western Hemisphere” (Associated Press, May 1, 2009). The Obama presidency however has welcomed China's bid to become an observer at the Organization of American States and a donor member of the Inter-American Development Bank. This is in line with a long term US policy of both collaborating with, and remaining wary of , ‘competitor peer’ major powers.
At a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization the following month, Brazil, Russia, India and China - or BRIC as the fast-growing countries are collectively coined - held their first summit. The BRIC leaders called for a ‘multipolar world order’, which in diplomatic language constitutes a challenge to US global dominance.
US’ wariness of BRIC is illustrated by policies on the military front. Washington is building its potential for nuclear and non-nuclear strikes in Latin America and the Caribbean. The US Southern Command’s 4th Fleet was recently reconstituted and patrols up and down the Latin American coastline. Part of its mission is humanitarian – dealing with hurricanes, for example. The other part of the mission has to do with national strategy. Forty percent of US trade and fifty percent of US oil imports come from this area.
Latin America leaders, however, are turning down requests for a US armed presence. For example, President Rafael Correa has asked US troops to leave their base in the port of Manta in Ecuador.
One principal reason for resistance against US military presence is the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (also known as the Treaty of Tlatelolco) which came into force in 1969. It obligates Latin American parties not to acquire or possess nuclear weapons, nor to permit the storage or deployment of nuclear weapons on their territories by other countries.
Back in Haiti, the people still urgently need help; the death toll was past 300,000.
Let us hope Haiti’s needs inspire global cooperation, not competition.
References:
Bricmont, Jean, Humanitarian Imperialism, Using Human Rights to Sell War, New York: Monthly Review Press, 2006.
Teson, Ferdinando in Holzgrefe, JL Ed and Keohane, Robert, Humanitarian Intervention, Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas, Cambridge University Press, 2003
Weiss, Thomas G, Military-Civilian Interactions, Humanitarian Crisis and the Responsibility to Protect, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Legitimizing Usury, the Rise of Capitalism and Sharia Banking
LEGITIMIZING USURY AND THE RISE OF CAPITALISM
In the New Testament, Jesus chased the money lenders out of the temple. Shylock, a money lender in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice was reviled by his fellow citizens. Anti-semitism arose probably as the result of laws that only allowed Jews to be moneylenders in Europe. "Miser", "hoarding wealth" and other terms denoted the negative meaning of capital accumulation.
Today, of course, the accumulation of vast riches is applauded, as can be seen by the 'stardom' of such businessmen as Donald Trump. The legitimizing of usury in Europe by Christian religious leaders helped to develop the economic model of capitalism. How? Without bank loans, there can be no investment. Without interest on debt, there can be no bank loans. Bank loans and debt are crucial to continuing investments. Also, the stocks and shares developed in the 17th Century had one very important component: the forgiveness of debts made by investors. Yes, that’s right. Although we hold poor countries to the fire for debt repayment, if you invest in a company and it fails, you are not liable for debt. This frees capital to invest elsewhere.
Today, many capitalist countries are in fact debtor nations. I like to say we live in ‘debtism’ not capitalism because capital=profit minus debt.
I recommend the book The Web of Debt.
A student wrote on the topic of Sharia banking for her final paper in a previous semester. Here is an excerpt. Capital letters indicate referenced information (not blogged here.)
Marie-Josee Herard
December 19, 2009
The Qur’an FORBIDS THE CHARGING OF INTEREST IN EXCHANGE FOR A LOAN, OR “RIBA” . The reason for this, according to the Qur’an, is BECAUSE IT HARMS THE HUMANE AIMS OF ISLAM TOWARDS MERCY, SOLIDARITY AND COOPERATION .
This is a founding principle that has shaped Islamic banking. The first ever Islamic savings bank was modeled on “profit sharing” which WAS STARTED IN THE EGYPTIAN TOWN OF MIT GHAMR IN 1963 . The Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna’s goal was TO PENETRATE THE WESTERN FINANCE SYSTEM, CORRUPTING IT FROM WITHIN IN HOPES OF CREATING A PARALLEL SYSTEM TO RE-ESTABLISH A GLOBAL ISLAMIC EMPIRE GOVERNED BY ISLAMIC LAW (SHARIA).
Islamic banking policy states that money should be used productively and investment activities should be dealt with in partnerships so that risks and rewards are shared by creditor and debtor alike. Also, according to sharia, excess capital (i.e. profits) ought to be put back into the community in the form of zakat (alms). This includes stocks, real estate investments, insurances, and currency swaps that are sharia-compliant (called sukuks). There are limits, though; SHARIA LAW PROHIBIT INVESTING IN CERTAIN INDUSTRIES OR PRODUCTS, INCLUDING ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, PORK, AND PORNOGRAPHY. THE QUR’AN ALSO FORBIDS USURY (as aforementioned), SO FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS ARE STRUCTURED TO RELY ON INCOME IN THE FORM OF RENTS OR PROFITS FROM THE LOAN, TECHNICALLY NOT INTEREST. SUKUKS … ARE A TYPE OF ISLAMIC BOND BACKED BY OWNERSHIP OF A TANGIBLE ASSET THAT PRODUCES A FINANCIAL RESULT. Another popular instrument is the murabaha, ESSENTIALLY COST-PLUS FINANCING, WHICH INVOLVES THE SALE AND REPURCHASE OF A COMMODITY TO FUND A LOAN . Scholars must review banking products and cases to make sure that they adhere to the Qur’an. BUT DEFINITIONS OF WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE CAN VARY GREATLY, NOT ONLY FROM REGION TO REGION BUT FROM BANK TO BANK… AS EACH BANK HAS ITS OWN BOARD OF SCHOLARS .
After initial success in the late 1970s and 1980s, which was largely fueled by oil revenues, Islamic banking suffered serious setbacks. There were failures in Islamic banking integration in such countries as Egypt, Iran, Sudan, and Pakistan, and several banks went bankrupt after having over-leveraged their funds, which coincidentally violated the sharia tenet of avoiding excessive risk-taking. So new products were developed and banks branched out; that’s when sukuks came into the picture, among others. But since then, some have estimated that the SECTOR HAS EXPANDED AT A BRISK PACE OF BETWEEN 15% AND 25% ANNUALLY IN THE PAST DECADE… in fact, THERE ARE CURRENTLY (as of 2006) 250 ISLAMIC MUTUAL FUNDS WITH $300BN WORTH OF ASSETS UNDER MANAGEMENT AND 300 IFIs HOLDING OVER $250BN DEPOSITS…FURTHERMORE, $200BN IN ASSETS ARE MANAGED BY DEDICATED MUSLIM “WINDOWS” OR SUBSIDIARIES OF CONVENTIONAL BANKS .
In the New Testament, Jesus chased the money lenders out of the temple. Shylock, a money lender in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice was reviled by his fellow citizens. Anti-semitism arose probably as the result of laws that only allowed Jews to be moneylenders in Europe. "Miser", "hoarding wealth" and other terms denoted the negative meaning of capital accumulation.
Today, of course, the accumulation of vast riches is applauded, as can be seen by the 'stardom' of such businessmen as Donald Trump. The legitimizing of usury in Europe by Christian religious leaders helped to develop the economic model of capitalism. How? Without bank loans, there can be no investment. Without interest on debt, there can be no bank loans. Bank loans and debt are crucial to continuing investments. Also, the stocks and shares developed in the 17th Century had one very important component: the forgiveness of debts made by investors. Yes, that’s right. Although we hold poor countries to the fire for debt repayment, if you invest in a company and it fails, you are not liable for debt. This frees capital to invest elsewhere.
Today, many capitalist countries are in fact debtor nations. I like to say we live in ‘debtism’ not capitalism because capital=profit minus debt.
I recommend the book The Web of Debt.
A student wrote on the topic of Sharia banking for her final paper in a previous semester. Here is an excerpt. Capital letters indicate referenced information (not blogged here.)
Marie-Josee Herard
December 19, 2009
The Qur’an FORBIDS THE CHARGING OF INTEREST IN EXCHANGE FOR A LOAN, OR “RIBA” . The reason for this, according to the Qur’an, is BECAUSE IT HARMS THE HUMANE AIMS OF ISLAM TOWARDS MERCY, SOLIDARITY AND COOPERATION .
This is a founding principle that has shaped Islamic banking. The first ever Islamic savings bank was modeled on “profit sharing” which WAS STARTED IN THE EGYPTIAN TOWN OF MIT GHAMR IN 1963 . The Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna’s goal was TO PENETRATE THE WESTERN FINANCE SYSTEM, CORRUPTING IT FROM WITHIN IN HOPES OF CREATING A PARALLEL SYSTEM TO RE-ESTABLISH A GLOBAL ISLAMIC EMPIRE GOVERNED BY ISLAMIC LAW (SHARIA).
Islamic banking policy states that money should be used productively and investment activities should be dealt with in partnerships so that risks and rewards are shared by creditor and debtor alike. Also, according to sharia, excess capital (i.e. profits) ought to be put back into the community in the form of zakat (alms). This includes stocks, real estate investments, insurances, and currency swaps that are sharia-compliant (called sukuks). There are limits, though; SHARIA LAW PROHIBIT INVESTING IN CERTAIN INDUSTRIES OR PRODUCTS, INCLUDING ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, PORK, AND PORNOGRAPHY. THE QUR’AN ALSO FORBIDS USURY (as aforementioned), SO FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS ARE STRUCTURED TO RELY ON INCOME IN THE FORM OF RENTS OR PROFITS FROM THE LOAN, TECHNICALLY NOT INTEREST. SUKUKS … ARE A TYPE OF ISLAMIC BOND BACKED BY OWNERSHIP OF A TANGIBLE ASSET THAT PRODUCES A FINANCIAL RESULT. Another popular instrument is the murabaha, ESSENTIALLY COST-PLUS FINANCING, WHICH INVOLVES THE SALE AND REPURCHASE OF A COMMODITY TO FUND A LOAN . Scholars must review banking products and cases to make sure that they adhere to the Qur’an. BUT DEFINITIONS OF WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE CAN VARY GREATLY, NOT ONLY FROM REGION TO REGION BUT FROM BANK TO BANK… AS EACH BANK HAS ITS OWN BOARD OF SCHOLARS .
After initial success in the late 1970s and 1980s, which was largely fueled by oil revenues, Islamic banking suffered serious setbacks. There were failures in Islamic banking integration in such countries as Egypt, Iran, Sudan, and Pakistan, and several banks went bankrupt after having over-leveraged their funds, which coincidentally violated the sharia tenet of avoiding excessive risk-taking. So new products were developed and banks branched out; that’s when sukuks came into the picture, among others. But since then, some have estimated that the SECTOR HAS EXPANDED AT A BRISK PACE OF BETWEEN 15% AND 25% ANNUALLY IN THE PAST DECADE… in fact, THERE ARE CURRENTLY (as of 2006) 250 ISLAMIC MUTUAL FUNDS WITH $300BN WORTH OF ASSETS UNDER MANAGEMENT AND 300 IFIs HOLDING OVER $250BN DEPOSITS…FURTHERMORE, $200BN IN ASSETS ARE MANAGED BY DEDICATED MUSLIM “WINDOWS” OR SUBSIDIARIES OF CONVENTIONAL BANKS .
Thursday, November 12, 2009
US-KURDISH RELATIONS IN IRAQ: A CHECKERED HISTORY
Here is a brief chronology:
US backed the Kurds in 1972, possibly to destabilize the new government of Iraq under Gen Qasim which was nationalizing Iraq’s oil resources.
The US dropped support for the Kurds in 1975, possibly due to the Shatt Al Arab waterway dispute resolution in which Iran dropped its support for dissidents in Iraq.
The US didn’t come to the aid of the Kurds during the Anfal campaign, instead supported Saddam Hussein with money and weapons technology, during the Iran Iraq War 1980-1988.
The US gave verbal support in 1991 to the Kurds , encouraging them to rise against Iraq, but didn’t follow through. Saddam Hussein attacked the Kurdish revolt, millions of Kurdish refugees were left stranded on mountains on the Turkish border. The US did eventually provide an umbrella of protection (UNSC Res 688)
The US supported Kurdish autonomy leading up to and after the invasion in 2003, but in 2007 ‘turned a blind eye’ to the Turkish incursion into Kurdish territory in Turkey's pursuit of Kurdish militants. Turkey is a US ally.
US backed the Kurds in 1972, possibly to destabilize the new government of Iraq under Gen Qasim which was nationalizing Iraq’s oil resources.
The US dropped support for the Kurds in 1975, possibly due to the Shatt Al Arab waterway dispute resolution in which Iran dropped its support for dissidents in Iraq.
The US didn’t come to the aid of the Kurds during the Anfal campaign, instead supported Saddam Hussein with money and weapons technology, during the Iran Iraq War 1980-1988.
The US gave verbal support in 1991 to the Kurds , encouraging them to rise against Iraq, but didn’t follow through. Saddam Hussein attacked the Kurdish revolt, millions of Kurdish refugees were left stranded on mountains on the Turkish border. The US did eventually provide an umbrella of protection (UNSC Res 688)
The US supported Kurdish autonomy leading up to and after the invasion in 2003, but in 2007 ‘turned a blind eye’ to the Turkish incursion into Kurdish territory in Turkey's pursuit of Kurdish militants. Turkey is a US ally.
PRESIDENT NASSER OF EGYPT: NEITHER A 'STRONGMAN' OR A WEAK RULER
WAS NASSER WAS A ‘STRONGMAN’ , OR A ‘WEAK RULER’? THIS IS A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION
President Gamal Abdar Nasser (1918-1970) was overwhelmingly elected as President of Egypt in a national referendum held in 1956, when he instituted a one party system. He was not a dictator a la Saddam Hussein, by any means.
Was he a weak ruler because he lost the 1967 war with Israel? Losing a war doesn’t necessarily indicate ‘weakness’ of a ruler. For example, Presidents in the US were not widely believed to be ‘weak’ because of defeat in the Vietnam War. You could argue that if a ruler can’t defend the country, he or she is ‘weak.’ The reality is more complex. In 1967, Egypt as a post-colonial state struggling to get on its feet after British rule, was not sufficiently financially sound to conduct a war, nor did it have military preparedness. Nasser was under pressure however by other Middle East powers to go to war against Israel, and with good cause, he was worried about an Israeli invasion of Egypt. Israel began hostilities by bombing the entire Egyptian Air Force as it sat on the tarmac. In the ensuing six day war, Israel went on to occupy the Sinai desert and the Gaza Strip. Nasser then went on television in Egypt and said
"I have taken a decision with which I need your help. I have decided to withdraw totally and for good from any official post or political role, and to return to the ranks of the masses, performing my duty in their midst, like any other citizen. This is a time for action, not grief.... My whole heart is with you, and let your hearts be with me. May God be with us—hope, light and guidance in our hearts."
The next day, demonstrations were organized in support of his Presidency, and he retracted his decision. Contrast this to the refusal of Rumsfeld et al to take responsibility for not defending the US when it was attacked on 9/11. To me, Nassar’s stance indicated strength and accountability. I disagree with his stance towards the Egyptian Communist Party, which he outlawed.
In 1970, Nasser at a landmark Arab League meeting, succeeded in ending the war between King Hussein of Jordan and the PLO. In my view, the ability to end hostilities is the mark of a responsible leader. He died a day after the end of the Arab League meeting.
President Gamal Abdar Nasser (1918-1970) was overwhelmingly elected as President of Egypt in a national referendum held in 1956, when he instituted a one party system. He was not a dictator a la Saddam Hussein, by any means.
Was he a weak ruler because he lost the 1967 war with Israel? Losing a war doesn’t necessarily indicate ‘weakness’ of a ruler. For example, Presidents in the US were not widely believed to be ‘weak’ because of defeat in the Vietnam War. You could argue that if a ruler can’t defend the country, he or she is ‘weak.’ The reality is more complex. In 1967, Egypt as a post-colonial state struggling to get on its feet after British rule, was not sufficiently financially sound to conduct a war, nor did it have military preparedness. Nasser was under pressure however by other Middle East powers to go to war against Israel, and with good cause, he was worried about an Israeli invasion of Egypt. Israel began hostilities by bombing the entire Egyptian Air Force as it sat on the tarmac. In the ensuing six day war, Israel went on to occupy the Sinai desert and the Gaza Strip. Nasser then went on television in Egypt and said
"I have taken a decision with which I need your help. I have decided to withdraw totally and for good from any official post or political role, and to return to the ranks of the masses, performing my duty in their midst, like any other citizen. This is a time for action, not grief.... My whole heart is with you, and let your hearts be with me. May God be with us—hope, light and guidance in our hearts."
The next day, demonstrations were organized in support of his Presidency, and he retracted his decision. Contrast this to the refusal of Rumsfeld et al to take responsibility for not defending the US when it was attacked on 9/11. To me, Nassar’s stance indicated strength and accountability. I disagree with his stance towards the Egyptian Communist Party, which he outlawed.
In 1970, Nasser at a landmark Arab League meeting, succeeded in ending the war between King Hussein of Jordan and the PLO. In my view, the ability to end hostilities is the mark of a responsible leader. He died a day after the end of the Arab League meeting.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Do Democracy and Development Go Hand in Hand?
DEVELOPMENT VS DEMOCRACY?
Updated August 1, 2011
Who or what, is to blame for a world in which 40 million people a year die of hunger, disease and poverty, while an elite acquires massive amounts of wealth? Global income disparities are often viewed through the lens of traditional development theory. A developed country is conventionally defined as one with a high per capita income, largely as a result of a privatized, profit-driven market, industrialization, urbanization, and Western-style democracy. A developing country is referred to as one with a low per capita income, with aspirations for development, but hampered by ‘backward’ or ‘indigenous’ economic and political systems and a diversity of cultures. Developed countries helped Less Developed Countries (LDCs) with aid.
However, this model doesn’t hold.
India is an example of a country which has achieved many forms of democracy, yet has failed on the economic front, because of high rates of poverty. Can it therefore be said to be truly democratic? As Martin Luther King said, what is the point of being able to sit a lunch counter, if I can’t afford lunch? Put another way, what is the point of being able to vote if you can’t afford the bus fare to get to the polling booth? Since the 90s, India has followed a free market development policy, under pressure from the IMF and World Bank. But prosperity has not come from India’s combination of democracy and free market. Can one have democracy and not have more prosperity? Interesting conundrum. See this for the 'democracy versus development" argument:
http://www.usyd.edu.au/riap/documents/publications/papers/chua.htm
Aid to develop a country along free market lines, comes at a price that undermines national sovereignty. Student Lauren Precopia in INTL 5400 Summer 2011 writes 'As Ngaire Woods states in “Bretton Woods Institutions”, Elliot Page, a trade negotiator from East Caribbean States discusses what is at stake for developing countries if they fail to comply:
“YOU COULD BE A DEVELOPING COUNTRY, FOR INSTANCE, THAT HAS DECIDED TO BLOCK A POSITION EVERYONE ELSE HAS SUPPORTED…HOWEVER A TELEPHONE CALL WOULD BE CONDUCTED FROM LEADER TO LEADER…AND A PARTICULAR AID PROGRAM IN YOUR COUNTRY COULD BE JEOPARDIZED.”'
Development analysts choose to look at GNP figures, but these don’t tell us anything about disparity of income, child mortality and life expectancy rates.
US ranks 45th, Kryghyzstan ranks 30th, in income gap statistics.
We know that the US itself is not immune to election fraud (do a search on the 2000 US election and ‘fraud’). The US’ family income distribution is 45th in the world (the most equal is Sweden). Kryghyztan does better than the US re: income gaps. Russia does worse than any of the Central Asian countries but better than the US. But, Russia does worse than most in life expectancy rates. For ‘your’ country’s income gap, see this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
I like Maya Chadda (Building Democracy in South Asia) but…
Chadda contradicts herself. Earlier on in the book, she says that democracy in Europe rolled out quietly. Then later on, she says democracy took hold in conflict with the state. In any case, I would challenge the dichotomy between democracy and economic prosperity. The United Nations have reached consensus that you can’t have one without the other. This is expressed in its consensus that economic and political rights are indivisible. Economic rights=the responsibility of the state to ensure basic needs.
DEMOCRACY AND THE IMF , OIL FACTOR
How do the great powers affect development and democracy in peripheral countries? It was quite shocking to read that Chadda thinks the Benazir Bhutto was ushered out as a result of pressure from the IMF because she couldn’t pay back Pakistan’s loans to the IMF.
Clearly, there is great outside interest in the Central Asian region, because of its oil. But, it may have had an adverse affect on democratization. As another student writes ‘Many ‘western' democracies are weakening their stance on the protection of human rights in the country, in large measure due to Turkmenistan's vast hydrocarbons reserves.’ Another student remarks that ‘The high price of oil has fostered an environment in which the Azerbaijani government does not need to maintain a façade of democracy.”
See this:
-- "Turkmenistan is the country nobody talks about. Its huge reserves of natural gas can only get to market through pipelines. Until 1991, it was part of the Soviet Union and its gas flowed only north through Soviet pipelines. Now the Russians plan a new pipeline north. The Chinese are building a new pipeline east. The U.S. is pushing for "multiple oil and gas export routes." High-level Russian, Chinese and American delegations visit Turkmenistan frequently to discuss energy. The U.S. even has a special envoy for Eurasian energy diplomacy.--John Foster, "Afghanistan and the new great game: Prized pipeline route could explain West's stubborn interest in poor, remote land," Toronto Star, August 12, 2009
Updated August 1, 2011
Who or what, is to blame for a world in which 40 million people a year die of hunger, disease and poverty, while an elite acquires massive amounts of wealth? Global income disparities are often viewed through the lens of traditional development theory. A developed country is conventionally defined as one with a high per capita income, largely as a result of a privatized, profit-driven market, industrialization, urbanization, and Western-style democracy. A developing country is referred to as one with a low per capita income, with aspirations for development, but hampered by ‘backward’ or ‘indigenous’ economic and political systems and a diversity of cultures. Developed countries helped Less Developed Countries (LDCs) with aid.
However, this model doesn’t hold.
India is an example of a country which has achieved many forms of democracy, yet has failed on the economic front, because of high rates of poverty. Can it therefore be said to be truly democratic? As Martin Luther King said, what is the point of being able to sit a lunch counter, if I can’t afford lunch? Put another way, what is the point of being able to vote if you can’t afford the bus fare to get to the polling booth? Since the 90s, India has followed a free market development policy, under pressure from the IMF and World Bank. But prosperity has not come from India’s combination of democracy and free market. Can one have democracy and not have more prosperity? Interesting conundrum. See this for the 'democracy versus development" argument:
http://www.usyd.edu.au/riap/documents/publications/papers/chua.htm
Aid to develop a country along free market lines, comes at a price that undermines national sovereignty. Student Lauren Precopia in INTL 5400 Summer 2011 writes 'As Ngaire Woods states in “Bretton Woods Institutions”, Elliot Page, a trade negotiator from East Caribbean States discusses what is at stake for developing countries if they fail to comply:
“YOU COULD BE A DEVELOPING COUNTRY, FOR INSTANCE, THAT HAS DECIDED TO BLOCK A POSITION EVERYONE ELSE HAS SUPPORTED…HOWEVER A TELEPHONE CALL WOULD BE CONDUCTED FROM LEADER TO LEADER…AND A PARTICULAR AID PROGRAM IN YOUR COUNTRY COULD BE JEOPARDIZED.”'
Development analysts choose to look at GNP figures, but these don’t tell us anything about disparity of income, child mortality and life expectancy rates.
US ranks 45th, Kryghyzstan ranks 30th, in income gap statistics.
We know that the US itself is not immune to election fraud (do a search on the 2000 US election and ‘fraud’). The US’ family income distribution is 45th in the world (the most equal is Sweden). Kryghyztan does better than the US re: income gaps. Russia does worse than any of the Central Asian countries but better than the US. But, Russia does worse than most in life expectancy rates. For ‘your’ country’s income gap, see this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
I like Maya Chadda (Building Democracy in South Asia) but…
Chadda contradicts herself. Earlier on in the book, she says that democracy in Europe rolled out quietly. Then later on, she says democracy took hold in conflict with the state. In any case, I would challenge the dichotomy between democracy and economic prosperity. The United Nations have reached consensus that you can’t have one without the other. This is expressed in its consensus that economic and political rights are indivisible. Economic rights=the responsibility of the state to ensure basic needs.
DEMOCRACY AND THE IMF , OIL FACTOR
How do the great powers affect development and democracy in peripheral countries? It was quite shocking to read that Chadda thinks the Benazir Bhutto was ushered out as a result of pressure from the IMF because she couldn’t pay back Pakistan’s loans to the IMF.
Clearly, there is great outside interest in the Central Asian region, because of its oil. But, it may have had an adverse affect on democratization. As another student writes ‘Many ‘western' democracies are weakening their stance on the protection of human rights in the country, in large measure due to Turkmenistan's vast hydrocarbons reserves.’ Another student remarks that ‘The high price of oil has fostered an environment in which the Azerbaijani government does not need to maintain a façade of democracy.”
See this:
-- "Turkmenistan is the country nobody talks about. Its huge reserves of natural gas can only get to market through pipelines. Until 1991, it was part of the Soviet Union and its gas flowed only north through Soviet pipelines. Now the Russians plan a new pipeline north. The Chinese are building a new pipeline east. The U.S. is pushing for "multiple oil and gas export routes." High-level Russian, Chinese and American delegations visit Turkmenistan frequently to discuss energy. The U.S. even has a special envoy for Eurasian energy diplomacy.--John Foster, "Afghanistan and the new great game: Prized pipeline route could explain West's stubborn interest in poor, remote land," Toronto Star, August 12, 2009
Friday, September 4, 2009
No, European Capitalist Democracy Did Not Evolve Peacefully
No, European Capitalist Democracy Did Not Evolve Peacefully
By Philippa Winkler, PhD
Maya Chadda ‘s thesis is that European countries had ‘time’ to evolve a capitalist democracy over centuries, whereas India, Pakistan etc had to compress nation building, decolonization and the development of democratic institutions into a shorter time period (Chadda, Maya, Building Democracy in South Asia, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers 2000).
She paints a rosy picture describing how European countries had a peaceful transition to capitalist democracy (“democracy flowered subsequently…gradual unfolding of a market economy…”p 2). She contrasts this with the supposedly more violent South Asian sequence of development.
In fact, bloodshed , war and suffering have accompanied the 300 year old evolution of capitalist democracy in Europe.
1) In the UK, civil war between merchant interests and the aristocracy in the middle of the 17th century, ending with the beheading of Charles I.
2) Forcible relocation of masses of peasants to make way for cash crops, all over Europe beginning in the 18th century. In the UK, the Enclosure Acts legislated the relocation. Millions of peasants became internal refugees, escaped to the cities, and became the nucleus for the emerging factory laboring class.
3) Luddism in the UK in the 18th century (when peasants and artisans smashed machines that were depriving them of their livelihood).
4) The 1789 French Revolution, beheading of Louis XVI and family, in France’s transition from a feudal type monarchy to a Republic, followed by the Terror (remember the guillotine?). Other revolutions followed, to establish a democracy, in 1848, and an unsuccessful one to establish a form of socialism, in 1872 (the Paris Commune).
5) In the 19th Century, nationalist revolutions all over Europe for countries like Italy to free themselves from the yoke of Austro Hungary Empire and establish capitalist constitutional monarchies with parliaments.
6) Exploitation of labor, child labor, 12 hour work weeks, demonstrations, protests, met by extensive governmental repression etc., litter the landscape of the European road to industrialization from the 18th century.
7)7) Colonization of Asia was key to the creation of the European market economies. Gold, silver and other vital resources were plundered by the Europeans, resulting in huge losses of life and subsistence lifestyles in non European countries. One could argue that the USSR colonized Central Asia. So the development of European capitalism and Russian communism came at the expense of pre-capitalist countries. Today, many of these countries supply cheap labor forces while building a professional and business middle class.
By Philippa Winkler, PhD
Maya Chadda ‘s thesis is that European countries had ‘time’ to evolve a capitalist democracy over centuries, whereas India, Pakistan etc had to compress nation building, decolonization and the development of democratic institutions into a shorter time period (Chadda, Maya, Building Democracy in South Asia, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers 2000).
She paints a rosy picture describing how European countries had a peaceful transition to capitalist democracy (“democracy flowered subsequently…gradual unfolding of a market economy…”p 2). She contrasts this with the supposedly more violent South Asian sequence of development.
In fact, bloodshed , war and suffering have accompanied the 300 year old evolution of capitalist democracy in Europe.
1) In the UK, civil war between merchant interests and the aristocracy in the middle of the 17th century, ending with the beheading of Charles I.
2) Forcible relocation of masses of peasants to make way for cash crops, all over Europe beginning in the 18th century. In the UK, the Enclosure Acts legislated the relocation. Millions of peasants became internal refugees, escaped to the cities, and became the nucleus for the emerging factory laboring class.
3) Luddism in the UK in the 18th century (when peasants and artisans smashed machines that were depriving them of their livelihood).
4) The 1789 French Revolution, beheading of Louis XVI and family, in France’s transition from a feudal type monarchy to a Republic, followed by the Terror (remember the guillotine?). Other revolutions followed, to establish a democracy, in 1848, and an unsuccessful one to establish a form of socialism, in 1872 (the Paris Commune).
5) In the 19th Century, nationalist revolutions all over Europe for countries like Italy to free themselves from the yoke of Austro Hungary Empire and establish capitalist constitutional monarchies with parliaments.
6) Exploitation of labor, child labor, 12 hour work weeks, demonstrations, protests, met by extensive governmental repression etc., litter the landscape of the European road to industrialization from the 18th century.
7)7) Colonization of Asia was key to the creation of the European market economies. Gold, silver and other vital resources were plundered by the Europeans, resulting in huge losses of life and subsistence lifestyles in non European countries. One could argue that the USSR colonized Central Asia. So the development of European capitalism and Russian communism came at the expense of pre-capitalist countries. Today, many of these countries supply cheap labor forces while building a professional and business middle class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)