Using A RantAWeek to clarify the complexities of news. - RantAWeek
RantAWeek

Using A RantAWeek to clarify the complexities of news.

RSS Feed

Summit Week: G-8 and NATO – May 20, 2012

1 Comment

Meeting at Camp David last week, the G-8 leaders primarily discussed the best way to combat the European Debt Crisis.  But unlike the staid restatements that often result from these meetings, this summit produced an important change in policy.  Driven by a voter backlash against austerity that has manifested itself in both Greece and France, the G-8 signaled a shift away from austerity and towards growth.  Perhaps most important in this shift is France’s new president Francois Hollande, who has argued against German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s austerity-driven rescue plan.  The result is that the G-8 made a commitment to promote European growth, establishing an alternative plan to combating financial woes.  While this does not signal an end to austerity, it does demonstrate that Europe will attempt to widen the range of its strategies in dealing with the debt crisis.  The G-8 is expanding their tactics, implying that the summit achieved some success.

However, the G-8 meeting is not the only summit in the news, as this week also marks the 2012 NATO summit in Chicago.  The location is important because Chicago has a reputation for attracting protesters earned after extensive riots during its hosting of the 1968 Democratic National Convention.  The G-8 summit was actually planned to take place in Chicago as well, but organizers feared that two nearly simultaneous summits would intensify the protesting, so the G-8 moved to Camp David while NATO stayed put.

Unsatisfied, protesters were quick to rally against the NATO visit.  Even with an increased police presence and several arrests, the protests were able to grow in size.  Remnants of Occupy groups from around the country joined forces with local protesters to make their voices heard.  The Occupy involvement is interesting, as Occupy has generally been focused on economic issues.  Since NATO is a military organization, the inclusion of Occupy protesters suggests the weakening movement is diversifying its base.  However, this diversification implies that Occupy’s original message has fizzled out and the remnants of the movement have been forced to find other issues.

One of the main protest issues is ending the war in Afghanistan.  While the current timetable for the end of NATO military operations in Afghanistan has a pullout scheduled for the end of 2014, many protesters feel this is too long to wait.  Ironically, these protesters may have a friend in France’s Francois Hollande.

Hollande has promised to withdraw all French combat troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2012, two years earlier than the previously established timetable dictates.  While this endangers the current plan to gradually hand control over to the Afghan forces, it does represent a decidedly anti-war sentiment in France that may spread to other nations.  U.S. President Obama, who has been a proponent of the 2014 pullout date, may need to monitor voter feelings towards the war to better align himself on the issue during this election year.

Both the G-8 and NATO summits signal policy shifts primarily influenced by the new voice of Francois Hollande on the international stage.  The true success of these summits, however, will ultimately be determined by the ability of world leaders to cooperate under the guidelines they have worked together to create.  International problems require an international solution, so let’s wish them good luck!

Filed under Economy, International

Youth Vote Showdown

0 Comments

Thanks to the folks at Best Colleges Online for sharing this interesting infographic.  If you remember, we analyzed the youth vote not that long ago ourselves in this article.  Hope you learn something!

Youth Vote Showdown
Via: Best Online Colleges

Filed under Domestic, Election 2012

Greece: When Elections Fail – May 15, 2012

0 Comments

The impact of the Eurozone debt crisis forced politicians in troubled Greece to ignore party lines and form a national unity government.  The two major parties in Greece, center-right New Democracy and center-left Panhellic Socialist Movement, banded together under the leadership of Prime Minister Lucas Papademos.  Importantly, Papademos has been able to lead Greece as an economist, not as a politician, furthering the example of national unity in this time of crisis.  Still, national unity governments are only temporary measures, and one promise Mr. Papademos made when he took control was that he would call for early elections.  Greece held these early elections on May 6th, and that’s when everything went wrong…

National anger against the two major parties in the coalition grew in the run-up to the election.  Many voters, angry at the harsh austerity measures that Greece is facing as part of its loan agreements, tried to show their displeasure by voting for other, often more extreme, parties.  The result was devastating and unexpected.  While New Democracy and the Panhellic Socialist Movement were expected to lose many seats in the nation’s Parliament, they were still expected to maintain a majority.  Instead, after the votes were counted, the parties were two seats short of being able to form a majority coalition.

Normally, in instances like this, a smaller party will join the coalition in order to be a part of the majority.  However, none of the other parties were willing to join a coalition, even after tense negotiations and a plea from Greece’s leadership.  As a result, the election was unsuccessful and a new one will have to be held in June.  The practical effect is that Greece will lack a fully functioning legislature for a month, crippling the nation’s government in a time of economic crisis.

Unfortunately, this new election in no way guarantees that the old coalition will be restored and things will return to the way they were under the unity government.  In fact, the opposite seems true.  The Coalition of the Radical Left, commonly abbreviated to Syriza, has been rapidly gaining momentum.  If this trend continues, Syriza may be in a position to form a coalition of its own in the wake of the next election come June.  Naturally, many in Europe are uncomfortable with the idea of a far left party coming to power in Greece, but worse still is the fact that Syriza is running on a platform to stop austerity measures by ending the loan agreement Greece has made with the entities that are bailing it out.  These entities, namely the ECB, the IMF and the European Council, have dictated the paths to austerity Greece must take to continue receiving bailout money, instigated resentment within Greece.  However, with the loan deal broken, Greece will stop receiving this money, leaving them with no reasonable alternative except default.

Of course, this is a worst case scenario, but the way things have been going in Greece as of late, worst case scenarios are seeming more and more likely.  And even if the worst doesn’t happen, the political divisions this election has created will make the bailout and corresponding austerity measures even more complicated.  The rise of Syriza will undoubtedly create a stronger voice in opposition to the bailout whether they manage to take power or not.

Ultimately, Greece’s national unity government helped the nation to get past some hurdles in dealing with its debt, but its dissolution has reopened old political wounds, provoking fears that the Eurozone relief plan is bleeding out.

 

-Subscribe to our RSS and ‘like’ us on Facebook!  If you are interested in how the European Debt Crisis is affecting France or Holland, please click on the links.

 

Filed under International

Sudan Civil War – May 12, 2012

0 Comments

The nation of Sudan has been rife with conflict for decades, but many hoped that tensions would subside when South Sudan broke away and became its own country last summer.  Unfortunately, the split has failed to decrease violence, and the two nations are edging closer to war.  The center of controversy lies at oilfields along the border which both countries lay claim to.  Complicating the situation is the fact that the exact border between the two nations has not yet been drawn because several areas in the vicinity of the disputed oil fields must still hold referendums to determine which country they want to be a part of.

South Sudan, perhaps more than its northern neighbor, is in desperate need of money from these oil fields.  Landlocked in the heart of Africa, South Sudan relies almost entirely on oil revenues to keep its economy functioning.  Without many other natural resources or a solid infrastructure, oil is a crucial factor for South Sudan’s development.  That being said, Sudan’s economy is also based off of oil and it will also be negatively affected by the loss of these oil lands.

Attempts at compromise have already been made.  The most viable plan was that South Sudan would pay Sudan a fraction of their oil revenues for the right to use Sudan’s existing pipelines.  On the surface, this plan makes sense.  Even without infrastructure of their own, South Sudan would be able to export their oil.  And even after losing some oil fields, Sudan would not lose all their oil revenues.

However, tensions between the two countries have built up to the point where border skirmishes and bombings are drawing the nations closer to more widespread violence.  Ominously, problems in Sudan have quickly escalated in the past, and there is no specific reason why we shouldn’t expect increased violence this time around.

Still, there is hope for peace.  To achieve a peaceable conclusion, leaders in both Sudans must be persuaded that a revenue sharing compromise deal is a better outcome than the outbreak of yet another civil war.  Unfortunately, even though international focus has been placed on preventing violence, the ongoing bloodshed over these oil fields has continued.  It seems that international attempts to fix the situation in Sudan may not amount to much success.  After all, even though the International Criminal Court has an outstanding arrest warrant against Sudan’s leader Omar al-Bashir, he remains in power.

But there seems to be internal hope for a nonviolent solution.  Sudan has said that it is willing to discuss matters with its southern counterpart, showing that the violence has not yet escalated to a point of no return.  With hope, these negotiations can bring an end to the violence and a more concrete plan for how to share the oilfields.  The Sudanese region has been riddled with violence for too long, so let’s hope they can work out a peaceful solution.

Filed under International

Egyptian Elections – May 9, 2012

0 Comments

Ever since an Arab Spring Revolution deposed Egypt’s autocratic Hosni Mubarak last year, Egypt’s military has ruled during a transitional period.  Unfortunately, this transitional period has been a bumpy ride, and military leaders have been accused of holding too much power over the future of their country.  Nevertheless, as the ones orchestrating the upcoming presidential election, these generals need to be powerful enough to make the election successful.  This crucial balance of power has become increasingly more wobbly.

The first failing of the military transitional leadership is that they have waited this long to hold elections.  Mubarak was deposed well over a year ago, but the presidency has remained vacant.  An easy excuse for this stalling was that a rushed process would lead to a disorganized and possibly chaotic election season.  However, ‘chaotic’ remains a good description for what is currently occurring in Egypt.

Protesters have returned to Tahrir Square, the main site of the anti-Mubarak protests last January, in order to call for more assurances of visible change.  The spark that ignited this recent anger was the army’s insistence that they will not cede power until after the presidential election.  Fears persist that, by not ceding power now, the generals will try to maintain their authority after the election by not giving full control to the newly elected president, whoever he is.

But while that fear only has a possibility of becoming true, a similar manifestation of the generals’ power already occurred when the generals decided to bar various candidates from competing in the race.  Again, there are two sides to this issue.  The generals can claim that they are weeding the field of unsuitable candidates (including, believe it or not, Mubarak’s former vice-president) while others refute that the generals can abuse this power to remove candidates they dislike while taking away the final decision of who is or isn’t suitable from the voters.  Additionally, the recent violence this upcoming election has caused is prompting other candidates to drop out, narrowing the field even more.  The constantly changing field of presidential hopefuls adds an additional layer of complexity into the race.

And unfortunately, there is no promise that the violence will stop after elections are held later in May.  A runoff election is likely, and this runoff is not scheduled until June.  But as for right now, Egypt’s presidential election appears to be morphing from a democratic turning point into a violent mess.  Egypt has proven that creating a functioning democracy is much more difficult than merely deposing a dictator.  Power currently rests with military leaders, and it may take a great deal of work to wrest that power into the deserving hands of the Egyptian people.

Filed under International

Hollande’s Unachievable Social Justice For France- May 7, 2012

1 Comment

Yesterday, France held their second round of presidential elections. As previously predicted, the Socialist candidate, Francois Hollande, won and is now the president-elect. In our aforementioned article,  I primarily discussed the impact of Hollande’s policies to French business. To summarize, Hollande will scare away investors with his anti-business views. The primary cause of this is that instead of focusing on growth or reform, Hollande focuses on social justice. This is a bit forgivable, it worked fairly effectively in FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society. Yet FDR also reformed the system, and LBJ did not need to reform the system. The economic machine that Hollande inherits is focused around government spending, and running a huge government deficit. Over half of France’s GDP is the state itself. While this may have worked for many years, in today’s Europe, it cannot survive. In Europe, the largest economic issue is obviously the Euro Debt Crisis, yet Hollande seems to mainly be ignoring it. And therein lies another one of Hollande’s big flaws: his policies break up the coherency of EU policies.

In the Eurozone, Germany and France hold the biggest economies, as well as the ones least touched by the Debt Crisis, meaning that they have primarily led the way to get out of the crisis. And leading this charge has been the political couple of Merkozy; French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Merkozy has advocated primarily for austerity, cutting spending and rasing taxes, in order to get the governments back on their feet. From there, the governments can lead the rest of the economy to get back on its feet. At the beginning, many Europeans were hesitant to support austerity, but now most have realized its necessity. Yet, in addition to austerity, Merkozy has largely advocated for financial reform, in banking, business and government spending. For the most part, these tactics seemed as if they would eventually work the Eurozone out of crisis.

But now, there is a new guy in town. And I am sorry, but Merllande or Herkel are not nearly as catchy. Additionally, their actual views on economics are so drastically different. Hollande proposes a certain level of austerity, mainly tax hikes and very little spending cuts, while Merkel advocates for a mixture of both, primarily spending cuts. Also, Hollande proposes very little reform. He calls simply for tax increases and nothing else. His views may reignite the revolt against austerity that was seen at the beginning of the debt crisis. Because the austerity has since been smoothed and just accepted, very few bother to mess with it, but Hollande seems ready to do so. This result could be deadly for Eurozone unity. Talks of breaking up the Eurozone have been going around since the beginning of the debt crisis as well, but the verdict has mostly been that doing so would hurt more than it could help. But the level of disagreement that will likely arise between Hollande and Merkel could reignite tensions and force this topic to once again come to the forefront of Eurozone politics. In the current economic climate of the Eurozone, disunity spells doom for all. Even though France and Germany may be doing well individually, one wrong move and they both could still lose prosperity. This wrong move could likely be a Eurozone breakup.

So while Francois Hollande’s intentions are noble, no one can dislike his ideals of social justice, in the economy he has to deal with, they must be put off until the Eurozone is brought back from the verge of collapse. Hollande’s positions are admirable and bold, but the French economy and the Eurozone economy are simply not ready for them to be implemented. France is already too flamboyant in their spending, Hollande does not need to make them any more so. Doing so would only lead to Eurozone disunity and a bigger deficit, both of which could push France further in their downward spiral.

Filed under Economy, International

Ukraine’s Isolation – May 6, 2012

Comments Off

If you’re a football fan, this article may be the one for you, as the Euro 2012 Football Championships are happening in the European Union! However, EU leaders are boycotting these games held by Ukraine and Poland. Several others also plan to stay away from the upcoming summit in Yalta (a city in Ukraine) later this month. These decisions were all made in an effort to bring attention and aid to the unjust treatment of the Ukrainian opposition’s leader, Yulia Tymoshenko.

Ms. Tymoshenko was put into jail by Ukraine’s current president, Viktor Yanukovych. Even though he easily won the elections in February 2010, Yanukovych has chosen to imprison her for longer, despite warnings from the EU. Furthermore, it was unnecessary because his opponent had already lost her popularity in the “orange revolution” of 2004, where she proved to be inconsistent and hold debatable opinions. Originally, an agreement was made for opening markets from the EU to Ukrainian exports, but this was further postponed since Mr. Yanukovych remains adamant about his governing style, and keeping Ms. Tymoshenko behind bars. It validates the argument that the president cares more about his own power than bringing economic benefits to the country.

Last October, Yulia Tymoshenko was sentenced to seven years in prison. Later, she was pictured with bruises on her body, which she claimed were from prison guards. Now, she is on a hunger strike. While Yanukovych wanted to keep his competitor out of the media by putting her away in jail, his plan backfired because voters have not forgotten about her. Instead, they rather respect and sympathize with her for her strong character. More than ever, leaders of the EU similarly feel that Viktor Yanukovych has gone way too far, as the regime has become autocratic and corrupted. Ukraine developed an insufficient democracy as well as a weakened justice system under his rule.

One thing to look out for is the Ukrainian parliamentary elections. Ms. Tymoshenko is presently forming an alliance with another major opposing party, designed for the two to run as a unified group. These elections in October will play a key factor in what the EU will do next; Yanukovych will either embrace the loss of a few seats in Parliament, or continue to cause further isolation from the EU. Hopefully there will be no more unjust treatment in Ukraine, and the Euro 2012 Football Championships can continue!

Filed under International

Guest Opinion: Immigration and the Election – May 3, 2012

Comments Off

This year’s Republican candidates were an interesting bunch. Being fearless, careless, and sometimes thoughtless, only Mitt Romney seems to be holding onto his relevance so far in the primaries. But the other candidates have no need to worry since they have still made an impact on the lives of many people… by offending them. Their policies on illegal immigration have caused many immigrants to move to Mexico, regardless of their legality. Additionally, even when uneasy feelings appear in many Hispanics, the Republicans merely dismiss them because they are too focused on their own campaigns. This was an ignorant decision, as a politician may easily lose votes for being unaware of the public’s outlook.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center*, for the first time in twenty years, Mexican immigration into the U.S. has stopped increasing. This means that while people are still coming into the country, more are now leaving. Around 1.4m Mexicans immigrated to the United States between 2005 and 2010. However, the same number or greater left during those years as well. The news caused considerable concern lately, especially since it was found during the week when the Supreme Court received arguments concerning Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigrants in 2010.

However, the Republican Candidates are not completely to blame. Many Hispanics feel offense to the fact that an Arizona State Law as well as a Federal Law instructs authorities along the Arizona border to be on special lookout for illegal immigrants. Sometimes, since a lot of immigrants lose or have never obtained their formal documents, they are mistaken for illegals. These mistakes often end in victims who are unreasonably harassed, deported, and separated from loved ones. High unemployment rates do not make life in America very attractive either, which is why it is not too much of a surprise that immigrants want to return to their homeland.

On the other hand, Obama has gained some support. He disagrees with targeting random suspects to make sure a citizen is legal, and proposes that the borders should have uniform enforcement throughout, which turn out to be very popular. Ridiculously enough, Republicans use the growing uneasiness as a way to undermine other candidates of the party instead of facing their problems and finding a solution. While previous GOP candidates threaten to deport all illegal immigrants, Obama gives the impression of a friendly ally. With such abundant reactions, the issue of immigration has been, and will ever more be, a prevalent issue in the 2012 elections.

 

*http://www.pewhispanic.org/

Filed under Domestic

A Bump in the Road – May 1, 2012

Comments Off

The Eurozone has hit another bump in the road. Actually, more like a pothole. As most people already know, the debt crisis of the EU has driven through many problems and is running low on gas. The only fuel left lies in a few countries holding onto their triple-A economic ratings. Sadly, a tow truck may soon be needed to bail out the Netherlands, as yet another country risks losing their high rating.

How was this pothole formed? Well, the main cause is that the government of the Netherlands is falling apart. Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV), is infamous for hiding in fear of assassination and strongly opposes immigration. Even though he is disagreeable, Wilders can make a great impact on the government. After he withdrew from budget talks last week, many other Dutch political parties had to be compromised in order to keep the government running. He already propped up a minority government, and is forcing an election to be held on September 12th against the current Prime Minister, Mark Rutte.

Due to all of the fluctuations from the ruling parties, austerity measures are being sidelined. A new budget was created three days after the PVV’s resignation, which includes a set of regulations requiring a budget deficit lower than three percent of the GDP, as required to be part of the Eurozone. This difficult task was rushed to meet the EU deadline of April 30th. Since austerity has become trivial in the Netherlands and new regulations are complicated to agree upon, the weakening economy has allowed debt-yields to rise, thus creating the pothole.

So far, the damage is already surfacing. Yields on Dutch debt have recently gone up drastically, meaning that people will get more money back for their investments. Money returned from these yields includes the return rates on stocks or fixed income. This may seem like a good deal at first, but after a closer look, it is evident that a high-yield bond only appeals to investors while trying to hide greater risks for default in the long run. It signifies more instability for an already wavering economy, which is precarious in a situation like the EU.

More problems for the EU remain in the road ahead as well. Anti-EU support has increased over time, which makes it harder for the countries to stay cohesive. With election season in France and other countries of the Eurozone, leaders and voters care mostly about new economic policies that could possibly come with a change in government. It is even probable that citizens could vote to tear apart the countries of the determined Eurozone. All of the effort put into saving the group may be useless, but for now, all we can do is buckle up for a bumpy ride.

Filed under Economy, International

The Electoral College: Doing the Math – April 27, 2012

Comments Off

The Electoral College makes the rules for winning an election extremely clear: win 270 electoral votes, and the presidency is yours.  Because these electoral votes are allocated on a state-by-state basis, certain states are much more important than others.  These ‘swing states’ are the true deciders in American elections.  So, from a very preliminary glance at the electoral gameboard, with a focus on swing states, it is possible to gain some idea of how November’s election will turn out.

We will start with Mr. Obama.  From traditionally Democratic states, he will likely receive 227 electoral votes.  Unfortunately for him, that leaves 43 votes from uncertain swing states that he must win in order to reach 270.

Next, Mr. Romney.  From traditionally Republican states, I estimate him to earn an easy 180 electoral votes, 90 shy of victory.  This estimate means that Romney will have to win more than twice the amount of swing state votes than Obama, a possiblility, but by no means easy to do.

What are these swing states, anyway?  The list differs slightly depending on who you talk to, but in my opinion, FL, PA, OH, NC, VA, AZ, CO, IA, NV, and NH are all in play.  The swing states have been listed from highest to lowest number of electoral votes, meaning that the first few states are comparably much more important than the last few ones.

Only needing 43 of the 131 swing electoral votes, President Obama has a multitude of winning options.  Still, some paths to success seem more probable than others.  I for one feel that Obama will be able to win Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes, leaving him with 23 left to go.  But after Pennsylvania, states become much more difficult to call.  However, Mitt Romney’s disappointing performance in the Ohio primary makes Obama a slight favorite there, especially considering Obama won Ohio in 2008.  If Obama takes both Pennsylvania and Ohio, he could pick up the remaining five electoral votes he would need rather easily.  Obama won Nevada, Iowa and Colorado all by 9% or greater margins in 2008, and he would only need one of these states to secure victory given two wins in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

All those prognostications assume that Obama has lost Florida.  This is because (assuming Obama takes Pennsylvania) Florida is a must win state for Romney.  It would be mathematically impossible for him to gain a majority without it.  But even with Florida, Romney still needs 61 more  electoral votes for victory.  In a winning scenario, I can see him picking up Arizona, North Carolina and Virginia for 39 more.  But still 22 votes away, Romney would also need Ohio and one other state.

Wait, that’s a problem!  Ohio was already in the Obama totals.  A crucial state for both candidates, Ohio may be the deciding state for this election.  Then again, Obama is sure to fight a tough campaign in Florida as well.  What this means is that the two most important swing states are Ohio and Florida, and it looks like Romney will need both to win the election.  Obama, on the other hand, just needs one or the other.

Still, Romney has six months until the nation votes.  Preliminary electoral mapping gives us some ideas of how the election may shape out, but expect some surprises before November comes.  After all, the election season has just begun!

 

Filed under Domestic, Election 2012

RantAWeek Archives

Categories