Zakaria vs The Washington Post
Fareed Zakaria is making sense, and The Washington Post editorial page is not:
Consider the gambit with Russia. The Washington establishment is united in the view that Iran’s nuclear program poses the greatest challenge for the new administration. Many were skeptical that Obama would take the problem seriously. But he has done so, maintaining the push for more effective sanctions, seeing if there is anything to be gained by talking to the Iranians, and starting conversations with the Russians. The only outside power that has any significant leverage over Tehran is Russia, which is building Iran’s nuclear reactor and supplying it with uranium. Exploring whether Moscow might press the Iranians would be useful, right?
Wrong. The Washington Post reacted by worrying that Obama might be capitulating to Russian power. His sin was to point out in a letter to the Russian president that were Moscow to help in blunting the threat of missile attacks from Tehran, the United States would not feel as pressed to position missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic—since those defenses were meant to protect against Iranian missiles. This is elementary logic. It also strikes me as a very good trade since right now the technology for an effective missile shield against Iran is, in the words of one expert cited by the Financial Times’s Gideon Rachman: “a system that won’t work, against a threat that doesn’t exist, paid for with money that we don’t have.”
As Zakaria observes, the problems of the Bush years were not just the personal failings of George W. Bush; they reflected the pathologies of an establishment “that has gotten comfortable with the exercise of American hegemony and treats compromise and negotiations as appeasement.” But to operate in the world and advance our key goals, we need to understand that other countries have interests and objectives of their own.
52 Responses to “Zakaria vs The Washington Post”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 16th, 2009 at 10:24 am
i’d like to nominate zakaria for msnbc’s 10pm slot. it would be deeply beneficial to have an hour a day of someone smart talking about foreign policy, and i think it would elevate the debate.
March 16th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Raivo Pommer
raimo1@hot.ee
Die Linde-Aktien krise
Eine präzise Geschäftsprognose für das laufende Jahr wagte die Linde-Führung mit Verweis auf die unsichere weltwirtschaftliche Lage nicht. Umsatz und Ergebnis könnten 2009 leicht über oder auf dem Niveau von 2008 liegen. „Wir müssen aber auch einen Rückgang einkalkulieren“, sagte Reitzle. Erst in der zweiten Jahreshälfte werde sich der Umsatz- und Ergebnistrend abhängig von der Nachfrage verfestigen.
Analysten gehen im Durchschnitt von einem leichten Umsatzwachstum um 0,7 Prozent und einem Rückgang des operativen Ergebnisses im ähnlichen Umfang aus. Trotz der zu erwartenden Nachfrageschwäche will Linde sich im Gasegeschäft weiter besser entwickeln als der Markt und die Produktivität erhöhen. Die Planungen für 2009 reichten von einem leichten Umsatz- und Ergebnisanstieg bis hin zu einem Umsatz- und Ergebnisrückgang, erklärte Reitzle.
March 16th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Yeah, what raivo pommer said…
March 16th, 2009 at 10:35 am
i dunno, i think zakaria may be a secret soviet mole.
i mean–just look at that photo of him up there: he looks more and more like medvedev all the time!
March 16th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Agree with Fareed that we should be speaking to Russia as opposed to dictating our demands. Don’t agree that they have much to offer in the way of Iran…if our objective is to prevent them from building a weapon.
The Washington Post is just a bunch of hawkish Wilsonians that can’t bring themselves to recognize that they’re just more timid neocons. I love how they try and draw a fine line between what they believe vs. what the previous administration believed. While I’m no supporter of the previous administration, I will say that at least their military interventions were in areas of the world where we actually had interests. Contrast that to where the Post would like to send American troops.
BTW, don’t agree either that Fareed is that good. There are so many better FP commentators out there. But I will say that his program is a welcome addition to the CNN lineup.
March 16th, 2009 at 10:38 am
“a system that won’t work, against a threat that doesn’t exist, paid for with money that we don’t have.”
And so why would Russia bargain with us?
The US threat to deploy our non-existent anti-ballistics on Russia’s borders simply encourages and gives an excuse to Russian militarists, if reason be needed.
Medvedev was exactly right… there can be no quid pro quo and as the invasion of Georgia showed Obama’s fist impulse is to go down on Putin anyway. Barry has it as bad as Bush’s starry eyed romance with the tres butch KGB officer.
More to the point we will soon have Russian bombers based in Cuba and Venezuela.
Now THAT’S a bargaining chip!
March 16th, 2009 at 10:49 am
“there can be no quid pro quo and as the invasion of Georgia showed Obama’s fist impulse is to go down on Putin anyway. Barry has it as bad as Bush’s starry eyed romance with the tres butch KGB officer.”
Ironic that this comment was typed while JT was getting fucked in the ass by Richard Perle.
March 16th, 2009 at 10:53 am
BTW, don’t agree either that Fareed is that good. There are so many better FP commentators out there. But I will say that his program is a welcome addition to the CNN lineup.
Agreed. Fareed Zakaria is basically pretty much establishment, except that he’s not entirely disconnected from some sense of history and/or reality. Which makes him *seem* really awesome when you compare him against The Washington Post.
Zakaria is just basically pointing out that if you want to contain Iran, you need to negotiate with Russia. This should be non-controversial. But a country drunk on its own power – or perceived power – is going to have trouble recognizing that it has to compromise in some areas to get what it wants in others. This is the Washington Establishment for you: people who have taken their foreign policy lessons by reading everything from the National Interest to the Weekly Standard, and everything in between.
March 16th, 2009 at 10:54 am
…we need to understand that other countries have interests and objectives of their own.
It all goes pear-shaped after ‘understand’, maybe as early as ‘need’; cf. posts #6 and #7
March 16th, 2009 at 11:05 am
The Washington Post is really looking kinda pathetic.
The Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel has a scathing article on the Post’s campaign against Chas Freeman ,titled “Washington Post is a Neocon Propaganda Sheet” and available at
http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2009/031509Parry.shtml
March 16th, 2009 at 11:09 am
More to the point we will soon have Russian bombers based in Cuba and Venezuela.
Now THAT’S a bargaining chip!
You realize that you’re batshit crazy, right?
Besides, why would anyone give a flying fuck if there are some old Bears and Backfires down in Latin America, when they can still incinerate us in less than 25 minutes from the safety of a bunker thirty klicks from Moscow?
March 16th, 2009 at 11:14 am
As Zakaria observes, the problems of the Bush years were not just the personal failings of George W. Bush;
And Zakaria’s own. Wasn’t he for the Iraqi invasion?
March 16th, 2009 at 11:14 am
After the Washington Post issued a ranting editorial against Chas Freeman, labeling his complaints against the Israel Lobby a “crackpot theory”, the Post INVITED its readers to debate with the Editorial Board re the matter. When it when it received a barrage of posts supported Mr Freeman, it’s assistant editor Jackson Diehl ran and hide. Possibly because some posters were pointing out that Washington Post news articles themselves showed that Jackson was full of crap.
Transcript of the session is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/community/groups/index.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aa70e3396-6663-4a8d-ba19-e44939d3c44fForum%3aff69aa89-8e4e-40d1-bb35-f6d467b1e068Discussion%3a966dea0e-603f-429a-a0ed-f83093a4627e&sid=ST2009031201232
What kind of paper puts out editorials that its own reporters and editors are too embarrassed to defend?
March 16th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Re Greg at 12: “Besides, why would anyone give a flying fuck if there are some old Bears and Backfires down in Latin America, when they can still incinerate us in less than 25 minutes from the safety of a bunker thirty klicks from Moscow?”
————–
Because those bombers can cut off American oil imports at a drop of hat — oil tankers destined to the Houston/New Orleans refinery complex have to enter a narrow passage through the Caribbean reefs starting around an island called Grenada. Ring a bell?
Plus Russian airfields in Venezuela are well outside the range of fighters based on the US mainland. As i’ve noted before, the trade off our hideously expensive F22 fighters required for stealth is half the effective range of the F15 it replaces and very small bombs that have to be carried within its belly. It would be very hard for the US Navy to take down a Russian Fortress in Venezuela once it is established.
Plus Russian long range bombers out of Venezuela will be able to fly thousands of miles out into the Southern Atlantic –where we have no bases — and sink every fucking oil tanker in that long line back to the Persian Gulf.
Russian Submarines based in Cuba have always had the ability
to sink oil tankers once they were in the Gulf of Mexico, of course.
Jack Kennedy’s buttkissing entourage –Arthur Schlesinger,etc — who boasted of Kennedy forcing Krushchev to back down over the Cuban Missile Crisis were always full of shit, of course.
Propagandists exploiting the assassination to create the Camelot Myth.
Russian missile subs based in Cuban maintained Russia’s ability to hit US cities with nukes at short notice.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Re Don Williams
But of course, Congressman Frank Wolfs’ oped stating that Mr. Freemans’ attitude about Chinese dissidents and Tibet were the crucial factors in opposing Freeman and that he was never contacted by anyone from AIPAC or other Zionist organizations is ignored by Mr. Williams and his fellow Israel Bashere, including Mr. Yglesias. This of course because of their obsession with blaming everything in the world that goes bad on Israel.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031301856.html?sub=AR
March 16th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Shorter Don Williams: The Ruskies are coming!
March 16th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Two details:
1) A US base on Puerto Rico might help in a South Atlantic war — so long as it survived.
2) I believe there is a second passage through the Caribbean Reefs (Mona Passage?) but Cuban bases would cover that as well and it is narrow.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Note that the Russians withdrew from Cuba after the fall of the Soviet Union — so we have a narrow window to establish ties with Cuba before the Russians can reestablish past alliances.
Which is why the CubanAmericans in Florida who oppose any softening of US relations with Cuba are betraying the USA, are hurting the national interest, and should be kicked strongly in the nuts.
Needless to say, the Republicans whore for the Cuban Americans.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:36 am
The education of SLC:
Israel Stance Was Undoing of Nominee for Intelligence Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/washington/12lobby.html
It is just comical to see all those people suddenly caring so much about human rights in China, right between Obama begging Beijing for more money and Clinton assuring the Chinese that human rights is not a big concern anymore!
Of course, nobody believes them, except SLC (maybe).
March 16th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Not only the Russians but Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan President, have clarified that they only asserted the right and capability of Venezuela to ‘host’ Russian bombers, and there are no, zero plans whatsoever to do so.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Greg @ 12…
What is batshit crazy is to believe that the MAD doctrine ever made conventional warfare and power politics obsolete.
The last 70 years have proven quite the contrary.
Now why do you imagine Putin wants bombers based in Venezuela?
It is well to remember that K sent the missiles to Cuba so as force the US to remove its missiles from Turkey. Which the US did.
It was the Kennedy boys who blinked.
And Obama will blink as well.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:44 am
El Cid… Russian bombers in Venezuela and Cuba are at least as real as the US anti-ballistic missiles in Poland.
Which I suspect is the point.
Well that and to simply shove another up Obama’s ass.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Re SLC’s comment “But of course, Congressman Frank Wolfs’ oped stating that Mr. Freemans’ attitude about Chinese dissidents and Tibet were the crucial factors in opposing Freeman and that he was never contacted by anyone from AIPAC or other Zionist organizations is ignored by Mr. Williams and his fellow Israel Bashere, including Mr. Yglesias ”
————–
Au contraire SLC, I did not ignore Frank Wolf’s OpEd — I and many others responded to it on the Washington Posts comments section for the OpEd:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031301856_Comments.html
A copy of my posts there:
———————–
DonWilliams1 wrote:
It seems strange for Frank Wolf to criticize Chas Freeman for comments re Tinnenmen Square — when Israel was killing over 1000 people in Gaza, some of them children, Frank was out on the National Mall cheering them on: http://www.jcouncil.org/site/PageServer?pagename=JCRCGazaRaidStatements
What Frank Wolf considers to be principled opposition I consider to be two-faced hypocrisy and deceit.
What Frank Wolf considers to be service to the United States I consider to be contemptible prostitution for the Israel Lobby and betrayal of 4500+ US soldiers who have died from the deceitful propaganda of that Lobby.
3/13/2009 7:41:40 PM
—————
DonWilliams1 wrote:
The Israel Lobby didn’t have to give Frank Wolf detailed instructions re Chas Freeman for the same reasons I don’t have to give detailed instructions to my dog in the morning:
I only have to whistle.
3/13/2009 7:45:17 PM
———-
March 16th, 2009 at 11:54 am
The Russians offered Bush a military base in one of the Stans for the “missile shield”. Any missiles shot down would have landed in the Persian Gulf. Bush responded with why won’t you COOPERATE?! Let us use your missiles for tests?
The Washington establishment is united in the view that Iran’s nuclear program poses the greatest challenge for the new administration.
Surely this is not true for us.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
This sounds like the USSR’s plan to take over Iceland in Red Storm Rising. Thing is, what would be stopping us from unleashing a cruise missile hell on the country? We could hit every oil well, plaform and refinery, not to mention whatever airfields they flew out of.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
One would expect the PRESIDENT to set the tone for Washington DC re what is acceptable behavior.
So when the former Commander of Pacific Command , who is now Director of National Intelligence, requests the service of a specific expert on China, you would expect the President to support him. Especially against a noisy clique which has the deaths of 7500+ Americans on their hands.
Instead, President Obama decided that his oath to “preserve, protect and defend” this country was best served by caving to the Israel Lobby.
So it’s not surprising that a cur named Frank Wolf continues to bark.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Re Dave at 26: “Thing is, what would be stopping us from unleashing a cruise missile hell on the country? We could hit every oil well, plaform and refinery, not to mention whatever airfields they flew out of.”
——————
1) It depends upon who pulls the trigger first. bombing Venezuela won’t fill up the SUV if the Russian bombers strike first.
2) Another factor is The same thing that stopped us from bombing Cuba into rubble in the 1960s. It’s one thing to bomb the little brown people — it’s something else to kill several hundred military officers of a nuclear armed Superpower.
You gotta ask yourself: “Do I feel lucky?”
Well, do you, punk?
3) Plus the Russian knife at our economic carotid doesn’t necessary have to be used — it just has to be there as a deterrent whenever the US starts pushing in the Caspian Sea region.
Anybody heard from Georgia lately? Last I heard, Russians were building a new base a few miles from that big US oil pipeline– you know, the one’s that slated to run through Israel?
March 16th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Re dubois at 28: “In Don Williams Land … where every year is 1949.”
—————–
I’m already in my backyard, pacing off the boundaries of a planned fallout shelter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_from_the_Past_(film)
March 16th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
All we had to do to stop the Cuban Missile Crisis was take the missiles out of Turkey that started it.
Israel can kiss a couple of pipelines goodbye, I think the one from northern Iraq to Haifa ain’t gonna happen.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Re Don Williams
Well, Mr. Williams’ position is that anyone who had ever in his/her life said anything positive about the State of Israel is ipso facto unqualified to comment on events in China. Of course, Representative Wolf has been complaining about the events of Tienanmen Square for years, long before anyone including him, ever heard of Charles Freeman but his great sin was to say something positive about Israel.
It also seems strange for Mr. Williams to complain about Israel killing 1300 Palestinians in the recent Gaza activity and agree with Charles Freeman that the Chinese Government killing 2500 dissidents in Tienanmen Square was perfectly all right, just as he thinks that homicide bombers blowing up pizza parlors in Israel or terrorists launching Qassems at Sderot is perfectly all right.
Mr. Williams calls Representative Wolf a cur. Mr. Williams is a piece of filth.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Shorter SLC: “woof. woof”
The Chinese are many things but at least they do not kill innocents with American-supplied weapons and then demand we send them another $3 Billion per year. When 3000+ Americans were killed on Sept 11, it was not because of our support for China.
It was not Chinese American propagandists leading us into an unnecessary war after nonexistent nukes that killed another 4500+ of our citizens– and crippled thousands more.
But then Chinese Americans seem to know what country they’ve pledged their loyalty to.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
The Russians don’t care about the anti-ballistic missile system. They care about the powerful radar system that goes with it.
They also don’t want US soldiers near their border. As someone once said, “— it’s something else to kill several hundred military officers of a nuclear armed Superpower.”
March 16th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
The establishment’s latest craze is not so much the hegemony thing, but an obsession with bargaining positions, and with the appearance of strength and weakness.
They think we should negotiate with Iran, but that first we should spend several months tightening the noose, and looking like we are not that eager to negotiate with Iran. This tough negotiating stance is supposed to pay off down the road by enabling us to extract more concessions.
They probably think we should be willing to trade missile defense systems for Russian help against Iran, but that we shouldn’t say that we are willing to trade missile defense so early on, because then those wily, deceptive and hard-bargaining Ruskies will take us to the cleaners.
In this view of the world, negotiations are a brass ring that are always down the road somewhere, to be engaged in only after we have engaged in a sufficient posturing and displays of seeing intransigence and reluctance. As a sort of abstract theory of negotiations, these tactics obviously have a point. But, at some point you just have to drop the games and get on with it. No matter how reserved a posture you adopt, there will always be those who say you needed to adopt an even tougher posture. No matter how good a deal you get, there will be those who say you should have held out more for a better deal. No matter how strong a position you take, there will be those who say you were too weak.
The United States is an open society, and is an open book to the world. People abroad read about all our discussions. They know what our leaders and factions are thinking. We’re not good poker players, because our system doesn’t permit much deception. Let’s just get on with it.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Re Don Williams
When 3000+ Americans were killed on Sept 11, it was not because of our support for China.
And Charles Freeman says that it wasn’t because of our support for Israel either.
So when the former Commander of Pacific Command , who is now Director of National Intelligence, requests the service of a specific expert on China, you would expect the President to support him. Especially against a noisy clique which has the deaths of 7500+ Americans on their hands.
Hey, I thought that Mr. Freeman was being offered the job because of his expertise on the Middle East. But of course, in the gonzo world of Don Williams, he can’t be much of a Middle East expert if he has this delusion that 9/11 wasn’t due to our support of Israel. End snark.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Russia is planning on taking Iran’s spent fuel, anyway.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Williams,
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
The Jupiter and Thor missiles in Turkey took a long time to prepare for launch, were incredibly unreliabe and were very innaccurate. They were rendered redundant with the development of the Atlas ICMB which was more accurate, despite flying thousands of kilometers farther. The missiles the Russians were putting into Cuba could be launched on 5 minutes notice, had good reliablity, a 4000 mile range, and a new guidance system that allowed them the accuracy necessary to hit military targets in a first-strike.
By the way, your comment about Soviet subs is also ridiculous. By the time of the crisis, the best Russian sub-launched missile had a 600 km range and a 4 km innaccuracy. There were also very few of them. Most of their missiles had only 150 km range. They were launched from very loud subs that could be picked up in the open ocean and tracked.
There’s a reason why Khruschev lost his job.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Hiatt’s position makes more sense when you come to realize that there is an “unbreachable” wall between Editorial and News at the Washington Post: the traditional “journalists” are expected to remain aloof and unaffected by Editorial, and Hiatt and the editors are expected to remain completely ignorant of any facts that might be reported on the News side of things.
As Howie Kurtz has reported over and over, they are two entirely separate worlds.
March 16th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Re Njorl at 38: “Williams,
You don’t know what you’re talking about.”
——————-
Well, at least when I criticize a post, I know the name of the poster. The quote you cited was from JT’s post at 22, not one of mine.
And the Russian missile subs didn’t have to deploy off Norfolk, Virginia. They could hit some US cities just anchored in Cuba.
March 16th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
We had subs docked in Florida, that would have been a fine target for a short range missile.
But back to the topic—Iran—if we just ignored them, it wouldn’t change a thing.
March 16th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Plus I would think it would be easier to deploy missile subs long term if you could just anchor them in a friendly port part of the time and keep the nuclear pile at low output. Maintenance is easier and crew is happier. Plus you can just haul food in from the dock –instead of having to make a grocery run back to Murmansk.
I would also think it would be easier to deploy missile subs a 100 miles or so from a friendly port –protected by a friendly surface navy of own and allied ships — than to have to head back through chokepoints to a support base 10,000 miles away.
March 16th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Fine Don, consider it as a response to this:
The difference between missiles that can hit a city and missiles that can hit a missile silo site is significant. The sub launched missiles could not hit silos, in fact, they could even miss cities, they were so inacurate. The SS-5s the Russians were going to base in Cuba could hit missile silo sites. That makes them a first-strike weapon, or in the case of the Russians, a preemptive strike weapon.
In 1960, nobody was going to start a nuclear war by blowing up cities. It would either be a US first strike against military targets in response to a Russian conventional attack, or a pre-emptive Russian strike against US nuclear forces.
March 16th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Re Njorl’s comment : “The sub launched missiles could not hit silos, in fact, they could even miss cities, they were so inacurate. The SS-5s the Russians were going to base in Cuba could hit missile silo sites. That makes them a first-strike weapon, or in the case of the Russians, a preemptive strike weapon.”
—————
1) The Hotel Class Submarines carried three R-13 missiles, each with a 2 MT warhead (some say 1 MT.) Effective range –for destroying most buildings and setting them on fire –for an airburst would have been around 9 miles. So even with a CEP of 1-2 miles, you have a city killer.
Miami, Tampa and Orlando certainly. Probably Houston and New Orleans as well (R13 range was around 370 miles so sub would have to had gone out into the Gulf of Mexico to Hit Houston but could probably have been done with surface fleet support to protect against US ASW. Three R-13’s into the our oil refinery complex in the Houston -New Orleans areas would have diddled our economy — big oil pipelines radiate out from those areas throughout the USA.
I am skeptical that the Russians ever thought they could pull off a first strike given our dispersed nuclear forces –B52s,etc. Nukes were for holding a gun to our head in case we tried to exploit our relatively greater capabilities in that time era.
March 16th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Plus when the enemy gets strategic ground near your homeland, that just fucks you worse and worse as time goes on. Gibraltar was just as useful to Great Britain for controlling the western door of the Med in 1940 as it had been in 1740.
Maybe Russian missile subs in Cuba could not reach much of the mainland USA in 1962 — but they sure as shit could today. And with great accuracy.
It is one thing for US attack subs and ASW forces to track and prepare to attack Russian missile subs in the Atlantic off Bermuda –you have SOSUS, etc. IT would be quite a different matter to go after subs in the shallow waters off the coast of Cuba, when they are protected by forces based on Cuba.
The relative disadvantage cheap diesel electric subs have relative to US nuclear attack subs in the worlds oceans greatly dwindles when they are deployed in shallow waters close to friendly ports.
March 16th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Does it take a bit of paranoia to honestly think that the Iranians could develop a nuclear bomb, develop a missile capable of hitting the US, roll the missile out, install the missle, fuel it up, etc to an above ground launch pad and then launch it with a 100% assurance that all would goes as planned and incinerate say NYC??? And without anyone, (US, Israel, Russian, et al) knowing anything about any of it??? And do the iranians think that if all goes well no one will have any idea of who did it and therefore would be able to reduce Tehran to a nuclear waste land via nuclear retaliation. As mad and evil as the Soviets were and as we portrayed them MAD worked pretty effectively to forestall nuke attacks for 40-50 years. Now 1 small country has not yet 1 small bound with no way to deliver it or deliver it undetected. Might make a good Tom Clancy book but doesn’t seem like a reasonable scenario to base a foreign policy on. Comments?
March 17th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Guy in the picture looks uncannily like Nigel Farage.
March 31st, 2009 at 7:35 am
Raivo Pommer-eesti-www.google.ee
raimo1@hot.ee
3,6 Millionen Arbeitslos
Die Zahl der Arbeitslosen in Deutschland stieg im März um 34.000 auf 3,586 Millionen. Das waren 78.000 mehr als im März vor einem Jahr, wie die Bundesagentur für Arbeit (BA) berichtete.
Die Arbeitslosenquote nahm um 0,1 Punkte auf 8,6 Prozent zu. “Der konjunkturelle Abschwung wirkt sich zunehmend auf den Arbeitsmarkt aus”, sagte BA-Vorstandschef Frank-Jürgen Weise. Allerdings habe Kurzarbeit dem stabilisierend entgegengewirkt. In den vergangenen Jahren hatte der Frühjahrsaufschwung im März zu sinkenden Arbeitslosenzahlen geführt.
March 31st, 2009 at 11:14 am
Raivo Pommer-eesti-www.google.ee
raimo1@hot.ee
PARIS
Den Betrag von einer Milliarde Euro hatte das Pariser Finanzministerium im Februar 2008 als mögliche Steuerausfälle des französischen Staates in der Liechtenstein-Affäre genannt.
Haushaltsminister Eric Woerth bestätigte am Dienstag, dass drei Fälle von Unternehmen an die Justiz weitergegeben worden seien. Er wolle aber die Angaben der Zeitung zu den Namen betroffenen Firmen “weder dementieren noch bestätigen”, sagte Woerth im Sender LCI.
Ziel der Ermittlungen müsse es sein, die Wahrheit aufzudecken, “über das, was in der Vergangenheit passiert ist, woher das Geld in diesen drei Affären kam”. Und schließlich gehe es darum, ob Steuern nachgefordert und Strafen verhängt werden können.
Total wies inzwischen einen Bericht zurück, wonach der Konzern in Liechtenstein eine Stiftung unterhalte, über die Gelder am Staat vorbei geschleust würden. Ein Sprecher sagte, das Unternehmen betreibe in dem Fürstentum lediglich zwei Tankstellen. Michelin teilte mit, man habe kein einziges Konto in Liechtenstein.
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:52 pm
raivo pommer-eesti-www.google.ee
raimo1@hot.ee
EZB BANK KRISE
Die Europäische Zentralbank hat bei ihrer Ratssitzung in Frankfurt ihre Entscheidung getroffen: Der wichtigste Zins zur Versorgung der Kreditwirtschaft mit Zentralbankgeld verringert sich um weitere 0,25 Prozentpunkte auf 1,25 Prozent.
Experten hatten mit einer deutlicheren Senkung auf ein Prozent gerechnet. Seit Oktober hatte die EZB den Leitzins damit bereits um insgesamt drei Prozentpunkte verringert. Eine Null-Zins-Politik wie sie etwa in den USA derzeit gilt, lehnt die EZB bislang ab.
Die Entscheidung der EZB wirkt sich direkt nur auf die Banken aus: Der Leitzins gibt vor, zu welchen Bedingungen sich die Institute Geld leihen können. Dies hat indirekt aber auch Folgen für Bankkunden – welche genau, können aber auch Fachleute nur anhand der bisherigen Entwicklung vermuten. So geht die Finanzexpertin der Verbraucherzentrale Rheinland-Pfalz, Sylvia Beckerle, davon aus, dass sich der bisherige Trend zu niedrigeren Sparzinsen fortsetzt: “Die Zinsen für die Anleger werden weiter nach unten gehen.”
Welche Folgen hatte der niedrigere Leitzins bisher?
Die Zinsen vor allem für Tagesgeld und Festgeld sind in den vergangenen Wochen wesentlich deutlicher gesunken als die für Raten- oder Hypothekenkredite, wie der Finanzberater der Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Württemberg, Niels Nauhauser, sagt: “Die Anlagezinsen wurden rasch gesenkt, die Darlehenszinsen bleiben oben.” Das sei immer so, habe sich aber in der Finanzkrise verschärft, weil die Banken die Gewinne noch mehr bräuchten
Angebote über vier Prozent finden sich inzwischen kaum noch, sagt Helga Petersen-Kunz von der Verbraucherzentrale Hessen. Überdurchschnittliche Zinsen gebe es bei ausländischen Banken, einzelnen Instituten in Deutschland und Autobanken. Der aktuelle Schnitt liegt Nauhauser zufolge beim Festgeld auf sechs Monate bei 2,6 Prozent, beim Tagesgeld bei 2,7 Prozent.
April 4th, 2009 at 11:15 am
raivo pommer-eesti-www.google.ee
raimo1@hot.ee
Schwedische Börse profitiert von kompetitiver Abwertung und billiger kroner
Kaum ist der „großartige“ G-20-Gipfel vorbei, so fallen an den internationalen Finanzmärkten die Tarnkappen. Nachdem die makroökonomischen Ungleichgewichte und Währungen offensichtlich bei den Diskussionen kaum eine Rollen spielten, kehren die Anleger im Rahmen des in den vergangenen Tagen aufgekommenen Wirtschaftsoptimismus zu altbewährten Strategien zurück.
Sie lassen am Devisenmarkt mit den Yen und dem Schweizer Franken die üblichen Verdächtigen abwerten. Denn erstens haben diese Staaten ihre Zinsen schon immer tief gehalten. Zudem machen sie inzwischen mit „unkonventionellen geldpolitischen Maßnahmen“ deutlich, dass sie unbedingt schwache Währungen haben wollen, um den kompetitiven Status ihrer Exportbereiche zu wahren oder gar im Vergleich mit konkurrierenden Staaten zu verbessern.
Schweden macht vor, wie das gehen kann. Der reale effektive Wechselkurs des Landes läuft schon seit Jahren im Trend nach unten. Und in den vergangenen Wochen haben sie auf die globale Wirtschaftsschwäche, die sich im kleinen, stark am Export orientierten Land deutlich bemerkbar macht, mit massiven Zinssenkungen reagiert. Die schwedische Zentralbank hat den Leitzins mit massiven Schritten von 4,75 Prozent noch im Oktober des vergangenen Jahres auf zuletzt ein Prozent gesenkt. Genau das ließ die schwedische Krone gegen den Dollar um 30 und gegen den Euro um bis zu 20 Prozent abwerten
April 4th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
raivo pommer-eesti-www.google.ee
raimo1@hot.ee
Lob von Soros
Vor einem Jahr sei es noch nicht vorstellbar gewesen, dass man jetzt mit Luxemburg und Österreich über die OECD-Standards verhandeln könne.
Steinbrück wertete es als “riesigen Fortschritt”, dass Steuerparadiese wie die britischen Kanalinseln Guernsey oder Jersey sowie die Isle of Man oder die Cayman Islands und Singapur sich alle bei der Bundesregierung meldeten und erklärten, sie seien bereit, auf die OECD-Standards einzugehen. Steuerparadiese sollen künftig viel stärker kontrolliert werden.
Auch der Großinvestor George Soros hat die G20-Staaten für ihr entschlossenes Vorgehen gegen die Finanz- und Wirtschaftskrise gelobt. “Das kann sehr wohl ein Wendepunkt werden, denn die Regierungen haben sich zusammengeschlossen und handeln gemeinsam“, sagte Soros in einem Interview dem Fernsehsender BBC über das Gipfeltreffen, bei dem die 20 wichtigsten Industrie- und Schwellenländer am Donnerstag 1,1 Billionen Dollar für die Weltwirtschaft freigemacht haben.
“Ich glaube, sie haben es definitiv geschafft.” Soros hatte vor dem Treffen erklärt, es gehe in London um alles oder nichts. Die Staaten hätten eine weitere Verschärfung der Krise verhindert, wie sie vor allem für Osteuropa zu befürchten gewesen sei, betonte der Multimilliardär.
“Ich würde sagen, sie sind das erste Mal einen Schritt voraus”, sagte Soros auch dem US-Sender CNBC. “Sie haben mehr zustande bekommen, als ich erwartet habe. Es ist ihnen tatsächlich gelungen, ein paar Hasen aus dem Hut zu zaubern, und nach meinem Dafürhalten ist die Abschlusserklärung sehr beeindruckend.”
Soros hob vor allem den britischen Premierminister und Gipfel-Gastgeber Gordon Brown hervor. “Er hat die Dimension des globalen Problems begriffen. Der weniger entwickelten Welt droht ein Zusammenbruch, weil die Banken ihre Kredite nicht mehr verlängern, und deswegen musste etwas getan werden.“
Die G20-Staaten haben unter anderem die Reserven des Internationalen Währungsfonds um 500 Milliarden Dollar aufgestockt. Nun stehen dem Fonds 750 Milliarden Dollar zur Verfügung, um geschwächten Staaten unter die Arme zu greifen.