Ukraine should sell its gas pipeline to stabilize the region

From OilPrice.com

Gas supply, and the threat to that supply for Europe, is what has forced Russia to move aggressively on multiple fronts to defeat Ukraine in its efforts to modernize and westernize its economy, its future, and its way of life.

So, how to start the liberalization process? Ukraine has argued that its gas transportation system is a strategic asset. Business-minded people take issue with this interpretation, which ignores the commercial potential of the pipeline system. Now that we have come full circle in a long-brewing Ukraine-Russia gas war, perhaps the pipeline should be considered “strategic” — if not in the way the Ukrainian authorities have long understood. The pipeline system, worth $20 to $30 billion, can indeed play a strategic and tactical role in resolving Ukraine’s crisis with Russia, but only if it’s sold off.

Ukraine should sell 50 to 75 percent of it for cash to a consortium involving the EU, U.S. and Russia and operated by a U.S. business enterprise, preferably based in Houston. This can only happen if Russia agrees to remove troops and other proxies in eastern Ukraine and then works with Ukraine to secure the border and cease all low-intensity conflict efforts, including on the ground, and in cyberspace and the trade arena….

Read more at EconoMonitor : EconoMonitor » 5 Things Ukraine Must Do to Become Energy Independent.

Desperately seeking moderate Syrian rebels | Threat Matrix

By Lisa Lundquist:

Following the news that the Obama administration, in a sudden about-face, is asking Congress for $500 million to train and equip “vetted” members of the “moderate” Syrian opposition, The Associated Press yesterday published a list, headlined “Syrian rebels likely to receive US aid.” The list raises more questions than it answers — two of the listed groups have been designated by the US as terrorist organizations….

Read more at Desperately seeking moderate Syrian rebels – Threat Matrix.

The tragic record of American policy in the Middle East | BillMoyers.com

Investigative journalist Charles Lewis, author of 935 Lies: The Future of Truth and the Decline of America’s Moral Integrity tells Bill Moyer:

An outrageous thing happened. We lost $2 trillion. More than 100,000 people died. Folks are going to be maimed for life in the tens of thousands… And no one has ever acknowledged that this [Iraq] was a war on a lark. It was a complete war of choice, because a certain little faction wanted to do it and they orchestrated it… Did they make statements that weren’t true? The answer is yes…

 

A complicit partner, he says, is a media “intent on preserving the status quo …and never offending the ruling elite”.

Washington Post’s Walter Pincus:

More and more the media become, I think, common carriers of administration statements and critics of the administration….We’ve sort of given up being independent on our own.

Read more at Bill Moyers: Buying the War – How big media failed us

Andrew Bacevich: The End of American Exceptionalism | BillMoyers.com

Extended Interview: Andrew Bacevich
June 20, 2014

 

After the broadcast interview, Bill continued his conversation with military historian Andrew Bacevich about what America should do in the Middle East.

Bacevich draws parallels between the current Iraqi crisis and the Vietnam War, discusses our evolving relationship with Iran and challenges neoconservatives for their take on US foreign policy.

“My reading [of history] is of course there is evil in the world that needs to be taken into account and some time must be confronted,” Bacevich tells Moyers. “But let’s not kid ourselves: In somehow imagining that the United States represents all that is good and virtuous, we, ourselves, have committed many sins. And we ought to be cognizant of those sins before we go pronouncing about how the world ought to be run.”

Producer: Gina Kim. Segment Producer: Robert Booth. Editor: Sikay Tang.

Why US hard power failed in Iraq and elsewhere | Bill Moyers

Outstanding. Military historian Andrew Bacevich sums up the stupidity of US foreign policy and how repeated failures could be rectified. He exposes the “duplicity of ideologues” on calls for intervention in Iraq and discusses the moral responsibility to the people of Iraq. What can be done to alleviate the suffering of the people in Iraq? “There is remarkably little discussion as to cost if you want to bomb someone, but we suddenly become acutely cost-conscious if there is a proposal to assist them.”

 

Dick Cheney [at 06:00] in 1993, answering a question on the first Gulf war, predicted what would happen if Iraq was invaded: “…Once you take down Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq, then what are you going to put in its place? If you take down the central government in Iraq, you could easily see pieces of Iraq fly off…..it’s a quagmire.”

Projection of hard power by the US has not solved global problems over the last 50 years. In fact it has exacerbated problems in the Middle East. Soft power is far more effective. But it needs a change of mind-set on the part of the US. Don’t get me wrong. You still need Teddy Roosevelt’s “big stick” as a deterrent, but soft power — engineers, doctors and school teachers — are far more effective at winning people over to your world-view than B52s and unmanned drones.

Margaret Thatcher’s free market legacy | Charles Moore

Margaret Thatcher’s biographer Charles Moore discusses the former Prime Minister’s legacy. Moore provides insights as to how Margaret Thatcher’s stance on the market economy developed and how she popularised it. He seeks to outline her approach to foreign affairs, in relation to the EU, the US, and her broad approach to the Cold War.

http://vimeo.com/85613703

EUROPP – Divided Nations: Why global governance is failing, and what we can do about it

Ian Goldin, Professor of Globalization and Development at the University of Oxford, discusses the challenges of cross-border governance presented by globalization and presents 5 core principles necessary for a solution:

….Yesterday’s structures are not equipped to deal with today’s problems, but thankfully it is not too late. Aggressive action must be taken, and such action would be effective if it incorporates five core principles which I have developed together with my Oxford colleague, Ngaire Woods. First, global action is only required on global problems. Local jurisdictions matter and should continue to address local and national problems on their own terms.

Second, while not everyone must be included in global negotiations, inclusion of key actors is essential. It is an obvious point that if the biggest polluters are left out of climate change agreements, the agreement is useless—but this principle must be central to any reform efforts.

Third, efficiency is essential. Unwieldy bodies that include everyone are worse than nimble, exclusive bodies that involve the key players. Who are the key players? It depends on the issue. The small island nation of the Maldives, sinking from rising sea levels, should not be included in questions about regulating climate change but must be included on negotiations about mitigating its impacts. If small groups of key countries with much at stake are involved, gridlock can be broken.

Fourth, legitimacy is required for effective global governance. A system must be in place wherein countries may disagree with certain rules of the game, but accept the referees. Fifth, enforceability is paramount. None of these principles matter if they cannot be enforced.

Global governance is the challenge of our time. Our arsenal of stale institutions cannot cope with existing threats to peace, stability, and prosperity. Whether we like it or not, we are all in this together. It’s time we start acting like it.

Read more at EUROPP – Divided Nations: Why global governance is failing, and what we can do about it.

Has democracy failed us or have we failed it?

I came across this opinion piece I wrote for Memorial Day three years ago. How little has changed:

Who kept the faith and fought the fight;
The glory theirs, the duty ours.

I would like to make this quote from Wallace Bruce the theme of today’s newsletter on Memorial Day, May 30th.
We often take for granted the institutions that our ancestors sacrificed so much to secure. Have we fulfilled our duty to preserve the freedoms that they sacrificed so much for? And have we held the members of our institutions to account for the neglect of their duties?

Some legislators only wish vengeance against a particular enemy. Others only look out for themselves. They devote very little time to consideration of any public issue. They think that no harm will come from their neglect. They act as if it is always the business of somebody else to look after this or that. When this selfish notion is entertained by all, the commonwealth slowly begins to decay.

Little seems to have changed since Thucydides made this observation in about 400 BC, a century after the foundation of democracy in ancient Athens. The fundamental weakness of democracy seems to be that those who are elected to office tend to place their own interests ahead of the interests of their electorate — and ahead of the interests of the nation. Not surprising when, as Thucydides pointed out, they believe that little harm will come from their neglect. But if enough legislators place their own interests ahead of those of the country, they will cause irreversible damage.

The First Rule of Politics is to Get Re-Elected

By placing their own interests first, I do not necessarily mean that office holders seek to enrich themselves at the expense of the taxpayer — although that does occasionally happen. Rather that they define their primary duty to their country as re-election. The pressure to get re-elected is bound to influence their thoughts and actions on almost every issue.

The Presidential Cycle

The temptation to manipulate the system to maximize your chance of re-election is too great for most politicians to resist. In fact it has become so ingrained that the whole economy, and the stock market particularly, is subject to the political cycle. Jeremy Grantham explains the presidential cycle in his last quarterly newsletter:

In the first seven months of the third year (of the presidential cycle) since 1960, Year 3 has returned 2.5% per month for a total of 20% real (after inflation adjustment)…. Now, 20% is perilously close to the total for the whole 48-month cycle of 21%. This means, of course, that the remaining 41 months collectively return a princely 1%.

It’s the economy, stupid

The third rule of politics is don’t run for re-election during a recession. Ask George H. W. Bush who, despite successful prosecution of the first Iraq war, was beaten by Bill Clinton in 1992 with the slogan “It’s the economy, stupid.” (The second rule, by the way, is: never forget Rule #1)

Successive presidents/governments have failed to find a way to re-schedule elections to a time that bests suits them (despite many examples in the rest of the world). They soon, however, came up with an ingenious alternative: re-schedule the recession.

How to Re-Schedule a Recession

As soon as politicians realized they could spend future taxes as well as current taxes, the demise of the current system became inevitable. Prior to the Great Depression of the 1930s, governments were assessed on their ability to balance the books. Previous disasters with fiat currencies (continental and confederate dollars) were still fresh in the national consciousness. Only during times of war could they justify running a deficit. So much so that Herbert Hoover refused to run a deficit despite the deflationary spiral following the 1929 Wall Street crash.

When FDR lifted that constraint in the 1930s, with the acquiescence of a desperate public who were willing to try almost anything, an immense new power was born. Unfortunately with immense power comes immense responsibility — and successive governments have proved themselves unequal to the task.

Spend Future Taxes and Leave your Successor a Pile of Debt

It has become too easy for whoever is in power to spend future taxes to stimulate the economy and postpone a recession. The result is that their successor inherits a pile of debt, which if they attempt to repay, is likely to lead to a recession. So the game becomes one of pass the parcel, with each elected government adding to the debt and passing it on to the next.

If the ancient Greeks had the same power, the decline of Athens may have been a lot sooner. Their modern counterparts have demonstrated that the game cannot continue indefinitely. At some point the market will begin to question government’s ability to repay, raising interest rates to compensate for the risk of sovereign default. Their fears become a self-fulfilling prophecy, with higher servicing costs increasing the burden on the already-precarious fiscal budget.

Fed Compliance

The second actor in this modern form of Greek tragedy is the Federal Reserve. Without a compliant Fed, government efforts to kick the can down the road would be largely negated. An independent Fed could put the brakes on government efforts to stimulate the economy with borrowed money, merely by acting as a counter-balance to their actions. Unfortunately the Board of Governors are political appointments, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) may be more evenly balanced with the addition of the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and four of the remaining eleven Reserve Bank presidents, who serve one-year terms on a rotating basis, but is still dominated by the seven Board members. You can be sure that very few mavericks are appointed as governors and that most dissenting votes come from the regions.

Washington, Inc.

Elections are an expensive business and no candidate is likely to achieve re-election without financial backers, making them especially vulnerable to outside influence. The finance industry alone made $63 million in campaign contributions to Federal Candidates during the 2010 electoral cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That will buy you a lot of influence on the Hill, but is merely the tip of the iceberg. Interest groups spent $3.5 billion in that year on lobbying Congress and federal agencies ($473 million from the finance sector). While that money does not flow directly to candidates it acts as an enticing career path/retirement plan for both Representatives and senior staffers.

The revolving door between Capitol Hill and the big lobbying firms parachutes former elected officials and staffers into jobs as lobbyists, consultants and strategists — while infiltrating their best and brightest into positions within government; a constant exchange of power, influence and money. More than 75 percent of the 363 former senators or representatives end up employed by lobbying firms, either as lobbyists or advisors.

Can the Present System Evolve?

Are we likely to experience slow decay that Thucydides predicted? The present system is entrenched and likely to resist any attempts at reform. Evolution, however, does not occur in small increments. The norm is quite the opposite, with species enjoying long periods of stability followed by violent change when threatened with extinction. The current GFC presents just such an opportunity for change. The Tea Party movement, for example, is attempting to re-define the way that the system works, while I am sure that there are many Democrats who mistrust the motives of Washington.

If they fail to succeed, there is bound to be a next time. And probably sooner than we think.

The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its laws made by cowards,
and its fighting done by fools.

~ Thucydides (c. 460 BC – c. 400 BC).

Putin’s strategy: Turning Russia into China’s Ukraine

What is starting to dawn on Vladimir Putin is that, in a free-market system, one is more beholden to one’s customers than to one’s suppliers. It is easier for customers to take their business elsewhere than for suppliers to do so.

China’s biggest customers are Europe and the United States. Russia is attempting to switch their customer from Europe to China. That would move them further down, not up, the supply chain. As Prof Timothy Snyder points out:

…Putin would have to fall back on China, and Russia would become China’s Ukraine.