It's All About Politics
Monday, November 28, 2005
UN Summit: reforming the UN institutions
However, important steps forward were undertaken in all four fields of negotiations: development, peace and Collective Security, Human Rights & the Rule of Law and the strengthening of the UN institutions. All the agreed commitments had the UN Summit play a significant role for both the social and economic diplomatic international scene. Therefore, initiatives from all parties are essential. However, one particular importance is placed upon the reform of the UN institutions. In fact, without having a well defined organizational model inside the UN any world moves are not realistic.
This paper will have a closer look at two of the 2005 UN Summit results which were part of the institutional reform and which need follow-up and implementation negotiations. These are: a) the newly strengthened UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and b) the Human Rights Council (HRC).The argument is that while the ECOSOC is not seen as a huge improvement in the structure of the United Nations institutions the Human Rights Council seems to be strongly politicized and therefore, in need or deeper reforms.
- ECOSOC: finding a third way?
- The Human Rights Council: what rights are to be managed
Doha Round: EU & US responses
Until now the negotiation process showed clear evidence of discriminatory multilateralism and regionalism. The major players in this debate are the US and the enlarged EU which must set up a common ground, and more importantly realistic goals for the current situation of world politics. The trade disputes between US and EU are rooted back to the 80’s and it still shows that the positive outcomes are not taking place and a compromise is difficult to find. The trade regimes which are now inflicted in both culture and national sovereignty make the situation even worse and a compromise is difficult to obtain.
New compromises have been made by both the US and EU but they are not enough. One reason lies on the fact that nowadays we are dealing with decisions at the macro-political level which must be first solved at the micro-political level. If the first condition is not accomplished the second one does not stand a successful outcome for more than two actors. Another reason may be the WTO itself which does not operate on the same principle as the old GATT. Therefore, a better agreement may be the answer because it is obvious that a best agreement can not be obtained. The trade in goods will always create losers & winners but it is important to be balanced by equal returns. In any way, the worst case is not to be part of the trade competition (Gilpin, 2005) or to tolerate any forms of inactive participation. The central field of the July 2004 Framework Agreement was the agriculture sector followed by the textile sector. Until new viable solutions are to be found on these fields new steps forward for the improving of the infrastructure in the less development countries makes no sense and sooner or later it will affect even the winners.
The main theme of this paper is the idea that the negotiations in the Doha Round are burdened by the private interests of both US & EU. EU’s over its exaggerations of social policies and US’s over-protectionist trade measures do not create a fair trade for the other signatories of the Doha Round. In other words, the principle of these negotiations does not mirror the world realities and there is no fair trade for the less developed nations. Other critics argue that the current Doha model stands for injuring even more the developing countries.
I based my argument on two principles: 1) the negotiations measures since 2001 showed an insufficient reform from both US and EU that mostly tried to hide the essential problems; 2) the endogenous tactics and primacy offered from both EU & US to their national interests in a time when the international diplomatic context should be their central objective.
- Where are we in the Doha Round?
- EU & US’ s agricultural reform
- Conclusions: market access
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Romania’s energy policy: challenges and opportunities
Finding more efficient ways to deal with the energy market is one of Romania’s highest priorities. The Governmental Ordinance 1535/18 of December 2003 which proposes a “Strategy for the use of renewable energy” is one step of the government’s strategy. However, the entire process is difficult because of the complexity of the actors involved. Furthermore, the use of natural resources needs efficient laws. Since 1995, the waves of privatizations in the energy sector and the financial help from international organizations have brought significant improvements at the national level. These actions must be continued and based on measures that are economically viable and environmentally accepted. If there is no positive long-term progress Romania’s membership in the EU’s structures can be costly later. This paper has a closer look at the pollution level in Romania, the privatization process and the use of renewable energy.
- Dealing with pollution
- The privatization: crossing the line into environmental issues
- The potential for renewable energy
Do you want to read the entire paper?Post a comment !
Saturday, July 02, 2005
Make poverty history or forgetting the essential
Under the shine and glitter of big names moving all over Europe and the “groovy atmosphere” promoted by Bob Geldof and Bono, the stopping of African poverty looks like an already accomplished task.
The political-philanthropically relationship is at its best. Dare to oppose these streams and you will be accused of being ungrateful.
However, the most important actors in this money cycle seem to be forgotten: the African leaders & the charity org. operating directly in Africa.
Is the poverty in Africa a new global aspect? Can there be an END, as promoted by Geldof & co.?
The answer to these questions is evidently NO. The poverty in Africa is not even closer to an end and for sure the money is not a way of solving it. As critics argue, the event stresses too much the importance of money raising without clearly defining the future governance in these poor regions.
If it is something “truly monumental” (effective) or just some good music Mr. Geldof remains to be seen!
“Live 8 global concerts under way”
“Bards of the powerful”/George Monbiot
“Silly, even sillier. And Geldof”/Bruce Anderson
Sunday, May 29, 2005
The EU Constitution : NO from the French voters
With a clear NO from the French side and another negative answer predicted from the Dutch voters on Wednesday, the question raised is What’s next for the future of EU ?
Monday, May 02, 2005
Positive views from France over the EU Constitution
His findings showed that the provinces outside the Paris do not associate voting YES for the constitution with Turkey or with the secularization.
Adrien Gaumé also found that the people want just more transparency from the EU constitution and to be aware of their rights.
The findings also reveal that people’s concerns are related to social and economical issues such as unemployment, moving around and social protection, after voting the EU constitution.
Arnold, Martin. “Surprise for Paris: the provinces see the EU poll very differently”. Financial Times. 2 May, 2005.
Full text of the Constitution
Reader-friendly edition of the EU Constitution
(you can also search words related to the EU from this blog)
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Martin Jahn, the Czech Republic’s Minister for Economic Affairs asks for more economical cooperation at the EU level
Therefore, he asked for solidarity between the MS.
Jahn also believes that the CO2 emission targets create an inequality among the EU member states and other important actors such as China and Russia.
He also considered that the affirmations made by the old member states that they are loosing money because of the new ones are not properly regarded because of the differences which exist among all the EU member states.
Jahn stated that the quality of the services is the relevant factor.
Finally, the official raised complains about the EU’s propose to liberalize services and the changes which were made to the EU’s Stability and Growth Pact.
IMF Policy Discussion Paper-Reforming the Stability and Growth Pact (Feb.2005)
The Economist- Czech Republic [ country profile ]