Showdown at Davos

Where to start?

The World Economic Forum summit of global leaders held this week at Davos, Switzerland, has been the economic equivalent of the shootout at the OK Corral.


(Putin speaks out at Davos' opening; Source: RT; Time: 31:20)

• 28 January: Vladimir Putin began the gunslinging by delivering a keynote speech indirectly accusing the U.S. and China of steering the world into economic gridlock, and also took a backhanded swipe at the ineffectiveness of the international community containing international crises, and even directly contributing to them: “Frankly speaking, we all know that provoking military and political instability, regional and other conflicts is a helpful means of distracting the public from growing social and economic problems. Such attempts cannot be ruled out, unfortunately.” Carefully parsed, it ignored Russia’s own complicity in many global crises and instead proposed Russia as the solution the world is waiting for. Aside from the inherent propagandistic nature of a national leader speaking before assembled dignatories, his half-hour long speech was filled with many sound fundamental arguments: a depreciation or write-off of bad debts, a return to fundamental economic bases, and a recognition of global economic interdependence: “We should not despair. This crisis can and must be fought, also by pooling our intellectual, moral and material resources.” After his prepared speech, he also turned down a question of assistance from U.S. technology leader Michael Dell. Thus, much of his rhetoric could be described as a sort of political “slap and tickle.” Stingingly rebuking, yet enticing of the possibilities.
  
  
• 29 January: In comparison, Putin’s keynote was placid and friendly compared to the heated exchange between Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Israeli President Shimon Perez: Talking about Gaza, Erdogan excoriated a defensive and vocal Perez, accusing the Israeli leader by saying, “You kill people,” and walked off stage. Perez had spent 25 minutes defending Israel’s position, while Erdogan had only gotten 12 minutes in response. He left with an ominous rebuke of the moderators and organizers, “I will not come to Davos again.” Though afterwards, he took time to note that he has maintained a position that anti-Semetism is a crime against humanity, he was supported in his abandonment of the discussion by Arab League Secretary Amr Moussa, who said of the Israeli leadership, “They don’t listen.” Erdogan’s wife went further, saying “All Peres said was a lie. It was unacceptable.”
  
  
• 29 January 2009: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao then verbally opened fire on the U.S. for leading the world down the primrose path into global recession. Not expressly naming his target, he spoke of “excessive expansion of institutions in blind pursuit of profit.” Besides the arresting headline quotes, the full text of his speech is revealing. Of course, China remained blameless in the international march of folly, even as it continues to use eminent domain to seize small farms and village houses to pave the way for giant state-run businesses, industrial plants and hydropower projects, often with little or no compensation. This was referred to obliquely by speaking of China’s plan to “push ahead comprehensive industrial restructuring and upgrading.” He neatly bypassed the issue of China fueling the financing crisis by being the primary beneficiary from buying up U.S. investments and securities, profiting greatly, and then dumping them, such as their withdrawal from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2008. The road to recovery included a stimulus package for China focused on helping for the rural and poor, investing in infrastructure and specifically mentioning earthquake protection. How much of this was said to reassure the global financial community, and how much was left to address the increasingly unhappy domestic audience of China remains an exercise for the audience. The other statement which could be taken as a staggering exaggeration of fact was this: “Steady and fast growth of China's economy is in itself an important contribution to global financial stability and world economic growth.” For it has been the rapid growth of China’s economy which has in many ways fueled food, resource, ecological and energy crises, and caused instability around the world. To alter the old axiom, “What is good for GM is good for America,” Wen Jiabao tried to argue in effect, “What is good for China is good for the world.” Maybe not so much. Lastly, his speech may have been more to paint a desired vision than an actual condition when he said, “There is harmony and stability in our society.” Again, maybe not so much.
  

This is not to utterly refute many of the good points each of the world leaders made in their various speeches, interviews and forums. There is a need to find harmony in the world. There is a need to create a more fundamentally sound economic equilibrium based in interdependence. Yet it seemed to many that something was lacking. Not least of which was the present U.S. President or a key representative of his new administration.

It behooves each world leader to admit their own nation’s contribution to the problem. Each can say many domestically-pleasing, often-too-safe and sage-sounding points, plinking their neighbors and rivals with rhetorical spitwads, and leave aside much of the trash in their own backyards. The harder work is in mapping a way past such parochialism.

It is all-too-easy to blame the West. Indeed, the U.S. is definitely culpable for much of the mess occurring in the world today. The EU as well. However, each nationstate on the planet is in its own way a contributor to and participant in the present crisis. In other ways, each is a necessary partner for the solutions.

What none of the global leaders seemed to be able to do was to offer a mea culpa, and accept responsibility for their part in the creation of the problem. The Chinese Premier described China specifically as a “responsible nation,” yet he meant that as a way to praise his regime’s leadership, not as an acceptance of its role in causing the present harm.

Of all the leaders, and even for all of his self-congratulatory praise of Russia, Vladimir Putin must be credited for being focused most on the future and the collective dialogue, rather than the insular defense of the status quo, celebration of past successes, or place in the present status.

The real question is which of the various world leaders in office today will step up to the role of key moderators of the global crisis. To gain the trust of others, they must be willing and capable of self-criticism, engendering in their peers the careful balance of spirit in admittance of fault, acceptance of error, while not lowering sights from an end-state goal.

Emergent powerhouse Brazil surely was not interested in such a role, with President Lula instead attending an “anti-capitalist jamboree.” The United States was pretty much sitting on the sidelines too, citing the transition of the new administration. The highest-level administration representative sent to the conference was Senior White House aide Valerie Jarrett.

The most upbeat of speakers featured in the headlines this week from Davos was former U.S. President Bill Clinton, who said:

“This financial crisis proves, as nothing else should or could, the fundamental fact that global interdependence is more important than anything else in the world today… We cannot escape each other. Divorce is not an option.

“This is not a time for denial or delay. Do something. Give people confidence by showing confidence… Don't give up. Don't bet against yourself. Don't bet against your country. This is still a good time to be alive.”

We can hope that, in due time, other presently-serving international leaders will echo similar sentiments, backed with cooperative international policies and plans providing a roadmap to the achievement of a new sustainable system of global economics.

Turkey's Inner Turmoil

More arrests in Turkey coup probe

The private ART television station was also being searched, the AFP reports

Up to 30 people have been arrested across Turkey in connection with an ongoing investigation into an alleged plot to topple the government.

Those detained include a union leader as well as a number of army officers and special force police officers.

Eighty-six people have been on trial since October, accused of an ultra-nationalist plot to stoke unrest and provoke the army to launch a coup.

Critics say the ruling AK party is simply arresting its secular opponents.

Around 30 people were detained in a separate wave of arrests earlier this month. [Read More]

Is it a coup plot, led by members of an elite police counterterrorism unit? Or is it an Islamic government repression of the opposition Turk Metal trade union? Was this special operations unit responsible for brutal murder of Kurds, or was it legitimately protecting Turkish law? Was it responsible for the false flag attacks on the Turkish court and newspaper, or is this a setup?

Turkey’s arrests today read like a fictional thriller. Yet this is quite a real crisis.

The weight of evidence, were it printed out, seems rather solid. There are 2,455 pages to the report. Which means that even legal scholars and human rights experts will need weeks or months to pore through the evidence presented in the indictment alone.

It is also possible that there is a general sweep occurring. A rounding up of the usual suspects, a la Casablanca. Opponents of the government contend that the state is rounding up people on the pretense of fighting corruption and crime. Others believe this is just serious business, and just the tip of the iceberg. If they try to round up too many suspects, there may be a backlash from the politically powerful armed forces. According to Ümit Kardaş, a retired military judge, speaking about the Ergenekon investigations in Today’s Zaman on 9 January 2009:

“I do not believe that Ergenekon marks the start of a general cleanup operation within the TSK (Turkish Armed Forces) because the TSK will resist such a move. It is not that easy to change the TSK. But behind the Ergenekon operations may be a consensus with the US to bring the TSK in line with NATO standards, under which interventions into politics through military coups are unacceptable,” Kardaş said.

Turkey, a nation of 74 million persons, has a patchy story around freedoms. According to Freedom House, it has a Political Rights score of 3, and Civil Liberties score of 3 (out of a scale of 1 = best, 8 = worst).

The Armenian community of roughly 75,000 persons, and some of the other 70,000 other Christians in Turkey might contend, due to Article 301, the 2007 assassination of Hrant Dink, and assassinations of Christian priests and community leaders in recent years, that a rating of 3 across the board may be on the high side. Likewise, the Kurdish minority of 12 million, though it now has a state-run Kurdish-language television station, has its own reasons to be leery of ultranationalist Turks.

Turkey is facing choices as to what sort of nation it wishes to be for the 21st Century. Kardas lays forth the issues surrounding Turkish repression and justice in an article from 14 January 2009 in Today’s Zaman:

“The Ergenekon process must have the foresight to expose the mentality of those who lust after power and who do not regard there being an ethical problem with transitions of power which are based on violence and deception, but it must do this by staying within the limits of law and ethics.”

— Ümit Kardas

It is quite possible Turkey is slowly building towards another coup d’état. After the left-wing coup of 1960, the right-wing coup of 1971, the Kemalist coup of 1980, and the bloodless “postmodern coup” of 1997, a modern decade seemingly cannot go by without the Turkish military forcing the handover of civilian control.

The question seems not to be whether the military will take a hand in the de facto alteration of the civilian government of Turkey, and in the repression of the state’s minorities and opponents, and more as to how heavy-handed their tactics will be.