Parliamentary elections in 2008 – a game without stakes for electorat

Exit-Poll CCSB:

PSD (Social Democrat Party) – PC (Conservator Party)   36,5%

PD – L  (Democrat Liberal Party)      30.6%

PNL     (Liberal Party)      20.4%

UDMR        7.3%

After a chaotic campaign that rather managed to demobilize the electorate, a sign that parliamentary elections were caught unprepared parties for the new standard required by uninominal vot, (campaign that I was immune to a comment in order not to offend (forgive my lack of modesty) dowry intelligence with me have given my parents,) the outcome of elections (with participation in the vote below 45%) showed clearly that Romanians do not believe in the promised reform of the political class.

Sign that Romania is far from having a mature political class and responsible attitude was the reaction of principalls leaders of political parties after finding the exit – poll sites, an attitude of victory (more specifically, defeated the nerve to explain how that actually are winners).

If it was something to gain collateral, surely this is failure of President Basescu to impose PD-L in voter preference and to government Romania through a presidential party – the model of ex-Soviet countries. Which party should have to level his way for a second term, in presidential elections next year; the possibility that Traian Basescu to record a resounding failure in the presidential race is increasingly predictable, as the current configuration of the Romanian political scene. Currently, President Basescu has made a choice: either ignore popular vote and lead their party in government (in an alliance with PNL and possibly UDMR), that move would satisfy the circle of interest tied PD-L, but will and bring more enmity from the electorate, or accept a government the PSD – PC aliance, that to attack constantly (as  proceeded with the government PNL), especially under conditions of economic crisis is increasingly acute, in the hope that it will able to recover the lost popularity.

Certainly the Romanian electorate has endorsed only the first part of the electoral slogan: “They with them, we with your.” Romanians understood that the fight in these elections was the politicians, with them and between them, and that it had no connection, beyond populist promises, with real problems of Romania.

Excuses for my loyal readers of blogs.mail.ru

Since access to blog on platforma @blogs.mail.ru experiencing serious technical problems, I hope that in the next day I’m able to transfer all the posts on this blog there. And expect better times when the platform will work in optim conditions. Excuses for loyal readers of the blog in question. And welcome on this blog !

Who are the people whose advice will be based Barack Obama?

Obama’s team will confront an economic crisis that continues to deepen in spite of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal emergency spending in recent weeks. In the latest bailout, the U.S. government announced late Sunday it had agreed to shoulder hundreds of billions of dollars in possible losses at the banking giant Citigroup, and to put a fresh $20 billion into the stricken company. Presidente election Barack Obama explain his plan but declined to say how big a spending package he wants to revive the economy, adding that he was awaiting a recommendation from his economic team. Some Democratic lawmakers are speculating about a two-year measure as large as $700 billion. Obama would only say that “it’s going to be costly.”

Who are the people whose advice will be based Barack Obama?

The first named by president-elect was Timothy Geithner, the New York Federal Reserve president, as his treasury secretary. Geithner was born in Brooklyn, New York City, the son of Deborah and Peter F. Geithner of Larchmont, New York. He completed high school at International School Bangkok, Thailand, and then attended Dartmouth College, graduating with a A.B. in government and Asian studies in 1983. He obtained an M.A. in International Economics and East Asian Studies from Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies in 1985. After completing his studies, Geithner worked for Kissinger and Associates in Washington, D.C., for three years and then joined the International Affairs division of the U.S. Treasury Department in 1988. He was deputy assistant secretary for international monetary and financial policy (1995–1996), senior deputy assistant secretary for international affairs (1996-1997), assistant secretary for international affairs (1997–1998). He was Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs (1998–2001) under Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers. Summers was his mentor, but other sources call him a Rubin protégé. In 2002 he left the Treasury to join the Council on Foreign Relations as a Senior Fellow in the International Economics department. At the International Monetary Fund he was director of the Policy Development and Review Department (2001-2003). In October 2003, he was named president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Once at the New York Fed, he became Vice Chairman of the Federal Open Market Committee component. In 2006, he also became a member of the Washington-based financial advisory body, the Group of Thirty. In March 2008, he arranged the rescue and sale of Bear Stearns. As a Treasury official, he helped manage multiple international crisis of the 1990s in Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand. Geithner believes, along with Hank Paulson, that the Treasury Department needs new authority to experiment with responses to the financial crisis of 2008.

Geithner, will team with Lawrence Summers, a treasury secretary under former President Bill Clinton and former Harvard University president, who will take over the National Economic Council. Summers born in New Haven, Connecticut, on November 30, 1954, Summers is the son of two economists – both professors at the University of Pennsylvania – as well as the nephew of two Nobel laureates in economics: Paul Samuelson (sibling of father Robert Summers, who, following an older brother’s example, changed the family name from Samuelson to Summers) and Kenneth Arrow (his mother Anita Summers’s brother). He spent most of his childhood in Penn Valley, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Philadelphia, where he attended Harriton High School. At age 16, he entered the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he originally intended to study physics but soon switched to economics (S.B., 1975). He was also an active member of the MIT debating team. He attended Harvard University as a graduate student (Ph.D., 1982), where he studied under economist Martin Feldstein. He has had stints teaching at both MIT and Harvard. In 1983, at age 28, Summers became one of the youngest tenured professors in Harvard’s history. In December 2005, Summers married a Harvard English professor, Dr. Elisa New. Summers has three children by his first wife, Victoria Perry.

Obama also named three others members on his economic team:

Christina Romer as director of the Council of Economic Advisers. Romer is a U.C. Berkeley professor of economics, and co-director of monetary economics at the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Melody Barnes as director of the Domestic Policy Council. She has been co-director of the Agency Review Working Group for the Obama transition team, and also served as the senior domestic policy advisor to Obama during the campaign. Barnes previously worked at the Center for American Progress and as chief counsel to Sen. Ted Kennedy.

Heather Higginbottom as deputy director of the Domestic Policy Council. She was Obama’s policy director during the campaign and earlier served as Sen. John Kerry’s legislative director.

Conform CBC, over the last weekend, Obama directed his team to construct a plan to create 2.5 million new jobs by the end of 2010, and aides said his broader economic program was designed to quickly offer tax relief to lower- and middle-income earners.

interview W.F. Engdahl-part 2

According to German Analyst F.W. Engdahl: There is no such thing as ‘EU Energy Independence’

По мнению немецкого аналитика FW Engdahl: “Существует нет такого понятия, как “энергетической независимости ЕС”

F. William Engdahl, is a famous economist and writer, author of the best-selling book on oil and geopolitics, “A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order”, which has been translated into French, Arabic, Korean, German, Croatian and Turkish. In 2007, he completed “Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of GMO”. He has written on issues of political economy, geopolitics, energy, Worl Trade Organization (WTO), Internaţional Monetary Fund (IMF), for more than 30 years, beginning with the first oil shock and world grain crisis in the early 1970s. He currently lives in Germany and in addition to writing regularly on issues of economics, energy and international affairs, is active as a consulting geopolitical risk economist. In this fall is expected publication of the new book “Entire Dominate Spectru: Plans Geopolitice Backs Raising the Global Military Force to Washington”.

Considering the previous question (about moves USA and sales weapons), can Russia’s actions be set in the registry of a speculative intelligence or of asimetric answer? I take into account that in this year, before and after conflict with Georgia, Russia signed a couple of important agreements related to third party weapon selling contracts (e.g. Syria, Venesuela, China) and has intensified its military
exercises etc.

Russia is responding in an entirely assymetrical manner. They are upping cooperation with Venezuela and other nations in the so-called ‘Monroe Doctrine’ countries of Latin
America, forcing USA to respond there; they are upping Russian energy diplomacy in Central Asia and beyond, adding to links with nominally NATO countries in EU. They are also responding with increased military exercises designed to signal neutral or uneasy new NATO members from former Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact that NATO may not be the best security for them as USA is poorly prepared to step in to help. Important: Russia is responding by giving $5.4 billion emergency loan to Government of Iceland in its banking crisis, a neglected but now once more strategic NATO member.

As a result of the political instability and the present crises in Ukraine, which lead to
new anticipated elections, is it possible to exist a delaying of granting the MAP ? Shall we have a Ukraine about to return under the protective wing of Russia?

In Ukraine anything is possible. More, I would imagine Moscow is using all its economic and persuasive influence (directly or through intermediaries ) to try to support a non-NATO resolution of the crisis. From my point of view, the collapse of the Government in Kiew is directly related to events in Georgia.

Analyzing Prime-Minister Putin movings in some ex-soviet countries (Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkmenistan, etc), but relations with Iran too, and the economic contracts already signed or about to be signed, we may notice that Russia is doing whatever is necessary to realize a full control over the energy market in the area. Under these circumstances, is there any sense in continuing projects such as Nabucco to contribute to the energetic independence of Europe?

Nabucco is a very political project which is backed by Washington as an attempt to wean the region and the EU away from dependence on Russian natural gas. Nabucco is very
badly conceived and bogged down in endless quarrels at the moment. What speaking about ? There is no such thing as ‘EU Energy Independence’.
The EU realizes this which is why their response to the events of August in Georgia were so muted opposed to that of Washington.

Washington policy is precisely to drive a deep wedge between the EU countries, especially Germany, and Russia. They have not succeeded to date.

About the same subject. Regarding an integrated attitude of declarations and actions, will Europe find a way to communicate in a cohesive voice with Russia?

The EU itself is hopelessly split. It have governments like that of Tusk in Poland where the Foreign Minister Sikorsky is a neo-conservative trained in Washington, and it have nationalist governments trying to defend national interests as best as possible. In such a mixture of political and economic interests different is hard to find a common tone. Washington policy to the EU is and always has been: Divide et impera – Divide and rule.

There have been various speculations about a new cold war, a new iron curtain, isolating Russia. To what extent, at the beginning of the 21st century – under the actual circumstances of a more and more obvious globalization – something like
that can be possible?

The Old Cold War in a real sense never ended. One side – The USSR ended it, dissolved the Warsaw Pact and the USSR disintegrated. The other party refused to initiate comparable confidence building steps of winding down NATO, Instead it expended NATO very aggressively east to incorporate every possible former Warsaw Pact member. The attempt by Washington to push Georgia and Ukraine into NATO and to place Missiles and US-controlled missile defense in Poland and Czech Republic shows the farce of the end to the Cold War. The January 2007 US declaration that it would place US missiles and missile defense in Poland and Czech Republic, if you will, can be called the new onset of a New Cold War.

President Medvedev spoke about new security architecture inside a multipolar world. Let’s analyze this concept and to what extent it is possible to materialize it. What I have so far seen from the Russian press summaries, president Medvedev proposes a closer relation between Russia and the countries of EU, which is understandable and all to the good in my view. We need more details on concrete proposals from the Russian side, but the EU would do well in my view to respond to Medvedew seriously and propose dialogue on it.

interview conducted by Gabriela Ionita

Published in Cadran Politic Review – nov. 2008
http://www.cadranpolitic.ro/view_article.asp?item=2685

interviu W.F. Engdahl – part 2

Potrivit analistului german F. W. Engdahl: “Nu există defel «Independenţa Energetică a UE»”

- În contextul întrebării precedente, mutările Rusiei pot fi încadrate în registrul inteligenţei speculative sau al unui răspuns asimetric ? Am în considerare că pe fondul conflictului din Georgia, Rusia a semnat câteva contracte importante privind vânzările de armament către terţi (Siria, Venezuela, de exemplu), şi-a intensificat exerciţiile militare etc.

W.E.: – Rusia răspunde într-o manieră total asimetrică. Există colaborări la nivel înalt cu Venezuela şi cu alte state din America Latină care urmează aşa-numita “Doctrină Monroe”, forţând SUA să dea un răspuns; există relaţii diplomatice energetice ruseşti la nivel înalt în Asia Centrala şi, mai mult chiar, legături cu anumite ţări NATO din UE. Răspunde, de asemeni, cu exerciţii militare sporite menite a transmite un semnal, neutru sau nu, că pentru noii membri NATO din fosta URSS sau din Pactul de la Varşovia este posibil ca NATO să nu le poată oferi cea mai bună protecţie, având în vedere că SUA sunt mult prea puţin pregătite să poată interveni în caz de nevoie. Important: Rusia răspunde prin împrumutarea guvernului Islandei cu un credit în valoare de 5.4 miliarde dolari în timpul actualei crizei financiare, Islanda fiind un membru NATO neglijat, dar acum destul de strategic.

- Va exista o amânare a acordării MAP-ului Ucrainei ca urmare a instabilităţii politice si a actualei crize, în care se va ajunge la noi alegeri anticipate ? Vom avea o Ucraină ce va reintra sub aripa protectoare a Rusiei ?

W.E.: – În Ucraina orice este posibil, dar îmi imaginez că Moscova îşi va folosi influenţa economică şi persuasiunea (direct sau prin intermediari) în încercarea de a sprijini o rezoluţie non – NATO a crizei. Din punctul meu de vedere, colapsul guvernului de la Kiev este legat direct de evenimentele din Georgia.

- Analizând mutările premierului Putin în unele din ţările fost sovietice (ex. Kazahstan, Azerbaidjan, Armenia, Turkmenistan), dar şi în relaţia cu Iranul, precum şi contractele economice preconizate sau semnate deja, se poate observa că Rusia face tot ce este posibil pentru a realiza un control total al pieţei energetice din zonă. În aceste condiţii, mai au vreun sens proiectele gen Nabucco de a contribui la independenta energetică a Europei ?

- W.E.: Nabucco este un proiect mai mult politic care este susţinut de Washington ca o încercare de a elimina dependenţa regiunii şi a UE de gazul natural rusesc. Nabucco este conceput destul de prost şi prins momentan în răfuieli fără sfârşit. Nu există defel “Independenţa Energetică a UE”. UE realizează astfel de ce răspunsul lor la evenimentele din august din Georgia a fost atât de slab faţă de cel al Washington-ului. Politica Washington-ului este în mod sigur acea de a adânci prăpastia dintre ţările UE, în special Germania, şi Rusia. Până acum, n-a avut prea mari succese.

- Va reuşi Europa să găsească o cale de a dialoga pe o singură voce cu Rusia, în sensul unei atitudini unitare atât la nivelul declarativ cât şi la cel faptic ?

W.E.: – UE în sine este divizată iremediabil. Există guverne la nivelul Uniunii cum ar fi cel al lui Tusk în Polonia unde ministrul de externe Sikorsky este un neo-conservator, educat de Washington, şi există guverne naţionaliste care încearcă să-şi apere interesele naţionale cât mai bine posibil. Într-o astfel de mixtură de vederi politice şi interese economice diferite e greu de găsit un ton comun. Politica Washington-ului faţă de UE este şi va fi întotdeauna: Divide et empera – dezbină şi cucereşte.

- S-a tot speculat privitor la un nou război rece, o nouă cortină de fier, izolarea Rusiei. În ce măsură, la început de sec. XXI – în condiţiile actuale ale unei globalizări din ce în ce mai evidente – mai poate fi posibil aşa ceva ?

W.E.: – Vechiul Război Rece nu s-a încheiat, în realitate, niciodată. O parte – URSS, l-a încheiat, a dizolvat Pactul de la Varşovia şi URSS s-a dezintegrat. Cealaltă parte a refuzat să iniţieze paşii necesari pentru construirea încrederii, extinzând în schimb NATO foarte agresiv înspre est, încorporând toate statele posibile foste membre ale Pactului de la Varşovia. Încercarea Washington-ului de a împinge Georgia şi Ucraina înspre NATO şi de a plasa rachete şi scuturi de apărare controlate US în Polonia şi Republica Cehă arată farsa încheierii Războiului Rece. Declaraţia SUA din ianuarie 2007 potrivit căreia vor fi amplasate rachete US precum şi scutul de apărare anti-rachetă din Polonia şi Republica Cehă, poate fi interpretată ca instaurarea unui nou Război Rece.

- Preşedintele Medvedev a vorbit despre o nouă arhitectură de securitate, în cadrul unei lumi multipolare. În ce măsură e posibilă concretizarea unui astfel de proiect ?

W.E.: – Din ceea ce am văzut până acum din rezumatele de presă ruseşti, preşedintele Medvedev propune o relaţie mai apropiată între Rusia şi ţările UE, ceea ce e de înţeles şi benefic, din punctul meu de vedere. Avem nevoie de mai multe detalii asupra propunerilor concrete din partea Rusiei, dar UE ar acţiona inteligent, consider eu, dacă i-ar răspunde lui Medvedev în mod serios şi i-ar propune un dialog.

Gabriela Ioniţă

Publicat în Cadran Politic, nr. 61, nov. 2008

http://www.cadranpolitic.ro/view_article.asp?item=2684