Newton's Third Law

It's been a strange month or so. One might think that, given my general proclivity towards written verbiage, that I might have scrawled some half-baked idealism on my blog in the time between my previous post and this one. Not so. Happy belated American Independence Day and all that jazz.

What brought me to put finger to keyboard is the current re-escalation of tensions between Hamas and Israel in the never-ending saga of a dispute that stretches back to a time long before internal plumbing.
Both sides might be equally vile, but, as in every conflict, it's the innocent that suffer the most. The teenagers who were murdered on both sides are tragic, and only reveals the barbarity of those who believe this conflict to have a true purpose aside from settling a feud about land and religion that has existed for far too long in human history.
Right now, it is Israel that has the stranglehold over Palestine, but not too long ago, it was the Palestinians who controlled the land. However much that is unlikely to change is indeterminate, given that Israel has a highly developed military and economy, but one cannot anticipate the rogue variables of tomorrow.
The only actors with enough influence to end this conflict reside in Washington, D.C. and Brussels (and within the capitols of all the EU states). Israel, the main power broker of the area, relies heavily on trade to both, and Gaza depends on aid from the EU.
There are many steps that the US and the EU should take, but these should be the main ones:

• Cessation of aid and trade to both countries until a general ceasefire can be agreed upon. 
• Hold accountable those in both Israel and Gaza who have broken multiple ceasefires and have continually retaliated to the other's actions.
• Draw up a two-state solution based on the previously agreed upon borders with exceptions:
• First, the blockade around the Palestinian territories will be lifted. There will be no imposition of Israeli tax on goods sent to Palestine. There will also be a cessation of Israeli settlement-building, and any illegal settlements will be razed, its residents moved, and the land given back to the PLO.
• Second, the PLO would be given a parole period during which it will have to clean up its governance within Gaza with the help of international observers, excepting Israel. Should a single rocket be fired from Gaza into Israel during the parole period, the treaty would be in abeyance. Israel can request transparency reports on progress.
• Third, should any rocket fire fall into Israel and should Israel retaliate, then both the US and EU would impose economic sanctions on the region. This is obviously indiscriminate and punishes both for one's initial actions, but this clause looks to prevent escalation that so often creates out-of-control circumstances.
• Fourth, all eligible voters in the Palestinian territories should be registered and a new election will be called, to be conducted by independent watchdogs from the UN, the EU, the OSCE, and the AU. As this is the creation of a formal new state, this is perfunctory.

It's not hard to get drawn into a laborious, protracted, vitriolic debate around this conflict, and it's honestly excruciating. I've seen friends become embittered acquaintances who merely tolerate each other simply because of this stupid conflict. Everyone deserves the right to self-determination and freedom from encumbering influences, including both Israel and Palestine. That's that.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

Post-hoc

I've been a bit neglectful of my blog of late, and I'm hoping that it is for two not unworthy reasons: the first is that I've been interning with a small nonprofit three days a week, and also I have been searching for a full-time job that can pay me a livable wage; the second is that I've been rewriting the second book I wrote and finished last year, and preliminarily, I find it to be better than the previous version. Will I shop it around to agents? Eventually, though I'm not sure how 'commercial' my work is.

On a more important note, Ukraine. Over the past month, it's exploded into a Cold War-esque geopolitical nightmare for the west. Russian troops (in unmarked uniforms for the plausible deniability) occupy Crimea, which has voted to secede from the Ukraine and become a part of Russia. Vladimir Putin, the all-but-a-sultan of Russia, has stated that the recent ouster of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych posed a threat to the ethnically Russian people living in Crimea; thus, the intervention, even though Putin has also said that there is no way to tell if those are really Russian troops. (Confusing, I know)
There needs to be a brief bit of background on this whole issue:

• the first point of note is that, before the protests in Kiev began, Ukraine was preparing to enter the EU by making the standard array of changes (see Copenhagen Criteria).
• President Yanukovych was renowned among leaders for his corruption, and quickly accepted money from Russia, turning his back on the Copenhagen Criteria and the EU, which was supported by a majority of the Ukrainian population.
• Russia supplies around 1/3 of all gas imported in the EU. 
• Half of all Russian gas that enters the EU goes through Ukraine.
• A 1994 agreement between the US and Ukraine recognizes the border of the then-new state of the Ukraine.
• Russia maintains a naval base in Crimea, which would likely no longer be leased to the Russians should Ukraine enter the EU. The base maintains a strategic Cold War position as the place of first strike against the west in case of an all-out war.

The US has been more than happy to step up and present sanctions as the solution against Russia, though with a caveat: they begin exporting American-mined gas (through fracking, which faces much resistance globally) to Europe, tackling a huge, profitable market.
The costs for that, however, would be large. The shipping, tariff, and import duties, not to mention the establishment of transit areas through which the gas can be safely delivered to Eastern Europe would likely cost more than the current Gazprom pipeline setup. Thus, the EU hasn't implemented the pernicious sanctions that it could; at least, not yet.
This is Europe's trump card over Russia: cutting off Russia from all gas imports would cause the Russian stock market and economy to take a nosedive due to the estimated loss of profits, and the ruble would drop internationally. 60% of Russia's state income comes from export of gas and oil, and the EU is its largest customer. It is the one pressure point the west has on Putin, and they are hesitant to use it.
One should hope, however, that the EU is willing to take the dramatic step in terms of international presence and make a stand against Russia's incursion into Ukraine. This entire debacle raises ghosts of the 1990s, when the incipient EU found itself impotent in the face of the Balkans crisis; one would think that, in light of those confusing and tumultuous times, the EU would be able to make the difficult, yet right, decision.
Of course, then there are the business interests. One shouldn't be surprised that David Cameron's government is espousing pro-business, anti-EU positions; honestly, would anyone expect anything less? In this situation, however, even Germany, which receives 40% of its gas imports from Russia, has been hesitant in taking a strong stand against Russia.
The EU Council of Ministers, the European Parliament, the European Commission, the EU High Representative, etc. etc. etc.; they were all established in order to create a prominence for Europe in international affairs. One preening windbag (or the preening windbags in his party) shouldn't be enough to stop what is the only reasonable course of action for the EU: impose trade sanctions on Russia, targeting gas imports. With a united voice, the EU can deescalate the situation. After all, the European economy can be recovered, but the people who fought and died against Yanukovych's crackdown in the Maidan cannot.

That's all for now,

Das Flüg

Share |

Hullabaloo for a Speedbump

For the past 4-5 years, much of the western world has been in the throes of a recession. The European Union in particular has come under fire for allowing countries with high debt or risk levels to join the Euro, i.e. Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, and Spain. There has been much speculation (mostly from the Euro-skeptics) that, because of these "toxic" countries, the Euro will break up, the countries will revert to their old currencies, and possibly the EU itself will break up.
Let's assume, for a moment, that a country does decide to leave the Euro and revert back to its old currency. What would happen? Well, because that currency is not collectively backed by the other 16 members, the old currency would face severe inflation because of its speculated buying risk on the international market. The currency itself would fall in terms of exchange rate, and there would probably be austerity within the country, leading to higher unemployment, possibly the rise of nationalist parties, etc. There is little to no incentive to leave the Euro.
For a "smaller" country (always use that term lightly), the Euro and the Eurozone is a treasure trove. Not only is there equal footing for interstate trade within the Eurozone, but there is also a free transit for both people and companies. It also protects the smaller countries from highly unfavorable exchange rates in the international market.
But what about the current crisis, you ask? Won't the other Eurozone members want to boot the countries who are bringing the Euro down?
The answer, in simple terms, is no. The countries rated lower in international credit standards keep the Euro at a stable trading level, unlike the pound, which British Exchequer Osborne refuses to devalue (currently worth $1.53). Should the endangered countries leave the Euro, purchasing on the currency will likely rise, leading to an increase in its price, making exports of goods more difficult.
As for the legal side, crises such as these in a currency's infancy lead to a consolidation of the currency itself, such as in a set of new banking rules unveiled in December of 2012. Obviously, no currency is ever flawless: the dollar had more than its fair share of crises in its infancy, including individual states' desires to return to their own individual currencies.
I can only say it so many times: the European Union will not break up. Even if, on the strange and unlikely contingent that the Eurozone dissolves, the EU will remain. It is too deeply entrenched in the laws and trading regulations of its member states (especially in the original six) to suddenly dissolve, or even dissolve over time.
As one can always expect, recessions do not necessarily cure themselves in five years' time, or ten years' time, or even fifteen years' time. What matters, however, is wondering for whom is this a recession? Those who make from half a million (in whatever currency) to one million or more a year, or everyone below them?

That's all for now, 
Das Flüg

My Sudden But Inevitable Return

Unlike General MacArthur, I have returned. It was a long, arduous semester, I didn't perform as well as I expected, but I survived, as all people eventually do. I finished all my applications to graduate schools, I'm working on job/internship/fellowship applications, blah blah blah. I'm in for an easy semester as it concerns my schoolwork, and for that, I'm thankful.

Anyway, on to more important things. First of all, the year of "doom" is upon us. We all know what that means: time to party every day until the end of 2012 like hedonists on cocaine until we all wake up the next day and realize that the world is still here and you have to apologize to your boss and co-workers for telling them to all fu** themselves. Also, make sure to remember whether or not you had condoms on you for those hazy, insane nights.
Second of all, and probably more important, Barack Obama just won the 2012 election. No, I'm not a fortune teller; looking at the state of the Republican opposition, it's pretty easy to see that Obama has a clear edge. The current Republican frontrunner, former speaker of the house and moleskin rug Newt Gingrich, has been racked with controversy. Both his public and private lives are enough to make even Herman Cain say "Damn! That guy's an asshole." Because of the ultra-conservative nature of the Republican Party (Tea Party), Gingrich has been bashing everyone he can for being "too moderate." Just recently, he went on the offensive against Romney, attacking in particular Romney's health care bill that was instituted while he was governor of Massachusetts. Funnily enough, a memo was just released from several years back that had Gingrich praising the plan. Go figure.
Third of all, the Euro. The doomsayers are creating the image that the Euro will break apart, meaning the end of the European Union, blah blah blah. The European Union won't break apart. It's facing a similar crisis that the United States faced back in its formative years, in that the debts of several states were dragging down the country. The beauty of the European Union is that it has the ability to adapt and learn, and from this, they shall learn.

This post may have seemed scatterbrained, and that's because it was. I'm just out of practice, and it's kind of late. Until next time, then.

Allons-y!
Das Flüg