Confident on its path, Turkey votes

There live, blogging the election in Turkey

Tonight all over Turkey, people are glued to their television sets, checking the election results.

Turks I have spoken to say point to the economic strength of recent years as their main reason for returning the incumbent Islamic party to power. My last visit to Turkey was seven years ago -- in the spring of 2002 -- when Turkey was just coming out of a recession. Istanbul seems far more prosperous today.

One restaurant owner rattled off statistics highlighting the economic growth of Turkey during the period of my absence. He told me that:

• turkey had gone from being the world's 25th richest country to the 15th
• inflation was down to only 7%
• the average annual income has climbed from $3,000 to $10,000.

I checked the last two figures with the CIA World Factbook. The restaurateur knew his figures. The article concludes: "Economic fundamentals are sound, marked by moderate economic growth and foreign direct investment." Though the latter is no doubt slowing, the people seem confident about their country's future.

What about the question of EU membership? Since I was last in Turkey, the European Union has invited numerous states to join its club - several remain less developed and democratic than Turkey. What message has Europe sent the Turks? Ahmet, a college student I spoke with -- his major was Russian literature -- provided an answer to my question.

Ahmet said, "Seven years ago attaining EU membership was all we talked about [I can vouch for that]. But today Turks' attitude is that we can make it ourselves. We don't need Europe. But Europe will someday realize it needs us."

Ahmet wished the politicians in Ankara would acknowledge this fact and stop pandering to Europeans.

Blogging tonight from Istanbul, I find it easy to imagine that an aging Europe will one day be courting the favors of a young, proud and prosperous Turkey.

Photos by Jotman.

Why Jacob Zuma must win

There live, blogging the election in South Africa


South Africans go to the polls on Aprill 22 to elect their third president since the end of apartheid.

On Monday I was driven by taxi to the Capetown airport by Antoine, an emigre from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Antoine had been a student in Kinshasa when the civil war forced him to flee with twenty of his friends. They escaped by foot, traveling down through Angola and Namibia to South Africa from the Congo eight years ago.

As we sped past Table Mountain, I asked Antoine his thoughts about the upcoming election.

"Well, we better hope that Jacob Zuma wins" Antoine replied.

"You support Zuma."

"No."

Antoine thought Zuma was not capable of running the country well; that his basic ineptitude for governance would be exposed if he won; and that Zuma would not last long. Hearing this, I was confused as to why it mattered to Antoine that Zuma should win.

"You know the tribes?" Zuma was peering at me through the rear view mirror. He continued: "South Africa's two largest tribes are the Xhosa and Zulu. Now, South Africa has had two presidents since the end of apartheid: Nelson Mandala and Thabo Mbeki. Both are of the Xhosa tribe." Antoine paused. "The Zulu's say it's their turn."

"So Jacob Zuma is a Zulu."

"Zuma is a Zulu."

I asked Antoine if he would mind us not trailing an exaust-spewing dump truck.

"Yes, sorry. Right away!"

"Trouble?"

"You know Zulu? Violent!" said Antoine.

I asked Antoine to explain.

"You know Shaka Zulu?"

"But that was a long time ago." I said. "What makes you assume they are still violent?"

Antoine told me the Zulu had been responsible for a lot of street violence. He compared crime in Capetown to Johannesburg. The latter city is home to many Zulus. "In Johannesburg a mugger will think nothing of killing you," Antoine said. "He will kill you just because he can. He will fucking kill you! Just like that!" Antoine added, "But in Capetown, if you give a mugger what he wants, he will be satisfied and let you go."

"How do you know this?"

"I have been to Johannesburg many times. And when I'm there, let me I tell you, I am scared the whole time."

Antoine believed that the Zulus would rise up if Zuma did not get elected, and there could even be a civil war. Jacob Zuma has been facing corruption charges, but it is beginning to look like those charges will be dropped in advance of the election. Newpaper editorials I had read made it sound all but certain that ANC Party leader Jacob Zuma would form the new government.

Antoine asked me if I had heard about the wave of "xenophobia" in South Africa.

"They were attacking foreigners you know."

I said I had read about the attacks.

Antoine said: "People like me come here and we work. We work really hard. Foreigners like me, you see, we will do any job. We will work any hours. We work hard because we have to. The whites like to hire us. South African blacks, they have it easy. They can work when they feel like it."

"Do South African blacks blame the foreigners for taking their jobs?"

"Yes."

After arriving in Capetown, Antoine said that he had taken various odd jobs ("sometimes I worked 24 hours without any sleep"). His former jobs had included security guard and bouncer. In a sense Antoine had "arrived" and achieved the middle-class South African dream. He now drove a fancy new, fully-licensed taxi cab (Most cabs in Capetown seem to be unlicensed). Yet Antoine was not satisfied.

"I want to open my own business one day. That is my dream."

Antoine wanted to have his own security company. On account of the high crime rate private security is a big business in South Africa. There is widespread dissatisfaction with the police.

"Whenever I call the police, they are always late" said Antoine.

According to one estimate I heard, there are now some 20 million migrants living in South Africa. Despite the questions surrounding the country's political future, especially for educated people like Antoine, South Africa is the promised land. A place where anyone -- black or white -- who is able and willing to work hard can achieve one's dreams. A place of refuge for people from all over Africa.

In an immigration line-up at the Capetown airport, I spoke with Tim, an Afrikaans-speaking man who had recently emigrated to Germany. When I asked him about the election, he said he thought there was a good chance that some smaller parties might get enough votes to form a minority government. I told Tim about Antoine's fear of a Zulu uprising should Jacob Zuma lose.

Tim shook his head. "It would be like Greece. You know, in Athens a student got shot and there were riots. Eventually the army came in and things calmed down. It would be the same thing here."

I asked Tim what he knew about the composition of the South African National Defence Force.

"I don't know, I live in Germany now" said Tim.

Has Obama lost his mind?

Today's NY Times op-ed by Paul Krugman is must-read.

. . . Mr. Obama has apparently settled on a financial plan that, in essence, assumes that banks are fundamentally sound and that bankers know what they’re doing.

It’s as if the president were determined to confirm the growing perception that he and his economic team are out of touch, that their economic vision is clouded by excessively close ties to Wall Street. And by the time Mr. Obama realizes that he needs to change course, his political capital may be gone.

. . . the Geithner scheme would offer a one-way bet: if asset values go up, the investors profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their debt. So this isn’t really about letting markets work. It’s just an indirect, disguised way to subsidize purchases of bad assets.

The likely cost to taxpayers aside, there’s something strange going on here. By my count, this is the third time Obama administration officials have floated a scheme that is essentially a rehash of the Paulson plan, each time adding a new set of bells and whistles and claiming that they’re doing something completely different. This is starting to look obsessive.

This is also sheer madness. Let us hope the demonstrations in London are huge, and that Americans also take to the streets. Only timely and massive outrage across the Atlantic can save the Obama presidency -- and ourselves.

London G20 demonstrations could be massive

UPDATED

Prior to the "Battle of Seattle," there was almost no mention of "anti-globalization" in the US media, while the protests are seen as having forced the media to report on why anybody would oppose the WTO.

- Wikipedia, World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity

Nobody especially remembers the Seattle WTO meeting of 1999 mainly for anything that happened inside the meeting halls. If the lack of seriousness evinced by the G20 finance ministers' 14 March joint communique is any indication, happenings next week on the streets of London could well prove to be more substantive than the summit itself.

IndyMedia's 5th horseman provides a schedule of some of the demonstrations planned between March 28 and April 2 in London.

Sat 28 March - Put People First mass demonstration, 11 am, Central London
March for jobs, justics and climate ahead of the G20 Summit

Wed 1 April - Financial Fools Day street Party, Midday
converge on Bank of England, storm the banks and shut down the city!

Wed 1 April - Climate Camp, 12.30
Meet: European Climate Exchange, 62 Bishopsgate, EC2N 4AW
Bring a pop-up tent if you've got one, sleeping bag, wind turbine, mobile cinema, action plans and ideas

Wed 1 April - Anti-war protest march and rally, Central London
Called by Stop the War Co-alition, CND and others

Thu 2 April - G20 Summit @ Excel Centre, Docklands, East London
- G20 Meltdown have planned a breakfast for the delegates
- Stop The War/CND have planned protest march to the Summit

Check indymedia regular for updates and further advertised events.

Jotman, in cooperation with THERELIVE.COM, will strive to publicize the work of citizen journalists who report on these events. Eyewitness blogging is an extremely important enterprise at such events. For one thing, documenting demonstrations provides a vital check on the exercise of state power. Moreover, recent events such as the Republican National Convention of 2008 attest to the fact that the mainstream media -- particularly in the US -- has ceased to serve as a reliable vehicle for disseminating accurate news about the nature of demonstrations and police activity. There-live bloggers will be in a position to provide clear windows for us onto what actually happened, acting as custodians of justice and our civil liberties.

UPDATE: Concerning the quote at the top of this page, one key difference between 1999 and 2009 is that this time, most people viewing the demonstrations on television will know exactly what the protesters are angry about. And -- as never before -- they are likely to share this outrage.

My critique of the agenda for the London G20 meeting (God help us)

Concerning my previous post, a reader has asked me why I was laying out my own vision for the G20 meeting ("based on your 'year of blogging the financial crisis'") when the actual agenda is available at the G20 website.

Indeed, my reader articulates what we have come to expect of the mainstream media journalist. But that's not the way I think a blogger should approach a G20 summit. I don't believe that global citizens should first turn to political leaders -- and the echo chamber that is the mainstream media -- to define what ought to be the global agenda. Blindly accepting our leaders' agendas, not asking ourselves what really ought to be on the global agenda, is what got us all into this pickle. The news media model is as defunct as any mortgage derivative; it is but another "impaired asset."

Rather, I think the first step -- for the citizen journalist -- is to get a grip of one's own understanding of the situation. That's what the last post was about. If bloggers are to play a constructive role at the G20, staking out a critical space for ourselves is crucial. For myself, the previous post was an important step in that process. Of course, another step is assimilating input from readers and the people we talk to on the street.

Which brings me to observe that the reader made a good point: it is important to examine any proposed agenda.

What exactly is the planned agenda for the G20?

In preparation for the 2 April meeting, on 14 March the finance ministers of the G20 nations met in West Sussex and issued a joint communique. Finance ministers representing Russia, Spain, and Thailand were apparently so displeased with the joint communique that they issued their own separate proposals for the meeting. (I plan to critique these in another post).

To summarize the one page joint communique, the ministers have agreed that something must be done about the crisis, and (whatever that may be) they have agreed to do it. Not only will they do it, but they will do it "head on," providing "vital support" for creating growth and jobs. Nothing concrete about any new financial industry regulations, just an acknowledgment of the need for "appropriate regulations." The ministers agree to "recapitalize" banks and "deal with" impaired assets, but they do not commit to doing this in such a way as to ensure shareholders and reckless executives are not rewarded. (The ministers make no commitment to adapt the time-tested Swedish recovery model of temporary nationalization of defunct financial institutions). As for specifics, the ministers essentially rehash a list of previously hashed-out talking points tangential to solving the actual crisis at hand: these include registering hedge fund managers, ensuring some future IMF president is hired on the basis of "merit," better regulating the (now useless) rating agencies. The ministers also congratulate themselves on their past accomplishments (having lowered interest rates to the point where rates can no longer be lowered any further, etc.), and the ministers have agreed not to stop printing money ("continued liquidity support").

A few positives: the ministers acknowledge the need help developing countries "cope with the reversal in international capital flows" (see this Jotman post), and shore up the IMF funds "very substantially." Intriguing is a proposal to develop a new "high-access, quick-disbursing precautionary facility" for distributing economic relief. Nevertheless, this aspect of the current crisis (the flight of money out of the developing world and into safe-haven US treasuries) -- though deserving of the most urgent attention -- is a symptom. Addressing this problem alone would be insufficient.

In terms of tackling the underlying problem, the most disturbing thing about the communique is the two words it omits. Nowhere in the statement is there any recognition of the need tino pursue the one thing most economists say is likely to turn the recession around: significant "stimulus spending" by the key developed countries (US, Japan, UK, France, Germany).

On the whole, if that was the best agenda world leaders could come up with in preparation for such a critical meeting at a time like this then all I can say is God help us.

One blogger's thoughts in anticipation of attending the G20 summit in London

Do leaders of G20 nations imagine that they can gather behind close doors and -- covering for the misdeeds of their benefactors in the financial industry -- do nothing to repair a broken financial system? Are the presidents and prime ministers gathered in London squandering what could be the last opportunity to avert the collapse of the global economy, balking at any coordinated action plan, and mouthing mere platitudes? If there is even a whiff of a chance that the summit is headed toward either outcome, Jotman -- and 49 other bloggers -- will be there to call them on it.

I have accepted an invitation to attend the G20 summit in London which runs from April 1-3. G20 Voice, an organization formed by some leading NGOs has arranged for 50 bloggers to attend the summit with the same accreditation and access afforded members of the mainstream media. SkyNews indicates it is the first time bloggers have been afforded this kind of access to a world summit.

This G20 summit is not some kind of a political game or photo op. Putting the upcoming G20 meeting in context, the editors of the NY Times wrote, "In 1933, a global conference in London to plot a path out of a worldwide depression collapsed in acrimony. Next month, the leaders of the world’s 20 biggest economies are scheduled to gather in London and give the format another try. . ." Indeed, the world stands on the brink of the most momentous crisis since the collapse of the Berlin Wall. No country is immune from repercussions stemming from the collapse of the US financial system.

Based on a year of blogging the financial crisis, I have come up with a list of some key principles that I believe ought to top the summit agenda:

1. The crisis represents a "systemic failure." It's not a case of a few "bad apples." In a real-world test, our market capitalist system has proven insufficiently resilient to tolerate the level of greed it fosters. The system itself is broken.
2. Coordinated stimulus action is essential. The crisis is too big for businesses or banks to fix by themselves. Only governments have the resources to restore confidence in the economy. Moreover, no government acting alone -- not even the United States -- can turn the global economy around by itself. Most countries will have to increase spending and disavow the lure of protectionism if global mass unemployment is to be avoided. The alternatives to timely and substantial stimulus spending today are likely to prove far more expensive tomorrow. Recall that it was massive military spending by governments that finally put an end to the Great Depression. We don't want to go down that road again.
   
3. The main problem with the financial system is that it rewards short-term speculation and market manipulation over long-term value creation. Bankers have been allowed to manage the capital markets as they were their own personal casino.
4. Recovery funds ought not merely trickle down, but move from the bottom up. The economic crisis threatens to hit poor countries -- and the disadvantaged within all countries -- hardest. Efforts to mitigate the downturn must address the urgent needs of the most vulnerable. When money reaches the pockets of the most needy is likely to get spent, stimulating demand.
   
5. Financial products will need to be better regulated. Consumers need to know what they are buying.
6. If mismanagement pays, capitalism fails. Executives who have been at the helm of corporations in need of a government bail-out should be retired and compelled to return what they have plundered.
7. No risk without equity. When public money rescues a private firm the public must be afforded the rights that would be accorded any private investor, and thus be granted a commensurate ownership stake.
8. The present economic crisis was not some kind of freak occurrence. A number of high profile financial experts had seen it coming. Many people who ought to have seen it coming either failed to act or choose not to act. Common sense dictates that only those who worked to expose the growing problems should be turned to for designing solutions. The rest have been found lacking in either integrity or competence.
9. Attempts to renew market capitalism and stimulate spending must adhere to the principle of sustainable growth. This will require that the prices of products and services reflect their true cost: not only the cost to the end consumer, but the long-term cost of consumption to society and the environment.

The collapse of the financial markets attests to the defects of our market system as surely as the collapse of the Soviet Union exposed the defects of the planned economy. For too many decades, in too many places, human beings have been tested by dubious economic theories. Enough.
____
Photo: By Jotman, shows Burmese kids. It is up to world leaders to ensure that the economic crisis does not worsen, lest the poorest children end up paying for the reckless behavior of the richest.

Why doesn't he just stay home?

Jotman and the Pope have one thing -- perhaps only one thing -- in common. This week we are both in Africa.

The other day I had a conversation with an aid worker who had been working for a secular NGO in Angola. Janice was telling me the Angolan women were stuck with raising the kids.

"The father just supplies the seed," Janice said.

As the Pope was speaking in Anglola that day, I asked Janice how the people at her NGO had reacted to news of the impending visit of the Pontiff.

"'Why doesn't he just stay home!?' was the reaction of my colleague in the family planning department. My colleague said that the Pope was about to undo years and years of hard work trying to convince Africans to practice birth control."

Due to decades of civil war, until 2003 Angola was pretty much cut off from the outside world. One positive effect of this hellish history is that this has meant less frequent contact with foreigners, reducing the spread of AIDS (though accurate statistics on this would presumably be hard to come by, as even the actual population of Angola remains something of a mystery). Nevertheless, it would seem self-evident that the last thing war-ravaged Angola needs is more mouths to feed.

Picking up a Capetown paper today, I saw that that NGO workers' worst fears had been realized. In a speech yesterday, Pope Benedict XVI had declared:

"You can't resolve it [Aids] with the distribution of condoms," the pope said. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

According to one news source, this statement marked the first time this Pope had come out flatly against condom use. For the Pope to be against the use of condoms by impoverished Africans is bad enough, but to have claimed that condom use "increases the problem" seems simply outrageous.

It is not condoms, but busybody priests who have increased Africa's problems. The Pope should have stayed home.

Who will pay the price for it?

The country that created the conditions for a global financial meltdown will not have to pay the full price for it. The NY Times recently reported:

. . . as Americans eschew foreign deals and keep their dollars at home, and as foreign central banks — especially China — buy Treasury bills, the United States is absorbing money that used to be scattered around the globe. And that is making money tighter elsewhere in the world.

The article notes that investment in emerging market economies has fallen to a level that is less than twenty percent of the level two years ago. It is no small irony that despite the fact that US bankers and politicians caused the world financial crisis, the United States finds itself relatively well positioned to weather the crisis.

It is incumbent that American leaders use their country's advantages to ensure that the poorest of the world's peoples do not pay for the recklessness of the richest.