BETH THOMPSON - 27 SEPTEMBER 2011

At each stage of the crisis that continues to plague the nations that use the euro, opinions have flown from all sides of the ocean and the media. At the heart of the crisis is a country that cannot pay its debt, and a unique organization struggling to deal with the consequences of incomplete policy coordination.

The euro is the common currency of the member states of the European Union (EU) that are also members of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). All member states that have been admitted since the creation of the euro are obligated by treaty to join the EMU by meeting a series of criteria in three stages, the third of which is to adopt the euro as the national currency of the member state. Fifteen countries celebrated the birthday of the eurozone when, on January 1, 2002, euro notes and coins became legal tender. Though the currency had been in use electronically and minting of the euro had been ongoing for some time, the entrance of the euro as public and legal tender within the European Union – with the exception of the United Kingdom and Denmark – was a remarkable step for the organization. In the face of skepticism on the part of many economists, the euro has not been valued below $1.00 since late 2002. It peaked in mid-2008 at $1.59.

Despite the relative success of its currency, the EMU member states have never moved from a unitary monetary policy and single currency to a common fiscal policy. In practical terms, that means that each of the member states sets their own budget and is responsible for the consequences if – or, in the current situation, when – it is unable to pay its debts. The problem with this set-up is that if one member state goes bankrupt and is forced out of the EMU and the common currency that comes with it, it affects the value of the currency, other related economic relationships, and therefore the economies of the other member states. As evidenced by the current situation, a member doesn't even have to actually default for the markets to approach panic. Another consequence of the lack of coordination on fiscal policy is that the economically stronger member states have found themselves needing to provide significant assistance – in the billions of euros – to other members in danger of defaulting on their debt. This creates a political challenge for leaders such as Germany's Chancellor, Angela Merkel, in convincing their electorates that such support is warranted.

Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou attempted to help Chancellor Merkel at a meeting of the Federation of German Industry in Berlin on Tuesday, promising that the Greeks would find growth and prosperity "soon", even as Greece faces another round of potential strikes. He called for stricter regulations in the EMU, a long-term solution that would require the rewriting of treaties likely over years of negotiations, and the expansion of the European Financial Stability Facility, an emergency fund that might be a short-term fix but that Wolfgang Schaüble, the German finance minister, has ruled out expanding. Add to these challenges the Greek people, frustrated after three years of recession and strict austerity measures, and the fact that Chancellor Merkel may be attempting to use more political capital than she has in an already politically tense party and country, and you are left with the question: where are Greece and the euro headed, and is it the same place?

Seemingly countless reporters, talking heads, analysts, politicians, and neighborhood gossips have contributed to the swirl of opinions surrounding the eurozone crisis. From 'whatever makes the dollar stronger can't be that bad' to reasoned suggestions for jointly issued bonds and offers of support by countries as far away as Japan, the conversation has been as varied as its sources.

Those looking at the crisis from afar have, understandably, tended to focus on its impact on world markets. Within the eurozone there is a greater urgency to be seen in the writing of reporters in all languages, and in Germany in particular there has been an emphasis on the political toll the debate over a solution to the crisis is having on the governing coalition under Chancellor Merkel. For example, more than one German writer has pointed out over the past week that when a leader has to go outside of his or her own divided party to garner support for a position they are promoting, their political fortunes are usually next to come into question.

Though not many people, reporters or otherwise, possess the economic expertise and intricate understanding of the laws of the EMU to pose credible, workable solutions to the crisis, there are also more basic questions that we can ask. Is it a good idea for any country to tie its currency, and thus somewhat its economic fortunes, to another country? What might be the benefits or costs? Should there be a broadly accepted standard on sound fiscal policy? Do strong countries have a responsibility – moral, economical, self-interested, or otherwise perceived – to help other countries remain economically strong by helping to prevent a default? Post an answer to one – or all – of these questions in the comment section below or the discussion portion of World Report, and get the conversation started! 

BETH THOMPSON - 24 SEPTEMBER 2011
On the 24th of September 2011, the governing party in Russia announced that current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin would be their candidate for President of Russia. United Russia, the largest party of the world's largest country, held their annual party congress in Moscow this weekend. The 11,000 party members present stood and cheered as current President Dmitri Medvedev made the formal announcement. Mr. Medvedev is in line to become Prime Minister if – though the correct word may be when – Mr. Putin wins the Presidential election in March 2012.

It all amounts to, essentially, a role reversal in the two top positions in the Russian government. Mr. Putin, who served as President from 2000-2008 before becoming Prime Minister, would be returning to a familiar job amidst potentially different circumstances if he wins the election as expected in March. After the tumultuous decade following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Putin oversaw a consolidation of government power that brought stability back to the lives of many Russians. The average standard of living rose across the country, and contributed to his increаsed popularity. At the same time, proponents of democracy in Russia worried that his governing methods were preventing the development of truly democratic institutions and practices. United Russia continues to be the only major party in Russia, despite the efforts of its critics. The result, some argue, has been an increase in apathy among the Russian people about their political leaders, provided that their standard of living continues to rise.

Mr. Putin will face new challenges if he begins a third term as President in the spring. The oil wealth that has propelled the rise in the average standard of living is not as evident it once was, and Russia has been hit hard by the global financial crisis. Tough decisions will test Mr. Putin's once untestable popularity, and perhaps provide a reason for ordinary Russians to become more involved and invested in their politics once again.

To those who follow Russian politics, and to the Russians themselves, the announcement Saturday was not a surprise. Though President Medvedev occasionally went against Prime Minister Putin on policy matters, there was never more than a slight doubt that it would be Putin calling the shots when it came to this election. There were some who had harbored a hope – a hope that bordered on delusional, others would say – for a challenge between the two and a new party under Mr. Medvedev. Those hopes have now been officially dashed, as Mr. Putin said that an "agreement" about what to do regarding this election was "reached between us several years ago..." What this 'agreement' will mean for the future of democracy in Russia, and for the lives of the Russian people, remains to be seen.

27 AUGUST 2011 - JEREMY MEEHAN - A look into how the IRA utilized common methods employed by terrorist organizations  and the grievances which the IRA reacted to.
Jeremy Meehan



Violence is abhorrent, on that everyone can agree.  There is a moral necessity to strive for something better, something more.  In international relations there exists what are commonly referred to as the four options.  The second option is warfare, the third is covert actions, and the fourth is nuclear.  The first option, however, is diplomacy.  This option speaks to that which is better; the belief that as humanity has evolved so has its capacity to understand and peacefully effect change.  Freud once said, “Civilization began the first time an angry person cast a word instead of a rock.”  The international community, through greater emphasis on organizations such as The UN and EU, is attempting to embody this principal.  There can be little doubt that a greater dialogue among the various nation states is a positive thing.  Violence, and especially war, should rightfully be avoided at almost any cost. 

Terrorism, by definition, incorporates violence.  It is, in fact, the use of violence, but the use of violence within a greater context.  Americans, particularly after 9/11, often ignore the larger issues intrinsic to a terrorist act.  In this we are not alone.  Violence is deplorable and grievances should be discussed, but what happens when the entities involved are voiceless?  Those that perpetrate terror are frequently ignored.  Avenues for discussion, especially within the greater global context, are generally unavailable to them.  In this regard, terrorism draws attention, specifically through the media, to causes that may otherwise have gone unconsidered. 

Terrorism has been referred to as propaganda by deed.  Ignoring the nuanced connotations of the word, propaganda is merely communication.  This essay is not written as justification of terrorist methodologies.  This essay is not intended to advocate the use of violence.  What this essay is intended to do, I hope even minimally, is to remind people that inherent within a terrorist act is a larger grievance.  Sometimes, certainly not all the time, these grievances are legitimate, and the violence pursued should be understood as a communicative manifestation of an injustice.  Freud’s thinking may be true, but occasionally a rock has to be thrown before anyone will even acknowledge the voice that cast it. 

The Provisional Irish Republican Army operated within Northern Ireland and Britain up until 2005.  The group, which was officially founded in 1969, traced its origins back to the beginning of the 20th century.  The mention of this timeframe is meant to demonstrate just how long their plight was ignored.  

Throughout its existence the IRA engaged in numerous terrorist acts.  Some of these acts, specifically the assassination of British police officers and soldiers, can be seen as retributive.  Without question there was a certain thinking within the organization that if enough damage was done the British would simply leave—this was predicated on the idea that at some point England would feel it wasn’t worth the lives to stay.  Other acts, however, such as the bombing of governmental buildings, should be interpreted as acts of political communication.  In each instance the IRA actually phoned in warnings ahead of time, though admittedly sometimes failing to give enough advanced warning.

The IRA furnished each new volunteer with a manual on how to properly conduct themselves. This manual was commonly known as the Green Book. In addition to providing a historical context, and laying out a methodology for violence, the Green Book touched on considerations of publicity.  One of the IRA’s strategies, as stated in the manual, was, “To sustain the war and gain support for its ends by National and International propaganda and publicity campaigns,” (Coogan 1994).  This direct statement demonstrates that the IRA desired to communicate its cause.  Furthermore, it highlights the issue of attempting to bring international attention to its reasons, specifically through the use of violence (what the organization termed war).  The manual talks at length about creating a unified Ireland.  This was the main purpose of the IRA.  However, the group’s ranks swelled not because of an idea of nationhood, for better or worse, but because the Protestant Northern Irish, and along with them the British government, engaged in systematic abuse of the Catholic majority.

Rebel Heats, by Kevin Toolis, chronicles the lives of a Northern Irish, Catholic family, the Finucanes.  The book documents the many injustices the family dealt with while attempting to live within the region.  These injustices were perpetrated by Protestants who identified with their British ancestry--and they were tolerated by the British-backed government.  The Finucane family, while their children were still young, lived in a Protestant neighborhood.  Their home was taken away from them, through threats of violence, and given over to a Protestant family.  Protestant neighbors demanded the family leave.   One of the children remembers their neighbors telling them, “If youse ain’t out tonight youse are getting burned out the night,” (Toolis 1997).  This moment, the first in a long series of injustices faced, started two of the Finucane children on their path toward IRA membership and eventual violence.  It is important to realize that this event was not unique to the Finucane family.  As Toolis notes, one thousand and five hundred Catholics were burned out of their homes (Toolis 1997).  This was not the only injustice Catholic families faced.  British forces regularly arrested, imprisoned and tortured Irish civilians.  The Catholic citizenry of Northern Ireland had no political rights.  The IRA attracted members as people realized they possessed no means to air their grievances.

Many of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland attempted to engage in dialogue with the British government through more peaceful means.  Civil rights marches were either ignored or met with violence.  One of the most famous cases resulted in the event known as Bloody Sunday.  On January 30th, 1972 Irish crowds marched in Derry to protest internment without trial.  The march resulted in the deaths of twenty-six unarmed civilians.  The British military opened fire and slaughtered peaceful protesters.  What was worse is that afterwards they made no attempt to reconcile the situation.  As a BBC article from the period notes, “Lord Chief Justice, Lord Widgery, stated that if the illegal march - protesting against internment without trial - had not taken place there would not have been any deaths,” (BBC 1972).  This is the quintessential example of a group attempting to communicate, through peaceful means, and finding themselves ignored (or in this case attacked).  Is it any wonder that when faced with such a reality terrorism, especially when broadcast to an international community, seems like an effective way to get a message out.

The Irish Republican Army is one example of a populace engaging in acts of terror as a form of communication.  As was first mentioned in the introduction, violence is abhorrent and while it should never be justified it can be understood.  The Catholic population of Northern Ireland was oppressed, neglected, and beaten.  The British government left that population with no alternative venue with which to communicate their grievances.  The violence that ensued, manifested in the forms of assassinations and bombings, can be seen as the direct result of British policy.  Media coverage of such actions, both within England itself, and abroad, aided in pressuring the British government to act justly.  The troubles are certainly not the only example of such circumstances.  One has only to think of the Algerians in 1970’s or, perhaps more relevantly because it is ongoing, the Palestinian struggle today.  Terrorism is a form of communication and it must be understood as such. The political reasons terrorist groups engage in their action should always be explored.       

 

   

   'bloody sunday' report excuses army. (1972).  http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/19/newsid_2491000/2491125.stm

Coogan, T. (1994). The ira: a history. Robert Rinehart Publishers.

Toolis, K. (1997). Rebel hearts: journeys within the ira's soul . St. Martins Griffin.

MATTHEW BISHOP – JUNE 28 2011

On July 6th, 2011, the Italian internet will become subject to arbitrary censorship driven by the private business, shareholding, and investor interests of the Italian-European media giant Mediaset. Mediaset has been lobbying for the program and will exercise significant influence and control over it, the Italian newspaper L’Espresso reports. The “Authority”, as it is known, which will operate under Agcom, will be able to erase websites for any cause. The movement is supported by Berlusconi’s center-right regime and will have the go-ahead from the government. The director of this project will be installed with the ability to shut down any web address without any sort of process, and by his or her will alone.


The internet in Italy has long been subject to one form of censorship or another, but this new form of censorship will not allow any formal system of checks between powers, instead enabling a single director to choose which sites may and may not be allowed on the internet. Google has been acting with citizen activists in the past months to protest Italian censorship, but the response from Berlusconi has been clear-- rather than appealing to the public, censorship, from here on out, will be even tighter and more closely controlled by both corporate and government interests.