Tag Archives: World Organisations.

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: HERE WHAT YOU CAN LOOK FORWARD TO UNDER WTO AGREEMENTS.

26 Saturday Jan 2019

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Democracy, England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Union., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, World Trade Organisation, WTO.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: HERE WHAT YOU CAN LOOK FORWARD TO UNDER WTO AGREEMENTS.

Tags

, , , ,

 

( A Twenty-minute read)

The UK is now stepping up plans to trade with the EU under WTO terms in the

the event of a no-deal Brexit.

The Brexiteers can’t see the huge damage that trading on WTO terms would

inflict on the UK economy.  I don’t blame them.

Because we all have a superficial understanding of the rules of WTO.

Because the UK’s terms at the WTO are enshrined in its membership of the

EU.

Why?

Well, you only have to look at what is involved to realise why very few if any understand the operations of WTO.

10-year interim agreement doesn't make sense

One of the WTO’s key rules is that countries should treat their trading partners equally. In WTO jargon this is called most-favoured-nation treatment (MFN) — favour one; favour all.

So what is the WTO:

It’s a system of trade agreements, which discipline governments’ trade policies so that international trade is not a free-for-all — the rule of law rather than the law of the jungle.It’s 164 member governments (the present total).

Decisions among those 164 member governments are by consensus, if anyone among them, big or small, cannot accept a decision, there’s no deal.

In fact, each country may have more than one opinion on a particular issue, but let’s not get into that here.

Some people think the WTO Secretariat is the WTO, but strictly speaking, that’s not correct. The Secretariat is a bureaucracy set up to help member governments operate the trading system.

It’s true that the head of the Secretariat is called the Director-General of the WTO, because the WTO is also an international organisation, like the United Nations, UN Environment Programme or the World Bank.

But the WTO DGs are still the servants of the members, a cause of frustration for some of them.

When the negotiators get down to specific subjects such as agriculture or fishing subsidies, those sessions are chaired by ambassadors or other delegates.

It is sufficient to say that Brexiteers misunderstand Britain’s past when it comes to trading under WTO.

They believe that Britain has a “special relationship” to world trade, this narrative ignores the prologue to the story, in which the British empire first accumulated wealth through gunboat diplomacy and enforced markets over the 18th and early 19th centuries.

Britain only embraced unilateral zero tariffs once its geopolitical power had been built up, and it would quickly depart from free trade and move towards protectionism at the start of the 20th century through the policy of imperial preference, encouraging trade within the empire.

All of this has long passed, with the result that the Brexiters are now unable to fathom the damage that relying on WTO terms to govern trade with our largest trading partner will do to the economy.

While other countries struggle to understand why any nation would willingly leave the world’s largest trading bloc to trade on WTO terms, we must understand their attraction to the myth of how in centuries past, Britain became rich through “global free trade”.

Even if it is obvious to the rest of the world it is not possible to ring up the WTO and say, “Hey, WTO! We’re negotiating a free trade agreement. It may take 10 years. While we’re doing that, we might violate some of your non-discrimination rules.”

The UK is currently a WTO member in its own right.

The issue is it does not have an independent schedule of concessions for the WTO – that’s the menu upon which Britain trades with the rest of the world.

So any future agreement has to contain details, including a plan and timetable for concluding the final agreement. This means that any formal WTO agreement between the UK and EU would obviously mean that the EU would have to be on board too.

In fact, there is no WTO definition of an interim agreement.  No country wants to go through all the above unnecessarily, which is why interim agreements are never notified to the WTO.

In theory, the transition customs union and the Protocol on Northern Ireland / Ireland (the “Backstop”) in the Withdrawal Agreement could qualify as an interim agreement.

The attached non-binding political declaration on the future relationship would not, since it’s not an agreement.

On the face of it, this is about protectionism versus access to markets (or to imports)

So what the problem?

The EU has around 100 tariff quotas:

Tariff quotas have emerged as part of the UK’s need to re-establish itself as a WTO member independent of the EU. In particular, the UK has to separate its own tariff quotas from those of the EU’s, and even if the UK wanted to take this complicated route, there’s little chance the EU would agree.

Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners.

Grant someone special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members.

Britain says it will stick to the EU’s tariff commitments, which are currently its own too, as an EU member.Seattle protests 1999 Seattle Municipal Archives, (CC BY 2.0)

Britain referendum on the left side was sold on many lies with one stating that the EU is non-democratic.

Is the WTO Democratic?

This is a difficult one:  The short answer is yes and no like the EU.

With the WTO if a country is a dictatorship, then I’m afraid the representative is probably not elected (allowing for multiple shades of grey over what those words actually mean)

In the WTO world no wants to interfere in that, so it just accepts whatever each country’s domestic system produces.

The WTO is definitely democratic among its governments.

The consensus rule means all members have equal say. Voting is available as a fallback, but so far members have rejected that option.

But does it represent the people?

At least as much as any other international organisation. Some governments are democratic; some are not.

One of the problems is that in the Brexit debate people are comparing the WTO with the European Union, which has an elected parliament as well as a council of member states meeting regularly at ministerial or head-of-government level.

The comparison is false.

The EU has a bureaucracy with executive power and a legislature which handles laws.

The WTO’s bureaucracy — the Secretariat — has no executive power.

The closest equivalent to legislation in the WTO is its trade agreements and they are negotiated by all the governments together.

Is it a good idea for the WTO to be run by directly elected representatives?

Only if you believe that directly elected politicians are better at negotiating some pretty technical and complicated trade agreements than our trade ministers and their officials. Or if you believe in world government.

Then we come to the question of Tariffs:

Tariffs remain a feature of trading under WTO rules and the EU charges a range of tariffs depending on the product or service.

For example, the tariff on food products and beverages imported into the EU is 21% of the value of a shipment. The UK’s fishing exports to the EU would be subject to a 9.6% tariff under WTO-only rules. Clothes manufactured in the UK and exported to the EU would be subject to an 11% tariff.

WTO rules on non-tariff barriers (things like regulations on product safety, rules of origin and quotas) are very limited and not recognised universally.

For example, they do not prevent the EU requiring certification for a whole host of goods and services that originate from outside the EU.

Things such as medicines, product and food safety standards in the UK are currently recognised as EU ones. But when the UK leaves the EU, UK manufacturers may need conformity assessments from the EU recognised body, which is a legal responsibility of an EU importer.

This would mean that UK exports would take longer to reach the EU markets and the UK products would be more expensive in the EU.

Under WTO-only rules, the UK will not be able to have a frictionless border with the EU.

Exporters would have to prove they meet all of the EU’s product standards and regulations, which will be costly and slow down business.

One suggestion has been that the UK scrap all tariffs and regulations for EU imports and continue to accept all products from the EU without checks. But, according to the WTO rules, the UK should extend this approach to products from all other WTO members (it has to treat everyone equally).

WTO rules barely cover trade in services, including financial services and transportation.

So, trading on only the WTO terms would mean no deal on air transport. Access to the EU single aviation market requires airline companies to have their headquarters and majority shareholdings in the EU so airlines would have to relocate.

There is also nothing in WTO rules that would allow UK-based banks to keep trading across the EU. This is why the government has said banks could set up subsidiaries in the EU.

Under WTO terms, the EU should treat the UK like any other country without providing any preferences and applying WTO tariffs – a big change from the zero tariffs that the UK has now.

FINALLY:  Where are we now.

The EU is the UK’s biggest trading partner.

In 2017, 44% of UK exports went to the EU and 53% of all UK imports came from the EU.

Both the UK and the EU filed documents in Geneva outlining the terms they will use to trade with the rest of the world after Brexit – and the two submissions are fundamentally different.

A major sticking point for them is the fact that the EU and the UK share a quota system that limits imports of sensitive goods like beef, lamb and sugar.

The UK cannot simply replicate these quotas and has proposed to split them with the EU based on historical trade flows.

All of this means that if and when any country object and ask for a better deal, Britain will be simultaneously be negotiating a trade deal with the EU and the WTO.

All human comments appreciated. All abuse and like clicks chucked in the bin.

Advertisement

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WORLD ORGANISATIONS. PART SEVEN. WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION (WHO)

22 Thursday Oct 2015

Posted by in Life., The Future, The world to day., World Organisations.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WORLD ORGANISATIONS. PART SEVEN. WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION (WHO)

Tags

Following the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, the organization was heavily criticized for its bureaucracy, insufficient financing, regional structure, and staffing profile.

OBTAINING AN INSIGHT INTO THIS ORGANISATION REQUIRES AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMPLICATIONS OF NOT ONLY OF WORLD HEALTH AND ALL THAT ENCOMPASSES. BUT THE OVERLAPPING OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE WORLD BANK/ IMF AND DRUGS.

It is impossible to objectively and fairly assess the functioning of WHO as a whole.

It may in fact be impossible to assess WHO’s functioning in individual policy areas in a manner that is objective, fair and just.

Another words since the World Health Organization (WHO) was founded in 1948, the development of many new institutions in the field of health challenges its original vision as the ‘directing and coordinating body on international health work.

In a world with increasing isolation, tension and recourse to violence, it is clear that the Red Cross Red Crescent must champion the individual and community values which encourage respect for other human beings and a willingness to work together to find solutions to community problems.The Movement’s seven Fundamental Principles as they stand today were unanimously adopted in 1965 by the 20th International Conference of the Red Cross.

Its purpose is to protect life and health and to ensure respect for the human being. It endeavors to relieve the suffering of individuals, being guided solely by their needs, and to give priority to the most urgent cases of distress.

Doctors Without Borders/ Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is an international medical humanitarian organization working in more than 60 countries to assist people whose survival is threatened by violence, neglect, or catastrophe.

Health is vitally important for every human being in the world. Global health matters to everyone, not just to those living in developing countries. The Movement is independent.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines health as “the state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

Since 15 June 2007, the world has been implementing the International Health Regulations (IHR).

WHO evolved from a body principally aimed at the control of infectious diseases to a more holistic approach to the improvement of health characterized in the 1970s by the slogan ‘Health for All.

The International Health Regulations are a legally binding international agreement that govern the roles of the World Health Organization and its Member States around the globe in identifying, sharing information about, and responding to public health events that may have international consequences.
Afficher l'image d'origine

Under Director-General Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland in the 1990s a serious attempt was made to refocus WHO and raise its status as a player in the development policy arena, but with mixed success and limited sustainability.

More recently WHO’s chronic financial problems, characterized by excessive dependence on voluntary short-term funding by donors, have precipitated another round of reform.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is the body of the United Nations (UN) responsible for directing and coordinating health.

The United Nations’ system is comprised of the UN itself and more than 30 affiliated organizations — known as programs, funds, and specialized agencies — with their own membership, leadership, and budget processes. Many of these Programs and funds overlap each other.

For example.

UNICEF, United Nations Children’s Fund provides long-term humanitarian and development assistance to children and mothers. Recent UNICEF initiatives have included polio immunization for 5.5 million children in Angola when WHO is supposed to be responsible for global vaccination campaigns.

A WORTHY  FUND that is giving today’s children a chance to grow into useful and happier citizens, it contributes to removing some of the seeds of world tension and future conflicts.

 UNFPA, United Nations Population Fund– UNFPA works on the ground in 140 nations to “ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe, every young person is free of HIV/AIDS. The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS is co-sponsored by 10 UN system agencies: UNHCR, UNICEF, WFP, UNDP, UNFPA, UNODC, the ILO, UNESCO, WHO and the World Bank and has ten goals related to stopping and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

As such WHO has come to play a vital role as an actor in the field of international public health and international public health policy. Since its inception in 1947 WHO has been at the forefront of many breakthroughs in the field including, most notably, what has come to be described as one of the greatest humanitarian achievements of the 20th century, the elimination of Smallpox in 1979.

However WHO’s inability to control the spread of  HIV/AIDS, particularly in Africa has cast doubt on its effectiveness.

Though much of the media attention given to WHO concentrates on its role in controlling and ultimately eliminating infectious disease, WHO’s mandate as you can see from the above is far broader.

The constitution of the World Health Organization entered into force on the 7th April 1948; however the idea of an international (or at least transnational) approach to dealing with matters of health had existed since the middle of the 19th century with efforts centered on combating infectious disease.

As the 20th century progressed, the focus of international health policy broadened.Afficher l'image d'origine

The constitution of WHO indicates that, by the middle of the 20th century nations were willing to cooperate in a broad range of health-related policy matters. Chapter II, Article 2 of WHO’s constitution lists the twenty-two functions of WHO.

The top six functions are:

  1. Providing leadership on matters critical to health and engaging in partnerships where joint action is needed;
  2. Shaping the research agenda and stimulating the generation, translation and dissemination of valuable knowledge;
  3. setting norms and standards and promoting and monitoring their implementation;
  4. Articulating ethical and evidence-based policy options;
  5. Providing technical support, catalysing change, and building sustainable institutional capacity;
  6. Monitoring the health situation and addressing health trends.

The constitution of the World Health Organization also addresses its structures.

These structures are complex, with three levels of organization at an international level, the World Health Assembly (WHA), comprising representatives of every WHO member state, The Executive board, which comprises members elected by the WHA and The Secretariat composed of WHO’s Director-General and technical and administrative staff.

The constitution also specifies provisions to create regional organizations and “committees considered desirable to serve any purpose within the competence of the organization.

In addition to a continuing focus on infectious disease there are also functions that specifically deal with areas including research, assistance to government and addressing non-infectious disease that had previously been given little attention on the international health policy stage.

The focus of WHO’s work has shifted over time. This is not surprising, considering the broad scope of WHO’s mandate that the organization tends to focus its work around only some of its functions at any given time.

The question is whether WHO member states and its secretariat are asking sufficiently searching questions about WHO’s place in the international system and what might need to be done to put its future on a more secure footing.

WHO is acutely aware of the challenges it faces if it is to remain a relevant actor in international health and second, the direction of WHO’s work for is geared towards meeting the health related Millennium Development Goals.

Before examining WHO’s role in maternal health it is important to understand how the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have come to play such a prominent role in shaping WHO’s work.

The MDGs came out of the United Nations Millennium Declaration which was endorsed by 189 countries in September 2000 and resolves to work towards combating poverty, ill-health, discrimination and inequality, lack of education and environmental degradation.

The MDGs are eight specific goals that the 191 United Nations (UN) states have committed themselves to achieving by 2015.

The MDGs goals are:

1.     to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger;

2.     to achieve universal primary education;

3.     to promote gender equality and empower women;

4.     to reduce child mortality;

5.     to improve maternal health;

6.     to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases;

7.     to ensure environmental sustainability;

8.     and to develop a global partnership for development.

These goals are interdependent, progress or lack thereof in achieving one goal will have effects on progress towards achieving the others.

Likewise it is acknowledged that in order to achieve the MDGs goals all sections of the UN system will be required to work together and, more importantly, that the UN alone cannot achieve the MDGs goals.

The MDGs are unique in that they have broad support across the international system. The constituent bodies of the UN and all 191 UN member states are committed to achieving the MDGs.

Achieving the MDGs goals will require the cooperation and action of UN member states and of other international, regional and local governmental and non-governmental organizations.

WHO in particular accepts this to be the case.

WHO’s need to work closely with other UN bodies, states and other actors in the international system is a major theme of WHO’s Eleventh General Programme of Work 2006-2015.

0NCE AGAIN both of these points indicate that WHO is aware of the fact that it cannot function as an independent actor in the international system.

Any action WHO takes must be informed by the actions of other actors in the international system and likewise WHO’s actions impact upon the actions of other actors in the international system.

Enter the World Bank. Who’s major health funder in the 1980s and a proponent of market-based health policies challenged WHO’s pre-eminent position in the field.

Along with regional organizations including the European Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN) frame, to varying extents, their policies in a variety of areas around the achievement of the MDGs.

Many major international charities such as the Red Cross and OXFAM are focusing their work, again to varying degrees, on achieving the MDGs.

There are also many civil society organizations, operating at local, national, regional and international levels that are engaged with the MDGs.

Considering this broad support it is little wonder that WHO have chosen to focus so heavily on the achievement of the MDGs in the Eleventh General Programme of Work 2006-2015

The 2014/2015 proposed budget of the WHO is about US$4 billion. 

About US$930 million are to be provided by member states with a further US$3 billion to be from voluntary contributions.

( As of 2012, the largest annual assessed contributions from member states came from the United States ($110 million), Japan ($58 million), Germany ($37 million), United Kingdom ($31 million) and France ($31 million). The combined 2012–2013 budget has proposed a total expenditure of $3,959 million, of which $944 million (24%) will come from assessed contributions. This represented a significant fall in outlay compared to the previous 2009–2010 budget, adjusting to take account of previous under spends. Assessed contributions were kept the same. Voluntary contributions will account for $3,015 million (76%), of which $800 million is regarded as highly or moderately flexible funding, with the remainder tied to particular programmes or objectives.)

When you consider the value of the Drugs market.

As a result of the pressure to maintain sales,  there is now, in WHO’s words, “an inherent conflict of interest between the legitimate business goals of manufacturers and the social, medical and economic needs of providers and the public to select and use drugs in the most rational way”.

Afficher l'image d'origine

The global pharmaceuticals market is worth US$300 billion a year, a figure expected to rise to US$400 billion within three years. The 10 largest drugs companies control over one-third of this market, several with sales of more than US$10 billion a year and profit margins of about 30%. Six are based in the United States and four in Europe.

A similar conflict of interests exists in the area of drug research and development (R&D) particularly in the area of neglected diseases.

The private sector dominates R&D, spending millions of dollars each year developing new drugs for the mass market. The profit imperative ensures that the drugs chosen for development are those most likely to provide a high return on the company’s investment. As a result, drugs for use in the industrialized world are prioritized over ones for use in the South, where many patients would be unable to pay for them.

In a number of cases, international corporations and foundations have contributed drugs or products free of charge to help in disease eradication.

Smith Kline Beecham has made a US$500 million commitment to WHO of its drug albendazole, used to treat lymphatic filariasis (elephantiasis).

American Home Products has provided a non-toxic larvicide and the DuPont Company has contributed free cloth water filters for the eradication of guinea-worm disease (dracunculiasis).

The Japanese Nippon Foundation has enabled WHO to supply blister packs containing the drugs needed for multi-drug therapy (MDT) of TB in sufficient quantities to treat about 800 000 patients a year in some 35 countries.

Afficher l'image d'origine

Tomorrow, the World Health Organization (WHO) is expected to officially certify that south-east Asia, formerly one of the regions with the worst levels of polio, has eradicated the disease, after India found new no cases in the previous three years. (The WHO counts India as part of south-east Asia.)

The cost of achieving this has stretched past $10 billion, much of it fronted by donors from wealthy countries that have already eliminated the disease, as the US did in 1979.

For comparison, eliminating smallpox cost $500 million in 2008 dollars.

In 1998, researchers forecast that the eradication of measles in the US by 2010 would save $45 million a year.

Despite official “eradication” in 2000, cases of the measles are growing again thanks to the anti-vaccine movement’s push against immunization.

The World Health Organisation (WHO), the health body of the United Nations (UN), has released a new report stating the huge leaps made in the global fight against malaria. In the space of only 15 years, between 2000 and 2015, the rate of new malaria infections has dropped by approximately 37 per cent, with the global death rate falling by a dramatic 60 per cent during the same period. This means over six million deaths have been prevented since 2000.

“In the last decade of the previous century, malaria was rampant, killing more than one million people every year,” “Today, global malaria control ranks as one of the most successful stories in public health, since the start of the century.” However “Malaria still causes one in ten child deaths in Africa and costs the continent’s economies around £8bn every year.”

There is no doubting that this World Organisation and the work it does is essential to us all.

Being a humanitarian organisation which is much more than just giving people medicine it must recognize that everybody is an individual with a story, with a life, with a right to a future.

It is incapable of achieving this because it has to rely on ( like the United Nations, the World Wildlife Fund, and the United Nations Children’s Fund) insecure sourcing of financing.  

A 0.05% World Aid Commission on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange Transactions ( over $20,000) on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions would create a perpetual fund  that would transform all them.    

There seems little point in begging for funds when thinks go wrong.

There has never been a more pressing time for our out of date world organisation to function. Order has broken down in numerous countries. Armed groups and individuals explicitly target girls and women for rape, trafficking, and forced “marriage.” Smugglers sell desperate refugees into slavery. Predators attack the displaced, exploiting their vulnerability. And the consequences, both immediate and long-term, are profound.

THE BEADY EYETHE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WORLD ORGANISATIONS . PART SIX – THE WORLD WILDLIFE FUND (WWF)

20 Tuesday Oct 2015

Posted by in Climate Change., Sustaniability, The world to day., Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYETHE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WORLD ORGANISATIONS . PART SIX – THE WORLD WILDLIFE FUND (WWF)

Tags

, , , , ,

This is the first World Organisation in the series of posts that can hold its head up high, because we cannot separate the well-being of people from the well-being of the ecosystems where they live.

World Wildlife Fund was conceived in April, 1961, and set up shop in September, 1961, at IUCN’s headquarters in Morges, Switzerland. H.R.H. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands became the organization’s first president.

In its first year, the Board approves five projects totaling $33,500.

TO DAY IT is one of the largest environmental and conservation groups with worldwide affiliates. The panda drawn for the first time in 1961 by Sir Peter Scott, artist and co-founder of WWF, remains until today the organization’s symbol.

Afficher l'image d'origine

Its mission is to use scientific knowledge and advance that knowledge; to “work to preserve the diversity and abundance of life and the health of ecological systems by protecting natural areas and wild populations of plants and animals, including endangered species”; to promote “sustainable approaches to the use of renewable natural resources”; and to promote “efficient use of resources and energy and the maximum reduction of pollution.”

In 1973 WWF grants $38,000 to the Smithsonian Institution to study the tiger population of the Chitwan Sanctuary in Nepal.

WWF begins awarding the annual $50,000 Getty Prize for outstanding contributions to wildlife conservation in 1974. The Prize increases to $100,000 in 1999, and now focuses on the education of future conservationists.

During the first three years of its existence, “WWF raised and donated almost US$1.9 million to conservation projects.”

HUMANITY’S FOOTPRINT IS OUTSTRIPPING EARTH’S ABILITY TO PROVIDE

Already, 60% of ecosystem services—things like water supplies, fish stocks and fertile soil— are in decline because of human impacts on the environment.

Already, we need the equivalent of 1½ Earths to meet the demands people make on nature. We are eating into our natural capital, making it more and more difficult to sustain what will be needed by those who come after us.

THE PLANET IS CHANGING. WE ARE TOO. EVERY DAY, THE THREATS FACING THE PLANET BECOME MORE STARK.

TARGETING SPECIFIC PLACES AND SPECIES IS NO LONGER ENOUGH.

Fortunately, making connections—between the health of the planet and the health of humanity, between sustainability and a strong bottom line, between the sources of energy we choose and the water we drink—is one of WWF’s greatest talents.

Today, the WWF International is focused on six global issues, each critical to the health of our world and its inhabitants. The organization’s Web site lists the focus and need for each of the six programs.

The challenge comes in establishing that connectivity in a way that inspires action from people everywhere, on all levels.

ONE IN NINE PEOPLE ON THE PLANET SUFFERS FROM HUNGER.

90% OF THE OCEAN’S FISH STOCKS ARE OVER FISHED OR BEING FISHED TO THEIR LIMITS. AMERICANS CONSUME NEARLY 5 BILLION POUNDS OF SEAFOOD A YEAR NOT TO MENTION JAPAN, SPAIN. OCEANS FEED MORE THAN 1 BILLION PEOPLE. THEY GUIDE US TO ADVENTURE AND CONTEMPLATION, ABSORB CO² , AND HOLD THE PLANET’S GREATEST DIVERSITY OF LIFE.

GLOBALLY, OVER FISHING IS HAVING A DEVASTATING IMPACT ON THE SEA.

WILDLIFE POPULATIONS AROUND THE WORLD HAVE DECLINED BY AN AVERAGE OF 52% OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS.

BY 2030, GLOBAL DEMAND FOR FRESH WATER IS PROJECTED TO EXCEED CURRENT SUPPLY BY MORE THAN 40%.

573 MILLION ACRES OF FOREST WILL BE GONE BY 2050 IF WE DO NOTHING TO STOP DEFORESTATION.

THE CONCENTRATION OF CO² IN THE ATMOSPHERE IN 2013 WAS HIGHER THAN IT HAD BEEN IN AT LEAST 800 THOUSAND YEARS.

FORESTS ARE AT THE HEART OF LIFE ON EARTH. BILLIONS OF ANIMALS, PLANTS AND PEOPLE DEPEND ON THEM. THEY PROTECT OUR WATERSHEDS AND SUPPLY THE OXYGEN WE BREATHE. BETWEEN 46,000 AND 58,000 SQUARE MILES OF FOREST ARE LOST EACH YEAR ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT TO 36 FOOTBALL FIELDS EVERY MINUTE.

FRESH WATER IS CENTRAL TO OUR SURVIVAL. RIVERS, WETLANDS, LAKES AND STREAMS SUPPORT MORE THAN 10% OF ALL KNOWN SPECIES. WATER IS A CONDUIT FOR HEALTH, ENERGY AND FOOD. VIRTUALLY NO FRESHWATER SYSTEM REMAINS UNAFFECTED BY HUMAN ACTIVITIES.

WILDLIFE INSPIRES US. ANIMAL POPULATIONS ANCHOR A WEB OF LIFE THAT IS INTEGRAL TO EVERY HEALTHY ECOSYSTEM ON EARTH. IN THE SPAN OF JUST TWO HUMAN GENERATIONS, HALF OF EARTH’S WILDLIFE HAS DISAPPEARED.

FOOD SUSTAINS AND RENEWS US. ITS CREATION, PRODUCTION, PACKAGING AND TRANSPORT ENCROACH ON NATURE IN HARMFUL WAYS.

IF CURRENT TRENDS CONTINUE,WE WON’T BE ABLE TO REPLENISH THE WORLD’S FOOD SUPPLY FAST ENOUGH TO KEEP UP WITH DEMAND.

A HEALTHY CLIMATE IS A PRECARIOUS GIFT. CLIMATE CHANGE IS UPSETTING THE BALANCE THAT PEOPLE AND WILDLIFE NEED TO THRIVE.

The UN Climate Change Conference in Paris is fast approaching—and with it, our best chance to secure meaningful global climate change action. But the decisions that define our day-to-day lives have a huge impact as well.

Now, the 21st century and social media have ushered in a new set of trends. Younger generations respond less to formal affiliation and gravitate to supporting stand-alone causes and initiatives to get things done. The same is true of some sectors of philanthropy. Increasingly, successful individuals, along with foundations and corporations, see giving as a tool to confront and mitigate some of the biggest problems of our day.

Taking into account the above conditions that are currently prevalent  to our plants and the consequences to all living creatures, included us, you would think that our World Governments and Large Multinational Corporations would be funding the WWF work and projects.

You would be wrong. It has to beg, steal and borrow.

84% of WWF’s spending is directed to worldwide conservation activities.

(32% of its Funding comes from Individual Contributions, 19% from Government grants & contracts, 19% from in-kind and other revenues, 10% from other/non operating contributions, 9% foundation contributions,7% WWF network revenues and last 4% from corporate contributions.)

There is a lot of room for some corporation like Apple, Microsoft, or Banks to step up to the plate or it could be funded by the establishment of a World Aid Commission of 0.05% on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange Transactions (over $20,000) and on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions, and Drilling Licences. (see previous posts)

(WWF’s FY14 financial performance remained steady, with total revenues and support at $266.3 million. WWF’s programmatic spending represented 84% of total expenses, with management and administration costs accounting for a modest 5% of total expenses. Total net assets of $357.9 million represented a 12% increase over FY13.)

Afficher l'image d'origine 

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WORLD ORGANISATIONS . PART FIVE – THE WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION.

19 Monday Oct 2015

Posted by in The Future, The world to day., Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WORLD ORGANISATIONS . PART FIVE – THE WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION.

Tags

, , , , , ,

The UN Development Program reports that the richest 20 percent of the world’s population consume 86 percent of the world’s resources while the poorest 80 percent consume just 14 percent.

The WTO began life on 1 January 1995, but its trading system is half a century older.Afficher l'image d'origine

Since 1948, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) had provided the rules for the system. (The second WTO ministerial meeting, held in Geneva in May 1998, included a celebration of the 50th anniversary of the system.)

The last and largest GATT round, was the Uruguay Round which lasted from 1986 to 1994 and led to the WTO’s creation.

Whereas GATT had mainly dealt with trade in goods, the WTO and its agreements now cover trade in services, and in traded inventions, creations and designs (intellectual property).

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an international organization of 161 members that deals with the rules of trade between nations. With Russia’s accession in August 2012, the WTO encompasses all major trading economies.Afficher l'image d'origine

The work of the IMF and the WTO is complementary.

The WTO Agreements require that it consult the IMF when it deals with issues concerning monetary reserves, balance of payments, and foreign exchange arrangement.

The policies of the WTO impact all aspects of society and the planet, but it is not a democratic, transparent institution.

The WTO rules are written by and for corporations with inside access to the negotiations.  The WTO would like you to believe that creating a world of “free trade” will promote global understanding and peace. On the contrary, the domination of international trade by rich countries for the benefit of their individual interests fuels anger and resentment that make us less safe.

WTO rules put the “rights” of corporations to profit over human and labor rights.

It is time that trade was put firmly in its place, so that it is viewed not as a goal in itself but as a means to achieving broader social, environmental and development goals.

At the very least, the world’s richest countries must honour their commitment to tackling their own damaging practices, particularly subsidies that drive down prices and increase poverty for farmers across the world.

Multilateral trade negotiations need fundamental reform, to be based on fair negotiations, not power play, so that developing countries have an equal place at the table. Genuine consultation with civil society in both the global north and south would no doubt produce other proposals for improvement.

If agreement can’t be reached on a small package of measures to help developing countries, as part of development agenda, then the relevance of the WTO and the multilateral trading system must be questioned.

The sad reality is that very often it is not in a business’s financial interests to act ethically. And no amount of persuasion will change that.The point, then, is not so much to persuade businesses that it is in their interests to act ethically and sustainably – they will work that out for themselves – but to make sure that it is.

Which means two things in practice: raising the benefits of acting ethically and sustainably, and raising the costs of not doing so. There are two principal ways, in a democratic capitalist society, of ensuring that the right incentives are in place for a business to act ethically: via the consumer and via the regulator (indirectly influenced by the citizen).

When humans get into big organisations it can be hard to apply moral values, and the incentives of the business context tend to hold sway. Especially when the boardroom is often far from a particular initiative that may be many thousands of miles away.

The big problem is the lack of global level regulation to match our now thoroughly globalised financial system. Such an international regulatory system is very far from being a reality, but if it is needed to guide, enable and sometimes restrict the activities of the financial sector, it is equally needed in other international sectors, from the extractive industries to manufacturing to agricultural trade.

Attempts at getting companies to sign up to voluntary measures (such as the UN Global Compact) are fine, but they are regarded as quaint by the majority of business people.

For every CEO who has a damascene conversion and transforms or builds their business along ethical lines (think Anita Roddick of the Body Shop) there are thousands who don’t. Lip service is paid, the odd children’s playground is built, the business of business goes on.

The point is to change incentives, and voluntary measures don’t do that. Only legal sanction or consumer action is strong enough, and consumer action is too erratic to rely upon.

In a globalised world, national level laws are clearly inadequate. People say international law is impossible, but they say that about everything worth doing. It is not only possible, it is vital, and is the major project of the 21st century. Without it, the global public cannot expect a private sector that works for people, not just for profit.

If you wanted clear evidence of the above just look at the Two trade Agreements recently negotiated The TTIP and TTP.

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WORLD ORGANISATIONS . PART FOUR- THE THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (IMF)

18 Sunday Oct 2015

Posted by in The Future, The world to day., Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WORLD ORGANISATIONS . PART FOUR- THE THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (IMF)

Tags

, ,

It would be foolish to assume that the world has entered an “end of crises” stage in its history.

Today, with the Web we should all beware of the challenges facing our existence, but are our World Organisations up to speed.

This series of post examines the biggest and there is none more powerful than this one. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) — yet few know how it works.

It’s the must powerful because the economic and financial linkages which bind us together have brought substantial benefits to people around the world, but they have also had destabilizing effects.

The IMF works actively with the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the United Nations, and other international bodies that share an interest in international trade.

Because we live in an increasingly globalized world and the expansion of the role of markets and their increasing globalization will continue to transform the international economy.

As the Second World War ends, the job of rebuilding national economies begins.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was founded in 1945 on multilateral principles, which stood in sharp contrast to the unilateralism and beggar-thy-neighbour policies of the 1930s.

Also known as the Fund, it was conceived at a United Nations conference convened in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, United States, in July 1944.

The 44 governments represented at that conference sought to build a framework for economic cooperation that would avoid a repetition of the vicious circle of competitive devaluations that had contributed to the Great Depression of the 1930s.

To Day the IMF’s primary purpose is to ensure the stability of the international monetary system—the system of exchange rates and international payments that enables countries (and their citizens) to transact with each other.

Also to serve three related purposes.

First, it would operate as a forum for multilateral economic cooperation, in recognition of the fact that one country’s policies affect other countries. Second, it would help countries to identify and adopt the macroeconomic policies that would help them to achieve and maintain high levels of employment and real income. Third, the Fund would provide temporary financial support, under appropriate safeguards, to help members address balance of payments difficulties without resorting to measures that could damage national or international prosperity.

The primary source of the IMF’s financial resources is its members’ quotas, which broadly reflect members’ relative position in the world economy.

Currently, total quota resources amount to about SDR 238 billion (about $334 billion).

With its near-global membership of 188 countries, the IMF is uniquely placed to help member governments take advantage of the opportunities—and manage the challenges—posed by globalization and economic development more generally.

The IMF tracks global economic trends and performance, alerts its member countries when it sees problems on the horizon, provides a forum for policy dialogue, and passes on know-how to governments on how to tackle economic difficulties.

However it has difficulty conforming to the new global power balance.

The US holds 16.7 percent of the voting power in the Fund, which gives it an effective veto over any major changes in its structure and activities. China meanwhile has a 3.8 percent voting share, not far from Italy’s, which has an economy one-fifth the size.

Its Managing Director Christine Lagarde is one of the few woman in the world of power.Afficher l'image d'origine

  • Headquarters: Washington, D.C.
  • Executive Board: 24 Directors representing countries or groups of countries
  • Staff: Approximately 2,630 from 147 countries
  • Total quotas: US$334 billion (as of 9/4/15)
  • Additional pledged or committed resources: US $903 billion
  • Committed amounts under current lending arrangements (as of 8/27/15): US$164 billion, of which US$145 billion have not been drawn (seetable).
  • Biggest borrowers (amount outstanding as of 9/3/15): Portugal, Greece, Ukraine, Ireland
  • Biggest precautionary loans (amount agreed as of 9/3/15): Mexico, Poland, Colombia, Morocco

Since the debt crisis of the 1980’s, the IMF has assumed the role of bailing out countries during financial crises (caused in large part by currency speculation in the global casino economy) with emergency loan packages tied to certain conditions, often referred to as structural adjustment policies (SAPs). It now acts like a global loan shark, exerting enormous leverage over the economies of more than 60 countries.

These countries have to follow the IMF’s policies to get loans, international assistance, and even debt relief. Thus, the IMF decides how much debtor countries can spend on education, health care, and environmental protection.

Unlike a democratic system in which each member country would have an equal vote, rich countries dominate decision-making in the IMF because voting power is determined by the amount of money that each country pays into the IMF’s quota system.

It’s a system of one dollar, one vote.

The U.S. is the largest shareholder with a quota of 18 percent. Germany, Japan, France, Great Britain, and the US combined control about 38 percent.

The disproportionate amount of power held by wealthy countries means that the interests of bankers, investors and corporations from industrialized countries are put above the needs of the world’s poor majority.

The IMF is funded with taxpayer money, yet it operates behind a veil of secrecy.

Members of affected communities do not participate in designing loan packages. The IMF works with a select group of central bankers and finance ministers to make polices without input from other government agencies such as health, education and environment departments.

The institution has resisted calls for public scrutiny and independent evaluation.

IMF loans and bailout packages are paving the way for natural resource exploitation on a staggering scale. It does not consider the environmental impacts of lending policies, and environmental ministries and groups are not included in policy making.

The focus on export growth to earn hard currency to pay back loans has led to an unsustainable liquidation of natural resources. For example, the Ivory Coast’s increased reliance on cocoa exports has led to a loss of two-thirds of the country’s forests.

The IMF routinely pushes countries to deregulate financial systems.

The removal of regulations that might limit speculation has greatly increased capital investment in developing country financial markets. More than $1.5 trillion crosses borders every day. Most of this capital is invested short-term, putting countries at the whim of financial speculators. The Mexican 1995 peso crisis was partly a result of these IMF policies.

When the bubble popped, the IMF and US government stepped in to prop up interest and exchange rates, using taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street bankers. Such bailouts encourage investors to continue making risky, speculative bets, thereby increasing the instability of national economies.

During the bailout of Asian countries, the IMF required governments to assume the bad debts of private banks, thus making the public pay the costs and draining yet more resources away from social programs.

Is the IMF Obsolete?. Several years ago, even asking such a question would have seemed absurd.

Yet today, with the narrowing of risk spreads in an era of increasingly interconnected markets and more efficient risk management, is the IMF’s role still relevant? Has the rise of Asia, with its reliance on self-insurance by reserve accumulation since 1998, shown the Fund the door?

So is it time for it to consolidate merging with the World Bank. But that might make for conflicting irrelevant missions.

The IMF has thrived over the years by constantly reinventing itself to meet the evolving needs of global financial governance.

The United States, European Union, Japan, and China can do pretty much as they please—in terms of fiscal stance, interest rates, or exchange rates—either cooperating or not as suits their tastes.

For the big boys, the IMF can be no better than a scholarly scold.

A useful role, to be sure, but not a task that justifies a staff of thousands.

The IMF has lost a clear sense of mission and purpose, and it has lost the support of many members. Members have built reserves and made other arrangements to avoid borrowing from the IMF.

The new world order needs a credible, independent global institution to guide it, and make all the other entities—such as a revamped (and constantly reforming) G8 and G20—effective.

The IMF should be a natural to lead this new world order, but unfortunately there is no sign they are really seizing the moment.

Never in the history of the world has a bureaucracy on its own shut itself down. Could this be the first time? Should it be?

On the one hand, globalization and the rapid growth of emerging markets allow prosperity to be shared more broadly. On the other, many countries remain mired in poverty. There are also moves worldwide toward stronger regionalism in political, monetary and trade relations. Global trends toward democracy, broader participation in decision-making, and a growing prominence of civil society groups within and across borders have highlighted the importance of participatory process and outreach in decision-making.

With its near universal membership, it is the only organization that maintains regular discussions on economic policies with almost all countries. It has the capacity to conduct comprehensive economic policy analysis at the global, regional and country levels. And its members are committed to providing information and engaging in peer review.

The IMF is the only global multilateral institution that brings officials with monetary and financial responsibilities together to monitor international developments and to respond when problems arise.

It was taken for granted that one of the world’s largest international institutions, and certainly one of its most important, would forever be part of the economic and political landscape.

Now, this isn’t the case.

In the USA Congress has refused thus far to approve the Administration’s request for $18 billion to help replenish the IMF’s resources, which have been severely depleted by the various Asian rescue packages the Fund arranged earlier this year.

A shortage of resources is one reason (but certainly not the only one) why the Fund didn’t offer to provide Russia more money during late summer (after arranging a package in July).

Even if the US Congress eventually approves the $18 billion the acrimonius debate over the IMF’s funding and future this time does not augur well for approval of additional funding in the future.

In 2014, the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was established as a rival to the IMF and World Bank.

In July 2014 the BRICS nations (Brazil,Russia,India,China,and South Africa) announced the BRICS CONTINGENT RESERVE ARRANGEMENT (CRA) with an initial size of US$100 billion. A framework to provide liquidity through currency swaps in response to actual or potential short-term balance-of-payments pressures.

Some experts voiced concern that the IMF was not representative, and that the IMF proposals to generate only US$200 billion a year by 2020 with the SDRs as seed funds, did not go far enough to undo the general incentive to pursue destructive projects inherent in the world commodity trading and banking systems—criticisms often levelled at the World Trade Organisation  and large global banking institutions.

The greatest amount currently on loan is to Mexico, and then Greece. But when you look at the loan as a percentage of GDP, Liberia then Iceland are the highest with 8.5% and 7.4% respectively.

The greatest amount to be paid back per member of the population is Iceland ($2,828.67 per person) and Ireland ($2,619.14 per person).

The IMF has made €2.5 billion of profit out of its loans to Greece since 2010. If Greece does repay the IMF in full this will rise to €4.3 billion by 2024.

Out of its lending to all countries in debt crisis between 2010 and 2014 the IMF has made a total profit of €8.4 billion, over a quarter of which is effectively from Greece.

All of this money has been added to the Fund’s reserves, which now total €19 billion. These reserves would be used to meet the costs from a country defaulting on repayments. Greece’s total debt to the IMF is currently €24 billion.

The International Monetary Fund is meant to be the firefighter of the world economy. Recently, though, it is China that has responded to the ringing of alarms. First, it lent Argentina cash to replenish its dwindling foreign-exchange reserves. Next, with the rouble crashing, China offered credit to Russia. Then Venezuela begged for funds to stave off a default. Strategic interests dictate where China points its financial hose: these countries supply it with oil and food.

 If a government anywhere goes bust, it now has an alternative to the IMF.

Whether the IMF truly benefits the international economy is the subject of considerable debate. Much of the criticism centers on the IMF’s requirements to adopt certain economic policies in order to receive IMF loans, which may encourage poor countries to neglect social concerns in order to comply.

The IMF’s role grows more controversial. It gets a reputation – as a rich bully – bursting into emerging market economies, telling them how to live their life.

If you don’t pay back the IMF, the lender of the last resort to the world, then no one will lend you money. I mean really, no one. Ultimately they paid the IMF in full. Everyone pays. If you want to play in the international economy, if you want to have credit, if you want to have any kind of normal relationship with the outside world, you need to have a normal relationship with the IMF.

Through its notorious structural adjustment programs (SAPs), it has imposed harsh economic reforms in over 100 countries in the developing and former communist worlds, throwing hundreds of millions of people deeper into poverty.

Its fingers and those of the World Bank are all over the (The Trans-Pacific Partnerhsip and The EU trade and investment deal with the US – the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership – or TTIP.) both of which are quickly becoming the subject of increased interest and criticism. These two trade deals – the former being discussed between the US and Europe, and the latter between the US and Asian nations including Japan and South Korea – stand to change the face of global trade.

This agreement includes Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam to start. Eventually, its advocates hope, it will include every nation on the Pacific rim, including Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan, Mexico, Russia, and China.

The TPP is also a profoundly anti-democratic agreement which signs away our right to govern our own economy. Taken to its logical conclusion, this all ultimately amounts to the idea that the profitability of investments must be the supreme priority of state policy–overriding health, safety, human rights, labor law, fiscal policy, macroeconomic stability, industrial policy, national security, cultural autonomy, the environment, and everything else.

Who would fall for a brazen scheme that strengthens protection under the guise of free trade?

You’ve probably heard the old saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result.

It is the holy grail, the fundamental principle that underpins much of modern economic thinking.

It may be too late to stop the TPP but we need to think beyond the narrow circle of its signatories.

Just to add to the mind-boggling complexity, ask yourself this: If you own a business and want to trade with Japan, should you access the recently inked Australia Japan deal? Or should you go with the TPP?

The TPP is being driven by America. Like most of these deals, it is politically driven. Fearful of China’s rise, America wants to corral its allies under a trade umbrella. In the process, it also wants to further the interests of American corporations and American workers.

It wants copyright laws and patents tightened and extended. These are agreements that offer protection to corporations and investors, usually justified on the grounds that innovation requires a reward not us the people.

When it comes to economic benefits, both of these Agreements can be and will be downright harmful.

 

 

THE BEADY EYE LOOK AT WORLD ORGANISATIONS. PART TWO- IS NATO RELEVANT.

14 Wednesday Oct 2015

Posted by in Climate Change., Environment, European Union., Politics., The Future, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., War, World Organisations.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOK AT WORLD ORGANISATIONS. PART TWO- IS NATO RELEVANT.

Tags

, , , ,

In the past 60 plus years, many changes have taken place with society, technology and governments but world peace is for the most part pie in the sky.

It is true that their have been no major global conflicts in the latter half of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first.

So is Nato still relevant?  Or is it just a pension club for the military old boys.

Since 1999 Nato has struggled in performing ever mission it has launched- Bosnia, Kosova, Afghanistan.

When Estonians pulled the Nato emergency chain on a cyber attack it was left with a lukewarm response raising the question what constitutes an attack on a country that Nato will react to.

What would happen if a war started, or the market crashed? I don’t think that NATO would fight a war together ( Including USA and Canada there are currently 28 member states) to be honest.

The conflicting priorities of Europe and the USA and the absence of a common foe all point to the need for Nato to be refilled into either a new European defense force or into the United Nations as a total peaceful organisation. Since the end of the cold war, NATO and the UN have become nearly interchangeable.

However some still say that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) is more relevant than it has been for years even if many of its members are moving further away from meeting their defense spending obligations.An Italian sailor from the frigate "Alieso" removes a cover from a cannon in the Black Sea port of Varna, Bulgaria, March 9, 2015.

The end of the Cold War and, consequently, the absence of the Soviet threat, did not render NATO ( The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) obsolete. There is no Warsaw Pact anymore, so why is there NATO?

The Alliance is now expanding like crazy. Faster than EU itself.

This means they either feel their power is crumbling and need more power, more allies, or the simple fact NATO has no more meaning.

It is the last surviving relic of the Cold War and is now the centerpiece of US-European relations. It has served as an integrating mechanism for Europe for more than sixty-five years.Afficher l'image d'origine

Here what it cost to-day.

Nato                         2014 Actual         2014                2015              2015

  • Member State        Expenditure       % of GDP      Project Exp        % of GDP
  1. Bulgaria              $604 million              1.3           $565 million        1.16
  2. Canada              $14.3 billion              1             $12.2 billion          null
  3. Estonia               $430 million              2             $461 million          2.05
  4. France                $40.90 billion            1.5          $41.2 billion          1.5
  5. Germany             $44.3 billion             1.14         $41.72 billion        1.09
  6. Hungary              $1.03 billion             0.79          $0.79 billion          0.75
  7. Italy                    $17.3 billion             1.2            $16.3 billion         null
  8. Latvia                  $252 million            0.9            $283 million          1
  9. Lithuania             $359 million             0.78            $474 million        1.11
  10. Netherlands         $8.7 billion             1                $9 billion              null
  11. Norway                $5.8 billion              1.58           $6.8 billion           1.6
  12. Poland                  $10.4 billion           1.9             $10.4 billion         1.95
  13. Romania               $2 billion                1.4         Not yet announced   1.7
  14. UK                        $55 billion              2.07            $54 billion           1.88
  15. US                       $582.4 billion          3.6              $585 billion          3.1
  16. Turkey                   Not known
  17. Albania                         “
  18. Czech Rep                    “
  19. Denmark                      “
  20. Greece                         “
  21. Iceland                        “
  22. Luxembourg                 “
  23. Poland                          “
  24. Slovakia                       “
  25. Slovenia                       “
  26. Portugal                       “
  27. Spain                           “
  28. Belgium                         “

Unfortunately the US funding of  Nato has it wrapped around its finger. It funds between one-fifth and one-quarter of Nato’s budget.

The civil budget for 2015 is € 200 million. The civil budget provides funds for personnel expenses, operating costs, and capital and programme expenditure of the International Staff at NATO Headquarters.

The military budget for 2015 is €1.2 billion. This budget covers the operating and maintenance costs of the NATO Command Structure. It is composed of over 50 separate budgets, which are financed with contributions from Allies’ national defence budgets (in most countries) according to agreed cost-shares.

While there is stagnation in military expenditure from the larger military powers in NATO — the UK, France, Germany, and Canada — that has led to several smaller NATO states to increase their funding. Not coincidentally, some of them would be front line states in a future military conflict between Russia and the NATO alliance.

NATO was founded to promote democratic values and encourage cooperation on defense and security issues. What started as a good idea that was backed by powerful nations, now is not the case.

With Russia involvement in Syria not to mention the Ukraine the real question is: Do we need what I see as a duplication Organisation that appears determined, for the first time in its history, to intervene beyond its borders.

Operational partnerships, such as the one Nato established with Australia in Afghanistan, are an additional source of personnel and resources for Nato-led operations.

Even militarily it does not make sense to have an European Union relining on an Organisation that has as its linchpin of the alliance Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states that “an armed attack against one or more of them [NATO members] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all” and that all members are obliged to assist the state(s) under attack.

Article 5 has been invoked only once in NATO’s history, after the terrorist attacks against the US homeland on September 11, 2001.

It says it committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes.

NATO provides security to the world because of their rules and regulations that prevent war. Considering those FACTS it is foolish to say that NATO is not relevant.

No wars have taken place in any country that is part of NATO after they joined.

It is supposed to act under resolutions that are carried out under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty – NATO’s founding treaty – or under a UN mandate, alone or in cooperation with other countries and international organizations.

So tell me what irresolution was passed about ring fencing Russia with rockets.

NATO’s incessant push to the east is an attempt to reinstate a Berlin Wall that spans the entire western border of Russia. This has no place in a peaceful world.

It’s no wonder that Russia is worries about that, as well as the new identity and tasks that NATO has awarded itself.

Russia opposes expansion mainly because she fears that the West is trying to isolate her in the corner of Europe, deprive her of her privileged relationship with her former satellites and undermine her national interests. This is why she is so fiercely opposing enlargement to include the Baltic States and Ukraine. NATO is viewed by Russia as nothing more than the club wielded by capitalist sharks.

Without a unified military force Europe (an area of the world that for many centuries was the most warlike on the globe) relies on the Nato. The dissolution of which without a replacement would leave the Continent without the existence of a military option to ensure stability within in its borders.

There is one thing for sure in light of NATO’s character as a political forum of democratic nations, expansion to incorporate those states that had authoritatively been excluded from it and pushed into the arms of the Soviet Union seems a logical consequence.

It can no longer be seen merely as a military Alliance with a defensive character, but as a political one as well, gathering the nations that share common democratic values and respect for human rights and the rule of law. However this is a new world where NATO seems confrontational and counter productive with limited capability to undertake even crisis management operations.

One of the major problems with the preceding league of nations, was the lack of ‘teeth’.

Instead of focusing on the rapidly declining interstate conflicts (as a result of interdependence), maybe Nato should be focusing more on threats such as cyber warfare, terrorism, and piracy, and vetting refugees.

It would be impossible to think a couple of decades ago that the Americans and the Russians might sit at the same table and plan common military operations.

You would think that Nato which is deeply involved in the Syrian war and the United Nations would be encouraging such a move to avoid Turkey being dragged into the War.

Instead Jens Stoltenberg, the Nato secretary-general, said that the organisation intended to “send a clear message” to show that the world’s most powerful military alliance was prepared to act in defence of its citizens. “Nato will defend you, Nato is on the ground, Nato is ready,” he said.

Nato says it is prepared to send troops to Turkey to defend its ally after violations of Turkish airspace by Russian jets,

Then all hell breaks loose as if this was the ultimate pretext for a NATO-Russia war.

But wait; NATO is actually too busy to go to war. The priority, until at least November, is the epic Trident Juncture 2015; 36,000 troops from 30 states, more than 60 warships, around 200 aircraft, all are seriously practicing how to defend from the proverbial “The Russians are Coming!”

Russia’s spectacular entry into the war theater threw all these elaborate plans into disarray.

Surely, there are differences between the US and Russia, but these can be overcome step by step with constructive dialogue and mutual understanding. They are no longer afraid of each other. They do have their differences, as it is natural that they should.

As events in the Ukraine, Syria and now Turkey are tragically demonstrating Nato could become a source of potential danger for the entire world.

The World has enough problems this is not a time for Nato saber-rattling.

Finally it is otter stupidity to think that if a nuclear device designed to emit an EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) were detonated about 300 miles over EUROPE ( most of Europe as we now know it would be gone) that Nato or the USA would do anything other than issue wet wipes.

Also one may wonder why Turkey — a country that is about 2,000 miles to the east of the Atlantic Ocean — finds itself in an entity called the “North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The answer is the roots of accepting non-North Atlantic nations into NATO, mainly Greece and Turkey lies at the heart of the Truman Doctrine — extending military and economic aid to states vulnerable to Soviet threat / expansion. NATO membership should guarantee, in essence, that Turkey would not become a Soviet ally.

Moving forward means dissolving what does not work and finding what will work.

The next two decades will make or break humanity.

Perhaps Nato should stand down as a military force and take up the mantel of fighting Climate Change.

Finally how can we have an ordered world where Russia and China are excluded from the police force?

If Nato is to be relevant it could start by building a world environmental police force.