Diplomacy & Crisis News

Publié dans : TheConversation.fr
Si le Proche-Orient regorge hélas de drames et de tensions – du Yémen à l’Irak ou à la Syrie –, deux dossiers engagent aujourd’hui plus particulièrement la stratégie américaine et les équilibres internationaux. Le premier est, bien entendu, celui de la relation avec l’Iran, qui fait l’objet de toutes les spéculations, de toutes les escalades verbales, et pourrait servir de détonateur à tous les scénarios. Le second est celui de la Palestine, dont la dangerosité vient à l’inverse de l’absence d’engagement américain, dans un discours pétri d’arrières pensées bien plus que de coups d’éclat.Dans les deux cas, un jeu de dupes et de miroirs semble s’être engagé entre les différents acteurs du pouvoir américain eux-mêmes, entre différents protagonistes régionaux, et se répercute sur la stabilité régionale comme globale. Du traitement de ces deux dossiers, ni la politique étrangère, ni les politiques étrangères arabes, ni le jeu des autres puissances ne sortiront indemnes.La politique étrangère américaine : faire et défaireL’issue de la stratégie – ou de l’absence de stratégie – actuellement engagée par Washington en Iran et en Palestine déterminera, en grande partie, la crédibilité internationale des États-Unis, au-delà de la région, et au-delà de la période de l’administration Trump. D’abord parce que ce sont les États-Unis qui défont aujourd’hui ce qu’ils ont fait eux-mêmes : il sera donc important de voir si les dégâts seront réparables à l’avenir, ou pas.C’est l’Amérique – celle de George Bush senior puis de Bill Clinton – qui a rebondi sur le processus d’Oslo au début des années 1990, pour aboutir à la poignée de main Arafat-Rabin de 1993, et qui a ensuite fait pression sur les acteurs (certes en vain) pour poursuivre les négociations, en y engageant ses diplomates les plus chevronnés. C’est l’Amérique désormais qui fait disparaître toute référence à un État palestinien, en confiant le dossier au gendre du Président, qui ignore tout de la négociation internationale.Jared Kushner, le gendre du Président, lors d’un sommet sur la Palestine, le 25 juin 2019, à Barheïn. Shaun Tandon/AFPC’est encore l’Amérique – celle d’Obama – qui a ramené l’Iran à la table des négociations pour aboutir à un accord sur le contrôle du nucléaire, en juillet 2015, et faire souffler un vent d’apaisement sur une relation ô combien conflictuelle depuis 1979. C’est l’Amérique de Trump qui a déchiré cet accord, et renoue avec une rhétorique de confrontation. Quoi que l’on pense de l’accord de 2015, quoi que l’on pense des ratés et retards d’un processus israélo-palestinien considéré comme moribond, le dialogue continuait, l’Amérique revendiquait encore un rôle d’arbitre impartial, même si peu y croyaient. Elle n’y prétend même plus aujourd’hui.Guerre des camps au sein de l’administration américaineEn tombant le masque, l’administration Trump prend un risque multiple. Celui de renoncer à sa position surplombante, pour descendre dans l’arène et voir inévitablement émerger d’autres puissances s’opposant à sa vision : Moscou s’y est déjà engouffré.Celui également de mettre ses propres alliés en situation difficile : progresser par le non-dit vers un rapprochement entre l’État hébreu et les monarchies du Golfe (et leurs alliés comme l’Égypte) est une chose, leur demander de cautionner publiquement l’abandon de la cause palestinienne en est une autre.À lire aussi : Quel rapprochement possible entre Israël, l’Arabie saoudite et Abu Dhabi ?Celui enfin d’enflammer la région, si l’une de ces deux situations bascule dans le chaos : qu’une étincelle mette le feu aux poudres dans le Golfe, ou qu’éclate une nouvelle intifada, ou de nouvelles violences autour de la question palestinienne, et il sera difficile à l’Amérique de reprendre pied.Enfin, il est désormais visible que plusieurs camps s’affrontent dans le processus décisionnel américain, qui tablent sur l’amateurisme ou l’absence de réel intérêt du Président Trump sur ces dossiers pour avancer leurs pions. Une course s’est engagée entre ceux qui souhaitent limiter les tensions, et ceux qui comptent bien les précipiter.Stephen Walt✔@stephenWaltPeople who say "Kushner's 'peace plan' won't work" are missing the point. It wasn't supposed to work--if that means facilitating a just & lasting peace. Its purpose was to buy time, kick dust, shift blame, & thereby facilitate permanent Israeli control of W. Bank.8347:42 PM - Jun 25, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy533 people are talking about thisSi le Président semble n’avoir aucun autre agenda précis que de se mettre en scène en « deal maker », soufflant le chaud et le froid à la recherche, comme en Corée du Nord, de quelques rebondissements spectaculaires, d’autres ont une vision. Elle peut consister à promouvoir le changement de régime en Iran, quel que soit le prix régional à payer – comme pour son conseiller John Bolton. Ou encore à gagner du temps sur la question palestinienne, et faire le jeu du premier ministre israélien actuel, comme le craignent certains analystes aux États-Unis mêmes. L’issue de cette confrontation sera cruciale pour l’avenir de la politique étrangère américaine.L’effacement des politiques étrangères arabes
Lire la suite dans : TheConversation.fr

Congress members celebrate as Brazil’s pensions reforms cleared their first legislative hurdle after years of wrangling © Reuters

Pension reform is something that has a great effect on the future of Brazilians, Latin Americans and to be honest the rest of us as well. Brazil was always a unique case, a country that built an administrative centre in the middle of the country in the 1950s that is populated by mostly government administrators with fairly good pension packages. The citizens of Brasilia did not initially come to their careers or pensions in an average process where a union fought for reforms to match wages with those of the private sector. The creation of Brasilia was a massive national project that also created the place for a public sector that really formed much of the middle class in Brazilian society at the time, existing to this day.

With the attempt at industrializing Brazil and Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s came stronger workforces, with capable union support to fight for the rights of their workers. By the 1990s and the post economic crisis of the 80s came Worker’s Party Presidents like Lula and balanced economic policy approaches with the support of unions in pushing the economy forward. While memories of those years were positive and a somewhat healthy mix of classically liberal economic policies supported by labour unions with some targeted social programs, the last few years has shown that there was corruption feeding off corruption, and it hurt average Brazilians the most. Whether it was elite members of labour unions or elite wealth, middle and lower income Brazilians were treated as an afterthought.

The debate in Brazil and the rest of the region likely follows a similar debate in your country as well. Pensions for those who were fortunate enough to be employed in the public service seemed to become very lucrative over the years. With many private sector employers cutting back or losing their businesses altogether, many became unemployed and felt that the little income they had should not go directly towards a set raise for union employers that depended on underemployed taxpayers. Public sector jobs were now out-competing benefits-wise and pay-wise with private sector employment that no longer existed due to economic disruptions over the years. The end result is that the pension packages that were lucrative and part of the labour contracts in the past still needed to be paid, but without an economy that can sustain many of those packages.

It is understood by a community that taxes should go to support everyone in a community, for schools, hospitals, police and other utilities. What percentage however is a reasonable amount to go to a pension fund from the community’s public purse? While it is well understood that public and private sector pensions should not be cut or eliminated because those employees have spent their careers depending on those future benefits, what cost should the entire community endure to pay those pensions before other necessities? Even in the case of California, Michigan and Ontario in Canada, public pension costs are forecast to be so consequential that there is no real plan to cover them without going into permanent debt. How can an elected government make the community a priority if they have an impossible political battle over pensions when making difficult policy decisions?

The case of Brazil and Latin America may have even more desperate consequences. With much of the lower income workforce being precariously linked to the national and regional social services systems and a weakened private sector middle class, there is little political strength to pressure the government and unions to take policy decisions to benefit the average worker. Even in the case of private sector union employees who lack hours or a place to work, the private sector unions have little power if there is no employment in their sector. Such a scenario occurred in the last US election, with private sector unions pulling away from their traditional Democratic roots because their members had no employment to effectively support their union movement. While is it extremely difficult to reform contracts and take money from the pockets of active union members, it might be that the resolution of this issue determines the future health of a community.

The post Pensions for Some, but Not for Others appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The main UN platform following up on Member States’ actions to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) continued its work Monday taking up the issue of finance, including examining ways to better align and distribute funds for development at national, as well as global levels.

Nelson Mandela was an “extraordinary global advocate for dignity and equality” who anyone in public service should seek to emulate, Secretary-General António Guterres said marking the International Day that honours the iconic anti-apartheid campaigner, and South Africa’s first democratically-elected President. 

In today’s Daily Brief: the DR Congo Ebola outbreak is officially declared a Public Health Emergency; UN Youth Envoy briefs Security Council; an ‘exciting and potentially defining’ moment for Sudan, says UN adviser; more cooperation’s needed to secure arrest of war crimes fugitives; and politicizing the migrant ‘crisis’ in Hungary

After visiting refugee camps in Jordan, UN-backed schools in Gaza, municipalities in Kosovo and Youth Councils in Denmark, the UN’s Youth Envoy visited the Security Council on Wednesday with a simple message from the field that “young people care about peace”.

Cool heads are needed in both Beijing and Washington.

The second worst Ebola outbreak of all time, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), was officially declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on Wednesday, with the head of the World Health Organization calling for countries to ‘take notice and redouble our efforts”.

Expressing deep concern over how migration and migrants themselves are being politicized and scapegoated in Hungary, an independent United Nations human rights expert on Wednesday urged the Government to immediately end its “crisis” approach to the issue. 

Long deemed strategically irrelevant by the United States, the EU is poised to become a major geopolitical power. Washington should take note.

A new book looks at why the U.S. military keeps trapping itself in endless conflicts.

Almost four decades after the first U.S.-Pakistani mission in Afghanistan, Islamabad risks getting caught in the crosshairs of great-power politics again. Only deft diplomacy will save it.

In a ruling delivered on Wednesday, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered Pakistan to review a death sentence handed down in the case of a former Indian Navy officer accused by Pakistan of spying, finding that the country’s authorities acted in breach of the Vienna Convention, which lays out rules for diplomatic relations between countries.

The decline in U.S. soft power didn’t start with Trump, but he accelerated it this week with his racist tweets.

It won’t bring the regime in from the cold, but it will save lives.

Plus: Hong Kong’s justice minister in China, Congo’s Ebola crisis, and the other stories we’re following today.

Many women and girls “still face enormous challenges to their health, well-being and human rights”, Secretary-General António Guterres told a High-level General Assembly meeting on Tuesday conevened to mark the 25th anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), a milestone in reproductive health and rights. 

In today’s Daily Brief: Inclusion resonates widely at development meeting, UN offers help after monsoons devastate Asia, DR Congo Ebola effecting children, obesity plagues island communities, Yemen’s warring parties agree to ceasefire for key port

The presidential contender is leading the charge against the Defense Department’s revolving door but has a history of pushing the interests of firms in her home state.

A coalition between Pedro Sánchez’s Socialists and Albert Rivera’s Ciudadanos could prevent a fourth election in as many years—but voters are unlikely to buy it.