Day: November 8, 2011
IAEA suggests Iran going nuclear
This IAEA report sounds pretty tame in bureaucratese, but it in effect says the UN agency can’t confirm that Iran has no nuclear weapons program and suggests Iran is violating its Non-proliferation Treaty obligations and developing nuclear weapons. The Annex on “Possible Military Dimensions to Iran’s Nuclear Programme” is particularly eye opening. I still think this is all in preparation for ratcheting up sanctions rather than a military attack, but if the sanctions don’t get ratcheted up or don’t slow Iranian progress…
Here is what the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded (bolding is mine):
52. While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs [locations outside facilities where nuclear material is customarily used] declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.
53. The Agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the Agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. The information also indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still be ongoing.
54. Given the concerns identified above, Iran is requested to engage substantively with the Agency without delay for the purpose of providing clarifications regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme as identified in the Annex to this report.
55. The Agency is working with Iran with a view to resolving the discrepancy identified during the recent PIV [physical inventory verification] at JHL [Jabr Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Research Laboratory].
56. The Director General urges Iran, as required in the binding resolutions of the Board of Governors and mandatory Security Council resolutions, to take steps towards the full implementation of its Safeguards Agreement and its other obligations, including: implementation of the provisions of its Additional Protocol; implementation of the modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part to its Safeguards Agreement; suspension of enrichment related activities; suspension of heavy water related activities; and, as referred to above, addressing the Agency’s serious concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme, in order to establish international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.
57. The Director General will continue to report as appropriate.
Arab spring needs economic reform
Economic factors cannot entirely explain the Arab Spring, though they certainly played an important role. Whether positive change ultimately prevails will depend on the economic policies advanced by leaders emerging from revolutions and their counterparts in still stable Arab states.
Yesterday at Carnegie, a panel of economists and political scientists, including Marina Ottaway from Carnegie, Caroline Freund of the World Bank, Masood Ahmed from the IMF, and Undersecretary of State for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs Robert Hormats, discussed these issues while Uri Dadush moderated.
There is general agreement that economic conditions did not trigger recent upheaval in the Arab world on their own. On par with other developing countries, macroeconomic indicators in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, did not by themselves augur revolution, Hormats points out. Due mainly to what Freund characterizes as regional and international economic segregation, these countries weathered the global recession far better than developed Western states. Of course, as Ahmed reminds us, if economic indicators are disaggregated, this idyll gives way to a gloomier picture of high youth unemployment rates, rampant corruption, and highly stratified inequality. But this problem is as much political as it is economic or demographic, a balance that is visible in the broader contours of the recent revolutions.
Where economic conditions become far more crucial is in the future trajectory of the Arab Spring. Most of the panelists agree that regional instability will keep growth rates and other indicators down for the near future. Oil importing states such as Egypt and Tunisia traditionally received billions in private investment, but large capital outflows are starving these countries of cash. For Ottaway, wariness over accepting loans from international institutions such as the IMF, as was the case in Egypt, only exacerbates this shortage. Freund insists that the World Bank is prepared to help, but isn’t sure that the money will be spent wisely or, as in Libya, is even necessary. Now that countries have exhausted their own resources, as well as loans from GCC neighbors, Ahmed predicts that governments will turn increasingly to the World Bank, IMF, and international markets. Unfortunately, as Hormats interjects, the tragic coincidence of the Arab spring with the European debt crisis and budget cuts in the U.S. may prevent an Arab recovery from resembling that of Eastern Europe after 1989.
However, there are important steps that governments, both inside and outside the region, can take to ensure long-run growth. In line with previous recovery programs, Hormats emphasizes the need to differentiate between stabilization and structural reform. Stabilization of fiscal conditions must come first, and international institutions will have to provide significant financing. Equally important will be shifting subsidies away from energy, which tend to be inefficient and overly concentrated on the middle and upper classes, toward food and other basic necessities. This will help reduce budget deficits to more sustainable levels.
In terms of structural reforms, facilitating intra-regional trade must be a centerpiece. Not only will trade allow countries to exploit comparative advantages, Ahmed points out, but it will also provide the basis for economies of scale that enable new global trade opportunities. Similarly, Fruend adds, attraction to large markets will bring investment from the West and Asia. In light of the failed attempts to create a free trade bloc, Ottaway is skeptical that regional politics will allow for such integration, but she nonetheless supports the plan in theory.
Investing in entrepreneurship will also be crucial. Too often, states favored large corporations run by well-connected individuals over SMEs more representative of the middle class. This was partly a failure of education systems, which did not equip graduates with the skills they needed to be competitive in the modern labor market. But it was also a matter of priorities, both on behalf of regional governments and assistance donors. Governments must abandon the theory that corruption is a source of power and align themselves with the movement towards transparency and accountability. And donors must ensure their funds are directed towards the same purposes.
Structural economic reform will be particularly difficult in the Arab world, since it will require governments to embrace an ideology that helped catalyze revolution in the first place. Mobilizing the private sector will be crucial to future growth, but privatization, especially in Egypt, is precisely what led to corruption and inequality. Freund is nervous that privatization and the private sector have become pejorative terms, and that this will make socialist economic policies politically expedient. Leaders will thus have to convince citizens, as Ahmed argues, that the implementation of economic liberalization, and not the process per se, caused the economic conditions protesters so forcefully rejected.
Crooks, fools and optimists
Discussions of Bosnia tend to rehash a relatively few themes: how the Dayton agreements are flawed, whether the High Representative is still needed, how Bosnians should be preparing the country for European Union membership, what threats of violence and war remain.
Those issues came up at yesterday’s discussion of the Bosnian economy at SAIS’s Center for Transatlantic Relations) with the State Department’s Jennifer Brush, Sarajevo beer magnate Mujo Selimović, the World Bank’s Marco Mantovanelli, former Republika Srpska Finance Minister Svetlana Cenić and Bosnian diaspora entrepreneur Edin Saračević. But the discussion, chaired by Mike Haltzel, focused mainly on the economy and how to fix it.
The bad news. The panel agreed that international funding of the public sector in Bosnia suffers large losses to government corruption. Bosnia is not a good place to start a business, or stay in one. There is a real, even if small, risk of serious violence that would disrupt the economy (including repayment of loans, which some debtors would welcome) and partition the country.
The good news. But the country has a good pre-war business history, when several Bosnian companies became world-class competitors. And there are ample opportunities in post-war Bosnia to get a good return on investment: hydro power, organic food production, information technology. The labor force learns quickly and thoroughly. The well-educated, successful diaspora can be helpful–some may return, others may help with international marketing of Bosnian good and services. Few of them care much about ethnic divisions.
Foreign investors are looking for stability, which NATO membership would certify, and improved local institutions, in particular for rule of law. Political divisiveness and lack of a unified economic space are drags on the economy.
What Bosnia needs is to shift from an economic model based on internationally financed domestic consumption to one based on investment and private sector exports. International budget support to the various levels of Bosnian government is no longer appropriate, unless there is a serious risk of systemic failure. The international financial institutions (IFIs) should be shifting to private sector loans, leaving the governments to obtain financing from taxpayers and focusing IFI efforts on export-oriented entrepreneurs. They in turn will mobilize ordinary Bosnians, who are tired of the “techno-beat” of ethnic identity (Serb, Croat, Muslim, Serb, Croat, Muslim) and interested in pursuing jobs and improved living conditions.
It was suggested that Bosnia divides people among crooks, fools and optimists. I don’t count myself a crook and I am certainly not an optimist, so I guess I must be a fool. But if I were in charge I would shut off the tap of money flowing from the internationals to Bosnian governments and get it moving in the private sector direction. Let the governments get their money from taxes, and suffer the accountability that follows from that.