Yesterday’s column was about the Fake Students coming into the UK (and the same things are happening elsewhere!) and the threat this is to our security. I wrote from personal experience working in British universities and my knowledge of how our systems are allowing in people who not only want to economically immigrate, but also the hateful minority who hate our society, and want us all subjugated to their will, failing which they want us dead.
Your responses were passionate and well informed, and I have decided to print one of them, since John makes some important points.
“Great stuff Tony.
The access for Foreign Students to UK Universities and I daresay all Western
Universities including the USA without the appropriate diligence &
background checks can only be described as gross negligence and totally Irresponsible on the part of overworked & underpaid University Staff
members.
The absence of stringent due diligence represents a huge potential threat to National Security to all Western countries.
It must be understood that the age group making applications to western
Universities outside their own country are the most vulnerable age group to be influenced by educational & religious establishments, which are fertile hunting grounds for extremist groups actively harvesting recruits for
deployment in the West. Either as long term "Sleepers" to be activated
In the medium or long term future or as provocateurs with an immediate
missions to subvert the youth of long established law abiding and productive immigrant communities residing in the West.
Unfortunately, again it's all about the bottom line.
Universities under immense pressure to fulfill their quota of paying students
for their own economic survival represent and ill informed focus on the
numbers.
The huge and additional expense required by Western National Security
Agencies in vetting EACH & EVERY application by Foreign Students wishing to enter Western Educational Institutions represent a quantum increase of the resources required. And I don't suggest just cursory checks.!!!
I would not be surprised that 99% of all foreign students making
applications to Western Educational Institutions will pass the stringent
security Litmus Test with flying colors and prove and to be 100% legitimate and ideologically benign.
It is assumed that 100% of all foreign students who have graduated at
Western Educational Institutions will do their damndest to remain in the
West and not return to their country of origin. Most will find good jobs
pay their taxes and make a valuable contribution to the economy, science and society in general.
As always it is the virulent and committed extremist fringe that are of
major concern.
As the good chairman Mao once said, " it does not take much explosives
material to derail a freight train coming down the railroad track. A tiny
charge strategically placed will have the desired effect and cause chaos.
John”
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
FakeStudents
Happy Easter to some of you and Happy Passover to others, and if I am missing any other festival observance forgive me.
Our subject today is the security strike by the forces of law and order that in the last couple of days swooped on a suspected terrorist cell of about a dozen people of whom 11 are in the UK on student visas.
The Pakistani government accused the UK today of not doing enough to check the 10,000 holders of such visas prior to their being able to travel.
I have some direct knowledge of the nature and scope of this dangerous and long-term immigration fiddle. Some years back I was Director of a department of a London University. There is tremendous pressure on all universities to meet student recruitment and retention target numbers. Their entire budgets are based on hitting these numbers and they will do whatever they can to meet them.
It was annual student recruitment time for the university and as usual the computer science department was a rich source of overseas students. As part of my job I was checking some of the documentation of the applicants as they went through the clearing process before entry to the university. I noticed that a very large number of these students had apparently already graduated a university in Delhi with identical degrees. This smelt fishy to me and I telephoned India to check a few sets of documents at random. It transpired that the university they had supposedly attended simply did not exist.
I told my university of this finding and they dealt with the offending applicants. I thought that my institution would automatically check all such applications. I was wrong.
It transpired that several hundred more overseas Asian students did gain entrance to our computer science department. About 400 of these student visa holders arrived on the first day of the course for signing up and induction. The next day about 225 of them vanished without trace and have never been seen since. No one knows where these people are, or what they’re doing in this country.
I was telephoned by a journalist for the Guardian newspaper who asked whether I thought it was possible that any students, such as these or others who did attend our university could be terrorists in waiting. I replied that I would be astonished if they were not. I still believe this to be the case.
Certain sections of the university admissions service remain ridiculously lax in its vigilance regarding overseas student applications and the reasons include the misguided and inappropriate application of the human rights ethos. Regulations and liberal attitudes of our educational institutions in favor of people who should not be here in the first place and who regard such rights as a validation of their view of our Western democracy; that it is both decadent and stupid. We need to wake up before it is too late.
Our subject today is the security strike by the forces of law and order that in the last couple of days swooped on a suspected terrorist cell of about a dozen people of whom 11 are in the UK on student visas.
The Pakistani government accused the UK today of not doing enough to check the 10,000 holders of such visas prior to their being able to travel.
I have some direct knowledge of the nature and scope of this dangerous and long-term immigration fiddle. Some years back I was Director of a department of a London University. There is tremendous pressure on all universities to meet student recruitment and retention target numbers. Their entire budgets are based on hitting these numbers and they will do whatever they can to meet them.
It was annual student recruitment time for the university and as usual the computer science department was a rich source of overseas students. As part of my job I was checking some of the documentation of the applicants as they went through the clearing process before entry to the university. I noticed that a very large number of these students had apparently already graduated a university in Delhi with identical degrees. This smelt fishy to me and I telephoned India to check a few sets of documents at random. It transpired that the university they had supposedly attended simply did not exist.
I told my university of this finding and they dealt with the offending applicants. I thought that my institution would automatically check all such applications. I was wrong.
It transpired that several hundred more overseas Asian students did gain entrance to our computer science department. About 400 of these student visa holders arrived on the first day of the course for signing up and induction. The next day about 225 of them vanished without trace and have never been seen since. No one knows where these people are, or what they’re doing in this country.
I was telephoned by a journalist for the Guardian newspaper who asked whether I thought it was possible that any students, such as these or others who did attend our university could be terrorists in waiting. I replied that I would be astonished if they were not. I still believe this to be the case.
Certain sections of the university admissions service remain ridiculously lax in its vigilance regarding overseas student applications and the reasons include the misguided and inappropriate application of the human rights ethos. Regulations and liberal attitudes of our educational institutions in favor of people who should not be here in the first place and who regard such rights as a validation of their view of our Western democracy; that it is both decadent and stupid. We need to wake up before it is too late.
Monday, April 6, 2009
CryRape
There is a rape crisis in the UK. Today it was revealed that a woman lied when claiming her husband had raped her. The British rape laws allow the victim anonymity whereas the alleged perpetrator can be named.
The accused man, who has now been cleared of all charges, is ruined both socially and emotionally. No one can understand the terrible damage done to an innocent man, even when acquitted. The reason the man is irreparably damaged is that there will always be those that whisper, “There’s no smoke without fire.”
I have seen the damage such an accusation can make. A colleague, a middle-aged man with a loving family, worked with a female workmate late one evening. He needed some documents to be prepared before he took a dawn flight to Australia, and she volunteered. At the end of their work it was late and the young woman asked him for a ride home.
My work friend dropped the young woman at her home but declined her invite for a drink partly because he thought she was coming onto him. She became angry when he rejected her advances but he told her he had to get home. He thought she might have been a bit drunk but took no action about it thinking he might do so when he returned from his overseas business trip.
When he returned home the police knocked on the door and his wife answered. They stormed in to the house and arrested him in front of his family. His wife was so shocked that she had a stroke very shortly thereafter. She is semi paralyzed and wheelchair bound ever since. My friend was traumatized by the experience and initially didn’t know how to deal with the accusation.
It took my colleague a while to regain his equilibrium and when he did he hired a private detective. After a thorough investigation he discovered that the woman making the accusation had done the same thing twice before, falsely accusing two other men of raping her before finally being proven to be a malicious perjurer.
When confronted with this history the woman withdrew her rape accusation. But my colleague’s wife will remain in her wheelchair for the rest of her life.
It is often noted that the vast majority of rape prosecutions do not end in conviction. But the truth is that this crime is extremely difficult to prove and often boils down to the relative believability of the protagonists. With the law being updated to keep up with changing social mores it is now accepted that the current rape laws should mean that a woman saying no, at any stage, means no.
There are further moves to interpret the law to mean that if a woman is too drunk to say no, then any sexual intercourse she later deems to have been perpetrated against her conscious will should also be deemed rape.
What strikes me, as truly menacing and stupid were the words uttered after the case of the woman who falsely accused her ex husband of rape. PC Elizabeth Graham of Durham Police domestic abuse investigation team said after the hearing that the force was very victim-focused and the allegation of rape had been taken seriously and fully investigated.
She went on to correctly say that she hoped the case would not deter genuine victims of rape and sexual assault from reporting crimes to the police.
Of course all of us would agree that genuine rape accusations must be made wherever necessary and then be properly investigated by the police and prosecutions made as appropriate.
But the forces of law and order should think again about being “victim-focused,” their only true aim, be “ justice focused.”
The accused man, who has now been cleared of all charges, is ruined both socially and emotionally. No one can understand the terrible damage done to an innocent man, even when acquitted. The reason the man is irreparably damaged is that there will always be those that whisper, “There’s no smoke without fire.”
I have seen the damage such an accusation can make. A colleague, a middle-aged man with a loving family, worked with a female workmate late one evening. He needed some documents to be prepared before he took a dawn flight to Australia, and she volunteered. At the end of their work it was late and the young woman asked him for a ride home.
My work friend dropped the young woman at her home but declined her invite for a drink partly because he thought she was coming onto him. She became angry when he rejected her advances but he told her he had to get home. He thought she might have been a bit drunk but took no action about it thinking he might do so when he returned from his overseas business trip.
When he returned home the police knocked on the door and his wife answered. They stormed in to the house and arrested him in front of his family. His wife was so shocked that she had a stroke very shortly thereafter. She is semi paralyzed and wheelchair bound ever since. My friend was traumatized by the experience and initially didn’t know how to deal with the accusation.
It took my colleague a while to regain his equilibrium and when he did he hired a private detective. After a thorough investigation he discovered that the woman making the accusation had done the same thing twice before, falsely accusing two other men of raping her before finally being proven to be a malicious perjurer.
When confronted with this history the woman withdrew her rape accusation. But my colleague’s wife will remain in her wheelchair for the rest of her life.
It is often noted that the vast majority of rape prosecutions do not end in conviction. But the truth is that this crime is extremely difficult to prove and often boils down to the relative believability of the protagonists. With the law being updated to keep up with changing social mores it is now accepted that the current rape laws should mean that a woman saying no, at any stage, means no.
There are further moves to interpret the law to mean that if a woman is too drunk to say no, then any sexual intercourse she later deems to have been perpetrated against her conscious will should also be deemed rape.
What strikes me, as truly menacing and stupid were the words uttered after the case of the woman who falsely accused her ex husband of rape. PC Elizabeth Graham of Durham Police domestic abuse investigation team said after the hearing that the force was very victim-focused and the allegation of rape had been taken seriously and fully investigated.
She went on to correctly say that she hoped the case would not deter genuine victims of rape and sexual assault from reporting crimes to the police.
Of course all of us would agree that genuine rape accusations must be made wherever necessary and then be properly investigated by the police and prosecutions made as appropriate.
But the forces of law and order should think again about being “victim-focused,” their only true aim, be “ justice focused.”
Sunday, April 5, 2009
AnarchyRulesOK
During the last week there were a series of huge set piece meetings held in various European cities. These were the London G20 economic summit followed by the NATO gathering of our political leaders held on the border of Germany and France.
Also present at both were protesters who are entitled, some would say obliged, to peacefully protest in our profoundly democratic countries. Their attendance and voicing of their profound disquiet about the management of the world economy and conflicts is not only fitting but essential.
What else can you do when you agree with the sentiments expressed in an article by Douglas Rushkoff called Let It Die in which he stated, "... We do not live in an economy, we live in a Ponzi scheme."
Trying to wreck these gatherings were the usual motley gang of fundamentally anti capitalist, anti democratic and anti free choice groups. These include revolutionary Trotskyites, Maoists, but more of interest to me right now, Anarchists.
Anarchy is defined in my dictionary as; Absence of government, disorder, lawlessness; The principles of anarchy are a theory of government based on the free agreement of individuals rather than a submission to law and authority and an anarchist is One opposed to all forms of government.
These days the anarchists wear a uniform for their protests. They dress all in black with hoods up and scarves around their faces to disguise their identities. It seems odd to me that people against all conformity dress identically to intimidate. But they are full of contradictions these anarchists, willing to wear a uniform, any uniform, as long as it is not a uniform in which to serve any country.
The English anarchists promised the end of capitalism would begin with their “Four Horseman” protests in London on April First, but it hasn’t worked out that way. In fact, although the systematic failures of capitalism are all around us we still haven’t devised a better system for our trade and lives to prosper.
It might seem unnecessarily jaded to state that if anarchists could ever organize anything, which is, in itself somewhat of an oxymoronic thought process, there should be an anarchists league table. I am usually proud of British accomplishments but in this instance I think the British would come woefully down the pecking order. We are, as a nation, a bit too much into organizational structures to be any good at spontaneous anarchy. You would, in my view, favor the more laid back Latin nations or perhaps the newly de-communized East Europeans to furnish the best kind of anarchists.
The police in England handled the anarchists very well and in fact the protestors finished by looking silly, their threats to “eat the bankers” ringing hollow. It wasn’t quite the same jolly affair on the borders of France and Germany where the anarchists and their fellow travelers managed to torch a few shops and other buildings, sling some Molotov cocktails and attack the police.
There is almost universal agreement that the world’s economic and terrorist problems are huge and ongoing. However the general population remains remarkably, prosperous and peaceful when compared to any other period of history. This prosperity and peace was brought about by the application of the capitalist system and organizations such as NATO. The near total collapse of the financial system and the over emphasized threat of fundamentalist Islamic terror was engendered and inspired by a toxic mixture of fear, greed and ego, topped out by a lack of transparency and unwarranted over complication. No one really understood the entirety of how sophisticated shadow trading and hedge funds worked. Concurrently we fought the terrorists in an asymmetric conflict with no strategy but armed only with knee jerk tactical reactions.
Both will now change since President Obama does have a strategic vision and the rest of the democracies are beginning to listen to and respect renewed and enhanced American leadership.
It isn’t enough to be a black clad anarchist shouting at and burning hated symbols of capitalism when you have nothing to replace it with.
Also present at both were protesters who are entitled, some would say obliged, to peacefully protest in our profoundly democratic countries. Their attendance and voicing of their profound disquiet about the management of the world economy and conflicts is not only fitting but essential.
What else can you do when you agree with the sentiments expressed in an article by Douglas Rushkoff called Let It Die in which he stated, "... We do not live in an economy, we live in a Ponzi scheme."
Trying to wreck these gatherings were the usual motley gang of fundamentally anti capitalist, anti democratic and anti free choice groups. These include revolutionary Trotskyites, Maoists, but more of interest to me right now, Anarchists.
Anarchy is defined in my dictionary as; Absence of government, disorder, lawlessness; The principles of anarchy are a theory of government based on the free agreement of individuals rather than a submission to law and authority and an anarchist is One opposed to all forms of government.
These days the anarchists wear a uniform for their protests. They dress all in black with hoods up and scarves around their faces to disguise their identities. It seems odd to me that people against all conformity dress identically to intimidate. But they are full of contradictions these anarchists, willing to wear a uniform, any uniform, as long as it is not a uniform in which to serve any country.
The English anarchists promised the end of capitalism would begin with their “Four Horseman” protests in London on April First, but it hasn’t worked out that way. In fact, although the systematic failures of capitalism are all around us we still haven’t devised a better system for our trade and lives to prosper.
It might seem unnecessarily jaded to state that if anarchists could ever organize anything, which is, in itself somewhat of an oxymoronic thought process, there should be an anarchists league table. I am usually proud of British accomplishments but in this instance I think the British would come woefully down the pecking order. We are, as a nation, a bit too much into organizational structures to be any good at spontaneous anarchy. You would, in my view, favor the more laid back Latin nations or perhaps the newly de-communized East Europeans to furnish the best kind of anarchists.
The police in England handled the anarchists very well and in fact the protestors finished by looking silly, their threats to “eat the bankers” ringing hollow. It wasn’t quite the same jolly affair on the borders of France and Germany where the anarchists and their fellow travelers managed to torch a few shops and other buildings, sling some Molotov cocktails and attack the police.
There is almost universal agreement that the world’s economic and terrorist problems are huge and ongoing. However the general population remains remarkably, prosperous and peaceful when compared to any other period of history. This prosperity and peace was brought about by the application of the capitalist system and organizations such as NATO. The near total collapse of the financial system and the over emphasized threat of fundamentalist Islamic terror was engendered and inspired by a toxic mixture of fear, greed and ego, topped out by a lack of transparency and unwarranted over complication. No one really understood the entirety of how sophisticated shadow trading and hedge funds worked. Concurrently we fought the terrorists in an asymmetric conflict with no strategy but armed only with knee jerk tactical reactions.
Both will now change since President Obama does have a strategic vision and the rest of the democracies are beginning to listen to and respect renewed and enhanced American leadership.
It isn’t enough to be a black clad anarchist shouting at and burning hated symbols of capitalism when you have nothing to replace it with.
Friday, April 3, 2009
ANewNATO
Yesterday many leaders from around the world attended the G20 summit meeting in London.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown was roundly praised for his energetic and well-conceived groundwork plus excellent negotiating skills.
President Obama was even more warmly applauded for being President Obama. But there were reservations expressed. Most of these came from the non Anglo Saxon economies that have taken it in turn to fire broadsides of criticism at the USA and UK for their previous financial indiscipline that they state caused the entire global economic problem.
Today President Sarkozy of France is hosting President Obama and the other leaders of NATO in Paris. It will be interesting to see if the French and Germans in particular, can take criticism as well as hand it out.
France recently re-joined NATO as a full member but like the other “allies” in this organization they do more talking than fighting in Afghanistan. While the UK and USA do the hard fighting the majority of the Europeans in the alliance mainly just supply technical and moral support but when it comes to their forces using force, they demonstrate everything that is hypocritical about their countries. They simply don’t and won’t fight.
This is not meant to imply that the servicemen and women from those non-fighting European allies are cowards or are in any way deficient. Their governments have forbidden them to engage the enemy under almost all circumstances.
Despite all of the NATO allies agreeing that they would fight for democracy against the theocracy of the Taliban most of the allies avoid actual fighting.
This is a disgrace and makes you wonder if allies like these are worth having. If push came to shove and we really needed our NATO allies to save our own countries could we rely on them to help?
I think this proves that we could not rely on them for anything other than kind words, if we were lucky.
Even more disgraceful the government of Afghanistan is enacting Taliban inspired laws against the rights of their own women. President Hamid Karzai was roundly condemned by internal and external groups for signing into law legislation that effectively legalizes the rape of a wife by her husband and prevents women from leaving the house without a man's permission.
This law clearly undermines hard-won rights for women enacted after the fall of the Taliban's fanatical Islamist regime. Ask yourself why our soldiers for democracy should potentially risk their lives to enforce laws such as these.
The controversial law _ which many claim was not debated in parliament _ is intended to regulate family life inside Afghanistan's Shiite community, which makes up about 20 percent of this country of 30 million people. The law does not yet affect Afghan Sunnis.
The law stipulates that the wife "is bound to preen for her husband as and when he desires."
"As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night," Article 132 of the law says. "Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband."
One provision of the law does seem to protect the woman's right to sex inside marriage, saying that the "man should not avoid having sexual relations with his wife longer than once every four months."
Critics claim that President Karzai signed the legislation for purely political gain several months before the country's presidential election.
The United Nations Development Fund for Women said the law "legalizes the rape of a wife by her husband."
"The law violates women's rights and human rights in numerous ways," a UNIFEM statement said.
The issue of women's rights is an ongoing fight between the country's conservative establishment and the relatively more liberal members of society. The Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 banned women from appearing in public without a body-covering burqa and a male escort from her family.
There are two big questions that have to be answered.
One is whether we should continue to support a government that seems to be morphing into a pale imitation of the Taliban maniacs it is there to replace.
The second question is what kind of alliance is NATO, and why are there two levels of membership?
These are hard questions that all the members of the organization must answer.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown was roundly praised for his energetic and well-conceived groundwork plus excellent negotiating skills.
President Obama was even more warmly applauded for being President Obama. But there were reservations expressed. Most of these came from the non Anglo Saxon economies that have taken it in turn to fire broadsides of criticism at the USA and UK for their previous financial indiscipline that they state caused the entire global economic problem.
Today President Sarkozy of France is hosting President Obama and the other leaders of NATO in Paris. It will be interesting to see if the French and Germans in particular, can take criticism as well as hand it out.
France recently re-joined NATO as a full member but like the other “allies” in this organization they do more talking than fighting in Afghanistan. While the UK and USA do the hard fighting the majority of the Europeans in the alliance mainly just supply technical and moral support but when it comes to their forces using force, they demonstrate everything that is hypocritical about their countries. They simply don’t and won’t fight.
This is not meant to imply that the servicemen and women from those non-fighting European allies are cowards or are in any way deficient. Their governments have forbidden them to engage the enemy under almost all circumstances.
Despite all of the NATO allies agreeing that they would fight for democracy against the theocracy of the Taliban most of the allies avoid actual fighting.
This is a disgrace and makes you wonder if allies like these are worth having. If push came to shove and we really needed our NATO allies to save our own countries could we rely on them to help?
I think this proves that we could not rely on them for anything other than kind words, if we were lucky.
Even more disgraceful the government of Afghanistan is enacting Taliban inspired laws against the rights of their own women. President Hamid Karzai was roundly condemned by internal and external groups for signing into law legislation that effectively legalizes the rape of a wife by her husband and prevents women from leaving the house without a man's permission.
This law clearly undermines hard-won rights for women enacted after the fall of the Taliban's fanatical Islamist regime. Ask yourself why our soldiers for democracy should potentially risk their lives to enforce laws such as these.
The controversial law _ which many claim was not debated in parliament _ is intended to regulate family life inside Afghanistan's Shiite community, which makes up about 20 percent of this country of 30 million people. The law does not yet affect Afghan Sunnis.
The law stipulates that the wife "is bound to preen for her husband as and when he desires."
"As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night," Article 132 of the law says. "Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband."
One provision of the law does seem to protect the woman's right to sex inside marriage, saying that the "man should not avoid having sexual relations with his wife longer than once every four months."
Critics claim that President Karzai signed the legislation for purely political gain several months before the country's presidential election.
The United Nations Development Fund for Women said the law "legalizes the rape of a wife by her husband."
"The law violates women's rights and human rights in numerous ways," a UNIFEM statement said.
The issue of women's rights is an ongoing fight between the country's conservative establishment and the relatively more liberal members of society. The Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 banned women from appearing in public without a body-covering burqa and a male escort from her family.
There are two big questions that have to be answered.
One is whether we should continue to support a government that seems to be morphing into a pale imitation of the Taliban maniacs it is there to replace.
The second question is what kind of alliance is NATO, and why are there two levels of membership?
These are hard questions that all the members of the organization must answer.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
G20TheResult
Yesterday’s G20 summit resulted in an additional $1 trillion (£679bn) being made available to boost the world economy.
President Barack Obama claimed that the summit will signal a "turning point" in the pursuit of economic recovery and made progress in reforming a "failed regulatory system".
"By any measure the London summit was historic. It was historic because of the size and the scope of the challenges that we face and because of the timeliness and the magnitude of our response," he said.
There were some other headline initial results when World stock markets skyrocketed and a man caught up in the protests surrounding the event died.
The long anticipated violence broke out but was closely controlled by an overwhelming and well-drilled police operation that swamped the area. There are the usual repercussions that always seem to happen after huge police operations like this in Britain, with accusations flying about. But the general consensus from the watching world media was that the policing was fair, well conceived and executed.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown was a very relieved and happy man when he said the new extra funding would shorten the recession and save jobs. It follows what he described as the "new consensus" reached by heads of state on taking united action to deal with economic crisis.
"This is the day that the world came together, to fight back against the global recession. Not with words but a plan for global recovery and for reform and with a clear timetable," Mr Brown stated at the conference centre in London's Docklands close to the new financial centre at Canary Wharf.
Speaking at a press conference to mark the end of the summit, Mr Brown said G20 leaders had concluded "that global problems require global solutions" and that they will "do what is necessary" but that there are "no quick fixes".
President Obama is known to have played a key role in brokering the agreement, resolving differences between France and China on tax havens.
Another G20 summit will be held later this year to check on progress.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that the conclusions of this G20 summit were "more than we could have hoped for".
The $1 trillion injection includes $250 billion (£170.2bn) in International Monetary Fund special drawing rights - available to all IMF members. This is a $150 billion increase on what had previously been suggested in order to help get trade moving again.
The "unprecedented fiscal expansion" already under way will mean a $5 trillion (£3.4tn) injection by the middle of 2010, he said, helping to save or create millions of jobs.
Six pledges were made by leaders - to restore confidence, growth, and jobs; repair the financial system to restore lending; strengthen financial regulation to rebuild trust; fund and reform international financial institutions; promote global trade and investment and reject protectionism and finally to build a sustainable recovery.
A new "financial stability board" will "ensure co-operation across frontiers and to stop risk to the economy" and provide an early-warning mechanism, he said. And for the first time, there will be a "common global approach to how we deal with impaired, or toxic, assets".
Central banks had agreed to "maintain expansionary policies as long as they are needed using the full range of options available to them".
Mr Brown affirmed there were no splits at the talks, saying: "The issues that people thought divided us did not divide us at all. There was substantial agreement on the need for us to do whatever is necessary to return to growth."
Countries had also restated their commitment to the millennium development goals and to helping tackle poverty, he said, adding the summit had agreed measures totaling $50 billion (£34bn) to assist the poorest countries.
Brown added: "This time of financial crisis is no time to walk away from our commitment to the world's poorest. We will not pass by on the other side."
Mr Brown said, “After the Wall Street Crash in 1929 it took 15 years for the world to come together and address the problems.” That delay was unforgivable and disastrous.
The Prime Minister continued: "Our priority right through this summit has been the jobs, the homes, the businesses of hard-working families in this country and, indeed, every country.”
He added that world leaders have agreed to meet again later this year.
The UK and US emphasized the need for public spending to ease the crisis while France and Germany were obviously keener for tougher financial regulation.
Mr Sarkozy had threatened to walk out of the meeting if it did not yield concrete results but this had been largely discounted as gesture politics aimed squarely at his own electorate. Like everyone else he wanted to put his own country’s spin on this event.
Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel also praised the outcome.
She said the new measures would give the world a "clearer financial market architecture" and the agreement was "a very, very good, almost historic compromise" and it is clear that it did not oblige any country to launch any further economic stimulus packages.
The truth is that no one knows how well this package of measures might work, but we do know that the time to judge it will come in the months and years to come, not here or now.
We can all agree that this package is promising and perhaps, just perhaps we have seen the end of the beginning of our current crisis.
President Barack Obama claimed that the summit will signal a "turning point" in the pursuit of economic recovery and made progress in reforming a "failed regulatory system".
"By any measure the London summit was historic. It was historic because of the size and the scope of the challenges that we face and because of the timeliness and the magnitude of our response," he said.
There were some other headline initial results when World stock markets skyrocketed and a man caught up in the protests surrounding the event died.
The long anticipated violence broke out but was closely controlled by an overwhelming and well-drilled police operation that swamped the area. There are the usual repercussions that always seem to happen after huge police operations like this in Britain, with accusations flying about. But the general consensus from the watching world media was that the policing was fair, well conceived and executed.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown was a very relieved and happy man when he said the new extra funding would shorten the recession and save jobs. It follows what he described as the "new consensus" reached by heads of state on taking united action to deal with economic crisis.
"This is the day that the world came together, to fight back against the global recession. Not with words but a plan for global recovery and for reform and with a clear timetable," Mr Brown stated at the conference centre in London's Docklands close to the new financial centre at Canary Wharf.
Speaking at a press conference to mark the end of the summit, Mr Brown said G20 leaders had concluded "that global problems require global solutions" and that they will "do what is necessary" but that there are "no quick fixes".
President Obama is known to have played a key role in brokering the agreement, resolving differences between France and China on tax havens.
Another G20 summit will be held later this year to check on progress.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that the conclusions of this G20 summit were "more than we could have hoped for".
The $1 trillion injection includes $250 billion (£170.2bn) in International Monetary Fund special drawing rights - available to all IMF members. This is a $150 billion increase on what had previously been suggested in order to help get trade moving again.
The "unprecedented fiscal expansion" already under way will mean a $5 trillion (£3.4tn) injection by the middle of 2010, he said, helping to save or create millions of jobs.
Six pledges were made by leaders - to restore confidence, growth, and jobs; repair the financial system to restore lending; strengthen financial regulation to rebuild trust; fund and reform international financial institutions; promote global trade and investment and reject protectionism and finally to build a sustainable recovery.
A new "financial stability board" will "ensure co-operation across frontiers and to stop risk to the economy" and provide an early-warning mechanism, he said. And for the first time, there will be a "common global approach to how we deal with impaired, or toxic, assets".
Central banks had agreed to "maintain expansionary policies as long as they are needed using the full range of options available to them".
Mr Brown affirmed there were no splits at the talks, saying: "The issues that people thought divided us did not divide us at all. There was substantial agreement on the need for us to do whatever is necessary to return to growth."
Countries had also restated their commitment to the millennium development goals and to helping tackle poverty, he said, adding the summit had agreed measures totaling $50 billion (£34bn) to assist the poorest countries.
Brown added: "This time of financial crisis is no time to walk away from our commitment to the world's poorest. We will not pass by on the other side."
Mr Brown said, “After the Wall Street Crash in 1929 it took 15 years for the world to come together and address the problems.” That delay was unforgivable and disastrous.
The Prime Minister continued: "Our priority right through this summit has been the jobs, the homes, the businesses of hard-working families in this country and, indeed, every country.”
He added that world leaders have agreed to meet again later this year.
The UK and US emphasized the need for public spending to ease the crisis while France and Germany were obviously keener for tougher financial regulation.
Mr Sarkozy had threatened to walk out of the meeting if it did not yield concrete results but this had been largely discounted as gesture politics aimed squarely at his own electorate. Like everyone else he wanted to put his own country’s spin on this event.
Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel also praised the outcome.
She said the new measures would give the world a "clearer financial market architecture" and the agreement was "a very, very good, almost historic compromise" and it is clear that it did not oblige any country to launch any further economic stimulus packages.
The truth is that no one knows how well this package of measures might work, but we do know that the time to judge it will come in the months and years to come, not here or now.
We can all agree that this package is promising and perhaps, just perhaps we have seen the end of the beginning of our current crisis.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
PremiereAvril
The G20 summit takes place tomorrow in London. Already the great and the good are arriving here with their retinues. Some times it is hard to remember that the Roman Empire is history, especially when one sees the size and majesty surrounding these political leaders.
President Obama has 500 people traveling with him, of whom 200 are security personnel. However I don’t know how necessary his French dessert taster, Monsieur Premiere Avril, is in the democracies of today.
Does he really need Guiy de Maupassant Rabinowitz as his fan bearer, or is he compelled to listen to his personal Chicago back up singers even if they double up as his ostrich feather fan bearers?
The 3 people surrounding Prime Minister Brown is modest in comparison, but as is well known he does have a great deal to be modest about. His retinue contains an information guy who tells him why the public in the UK want to string him up and another two guys who tell him to ignore the first chap.
President Sarkozy of France has announced that he will refuse to sign any agreement with which he doesn’t agree. I feel this is a trend that could take hold since I can announce that as from today I shall also refuse to sign any agreements that I don’t agree with.
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany smiled in the direction of the small but perfectly formed French President, and said something along the lines of, I’ll have whatever he’s having and send it to my room. I am confident that rumors stating that she was seen buying underwear from Victoria’s Secret in London are false. It can also be discounted that she entered the Chinese embassy by a side entrance and left some hours later looking disheveled but happy.
The Chinese Prime Minister later stated that his country remains ready, willing and able to inject the necessary liquidity wherever necessary. Roughly translated his statement read, “We’ve been getting it for a very long time, it’s payback time.”
The Japanese smiled and said nothing at all, except they were seen to snigger when asked their view on bailing out the Western economies.
President Obama and Prime Minister Brown went to Saville Row for fittings of their Superman suits but this writer is not entirely sure they are going to fit.
President Obama has 500 people traveling with him, of whom 200 are security personnel. However I don’t know how necessary his French dessert taster, Monsieur Premiere Avril, is in the democracies of today.
Does he really need Guiy de Maupassant Rabinowitz as his fan bearer, or is he compelled to listen to his personal Chicago back up singers even if they double up as his ostrich feather fan bearers?
The 3 people surrounding Prime Minister Brown is modest in comparison, but as is well known he does have a great deal to be modest about. His retinue contains an information guy who tells him why the public in the UK want to string him up and another two guys who tell him to ignore the first chap.
President Sarkozy of France has announced that he will refuse to sign any agreement with which he doesn’t agree. I feel this is a trend that could take hold since I can announce that as from today I shall also refuse to sign any agreements that I don’t agree with.
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany smiled in the direction of the small but perfectly formed French President, and said something along the lines of, I’ll have whatever he’s having and send it to my room. I am confident that rumors stating that she was seen buying underwear from Victoria’s Secret in London are false. It can also be discounted that she entered the Chinese embassy by a side entrance and left some hours later looking disheveled but happy.
The Chinese Prime Minister later stated that his country remains ready, willing and able to inject the necessary liquidity wherever necessary. Roughly translated his statement read, “We’ve been getting it for a very long time, it’s payback time.”
The Japanese smiled and said nothing at all, except they were seen to snigger when asked their view on bailing out the Western economies.
President Obama and Prime Minister Brown went to Saville Row for fittings of their Superman suits but this writer is not entirely sure they are going to fit.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
