London Guardian பத்திரிகைக்கு IMF Christine Lagarde அளித்த பேட்டி

IMF நிதியாதிக்க கும்பலின் ஒடுக்கப்படும் தேசங்கள் மீதான வெறியாட்டத்தை எதிர்ப்போம்!

When Christine Lagarde became the first female finance minister of a major global economy, it's a measure of how much happier the world was back then that media interest focused chiefly on her talent for synchronised swimming. She was the foxy Frenchwoman who'd won medals in the national team in her teens, then worked her way up to chair an American law firm in Chicago, before being invited back to Paris in 2005 as trade minister and promoted two years later to the Treasury. Journalists had lots of fun picturing her upside down in a pool, wearing waterproof lipstick and a nose clip – and Lagarde played along with the joke, crediting the sport with teaching her a useful political skill: "To grit your teeth and smile."

No one is writing about synchronised swimming any more. On the day we met last week, the papers were agog with economic Armageddon, as the new French president flew off to Berlin to face a German chancellor whose austerity creed appeared to be on a collision course with France's new mission for growth. Athens was unravelling into chaos, unable to form a government and forced into fresh elections, plunging the markets into freefall as Europe's leaders abandoned any pretence that a Greek exit from the euro might not be imminent. The future of the euro itself was, one headline declared, "a chronicle of a death foretold". When François Hollande's plane was struck by lightning, the heavens themselves seemed to be trying to tell us just how much trouble we are in.

Coming face to face with Lagarde, however, you could be forgiven for thinking you must have imagined the whole crisis. We meet at the Paris office of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), a concrete grey modernist building so unassuming as to lack even a sign advertising its existence. Inside, the decor is plain and functional, the atmosphere eerily hushed. An empty lift glides up to a floor of deserted offices, where I wait by myself for a while until a tall, strikingly self-possessed woman appears and greets me with the elegant serenity of a Parisian hostess receiving a dinner party guest. "Let us sit here," she suggests, ushering me to a window seat beside a vase of flowers. "You can look at my orchids."

The managing director of the IMF may look like one of those statuesque silvery models who appear in Weekend's All Ages fashion pages, but she is one of the world's most powerful women, in the eye of the world's worst storm in living memory. In the years leading up to the 2008 crash, the IMF had been starting to look, if not quite redundant, then not massively important; most of the world's economies appeared to be ticking along quite happily without it. But the crash changed everything, so I'm curious to know when she first thought of running for the job. Actually, she says, it wasn't her idea, but George Osborne's.

"We were travelling together and we were sort of thinking about the political scene, and he said you know [Dominique] Strauss-Kahn is bound to be a candidate for the French presidential elections. What's going to happen with the IMF? Have you thought about it? That's how it started. That's when I started to play with the idea."

But events moved faster than expected last May – "Yes, faster than we ever thought!" – when the incumbent, Strauss-Kahn, was accused of the attempted rape of a New York hotel maid and forced to resign. On top of the sex scandal there was a ding-dong over whether the post should go, as it always has, to another European – another French one, at that – when the global economy today bears no resemblance to the one for which the job was originally designed in 1945. A French candidate would have to be extraordinarily impressive – and Lagarde is certainly that, lauded by everyone from Alistair Darling to Timothy Geithner, who praised her "lightning-quick wit, genuine warmth and ability to bridge divides". But, 67 years after its creation, I'm not sure everyone even really understands exactly what the head of the IMF is meant to do, so I ask Lagarde to explain in words an 11-year-old would understand.

"Well, I look under the skin of countries' economies and I help them make better decisions and be stronger, to prosper and create employment." You could think of the IMF as a global payday loan company for countries who have got into trouble and can't meet their financial commitments – the difference being that instead of charging sky-high interest rates, it demands radical economic reforms. And if they say they don't like the sound of that? "If I'm confident that the sound of it is accurate, I say, well, I'm terribly sorry but this is the sound we are making."

"If I'm confident that the sound of it is accurate, I say, well, I'm terribly sorry but this is the sound we are making."

Voters in Greece and France have decided they don't like the sound of it at all and so, as the crisis accelerates, Lagarde's job is looking increasingly indivisible from a mission to save the euro. Some critics have suggested that the appointment of a Europhile former French finance minister was akin to putting a drunk behind the bar; a former IMF chief economist has warned she is essentially in denial about the fundamental flaws of the euro and likely to "throw loans" at its problems, while Ed Balls has argued, "The IMF's job is to support individual countries with solvency crises, not to support a whole monetary union which cannot agree the necessary steps to maintain itself." So I ask if she would be trying just as hard to save the single currency if she were, say, Mexican.
"Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah. There is an emotional side of me that is pro-European," she acknowledges. "But I try to not be French, not be European, when I do my job. And I know that resolving the Euro area crisis matters also to the Mexican, the Australian, the Brazilian."
She has travelled the world asking countries to contribute to a firewall fund, but several have asked – not unreasonably – why they should have to pay for Europe's mistakes, when Europe is still richer than most of the world. Does the eurozone crisis matter more to their own interests than they realise? "Oh, I think they realise it," Lagarde says quickly, sounding deadly serious. "There has not been a capital I have visited in the last 10 months where the first question has not been: what is the situation in Europe? Are the Europeans sorting it out?"

Nevertheless, while this might come as a surprise to Greeks suffering under extreme austerity, some say Lagarde's approach to the eurozone is less draconian than the IMF's traditional policy towards developing world economies. Is it easier to impose harsh demands upon small economies, but much harder to tell difficult truths to the big ones – particularly fellow Europeans? "No," she says firmly. "No, it's not harder. No. Because it's the mission of the fund, and it's my job to say the truth, whoever it is across the table. And I tell you something: it's sometimes harder to tell the government of low-income countries, where people live on $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 per capita per year, to actually strengthen the budget and reduce the deficit. Because I know what it means in terms of welfare programmes and support for the poor. It has much bigger ramifications."

So when she studies the Greek balance sheet and demands measures she knows may mean women won't have access to a midwife when they give birth, and patients won't get life-saving drugs, and the elderly will die alone for lack of care – does she block all of that out and just look at the sums?
"No, I think more of the little kids from a school in a little village in Niger who get teaching two hours a day, sharing one chair for three of them, and who are very keen to get an education. I have them in my mind all the time. Because I think they need even more help than the people in Athens." She breaks off for a pointedly meaningful pause, before leaning forward.

"Do you know what? As far as Athens is concerned, I also think about all those people who are trying to escape tax all the time. All these people in Greece who are trying to escape tax."
Even more than she thinks about all those now struggling to survive without jobs or public services? "I think of them equally. And I think they should also help themselves collectively." How? "By all paying their tax. Yeah."

It sounds as if she's essentially saying to the Greeks and others in Europe, you've had a nice time and now it's payback time.

"Do you know what? As far as Athens is concerned, I also think about all those people who are trying to escape tax all the time. All these people in Greece who are trying to escape tax."

"That's right." She nods calmly. "Yeah."

And what about their children, who can't conceivably be held responsible? "Well, hey, parents are responsible, right? So parents have to pay their tax."

Lagarde is a beguiling mixture of steel and silk, for she can switch seamlessly from this sort of hardball talk to nimble diplomacy. Asked if she expects to be the last European to run the IMF, she replies, "Well, I hope I'm not the last woman." But the last European? "I don't know." She smiles, adding playfully, "I might last for a long time."

I begin a question about British Eurosceptics – "Lots of people where I come from – " but she can see what's coming and interjects warmly, "A beautiful island." When I ask if she enjoyed dealing with Gordon Brown, she offers, "Erm… I don't think he was ever finance minister when I was." That's a rather graceful way of avoiding the question, I say, smiling. Lagarde affects a blank expression of innocence, and starts to laugh.

Everybody talks about Lagarde's phenomenal charm and it doesn't take long in her company to see why. She goes, "Pouff!" when I say so, batting the compliment away with a flick of the wrist, but she is neither an economist, nor even really a politician – she spent just six years of her career as a minister in France – so I wonder if charm is actually the key qualification for the job.

"Well, I think when you drill down and ask what it takes to be managing director of the IMF, then the ability to listen, the ability to understand the perspective of your entire membership, the respect and tolerance for the political diversity, the cultural diversity, I think that's very important actually. I mean, it's often underestimated because many people will say you need to be a very strong economist. Well, maybe so. But I wouldn't qualify for the job. I'm not the top-notch economist; I can understand what people talk about, I have enough common sense for that, and I've studied a bit of economics, but I'm not a super-duper economist. But, yes, that appreciation for the interests pursued by the other side at a negotiation table, a sense of the collective interest and how that can transcend the vested individual interests of the members, that matters."

She doesn't claim these as feminine virtues, but acknowledges, "I've criticised enough women who are fighting so hard to look like a man that it destroys half of their own sanity and humanity." How often does she feel judged as a woman at the IMF? "Oh, quite often. That wouldn't surprise you! Come on." When she had the temerity last autumn to point out the obvious truth that Europe's banks were under-capitalised, "that's an occasion where I think some observations were related to me being a woman." She drops her voice to mimic the catty whispers: "'She doesn't know what she's talking about, silly woman, she must have been poorly advised.'"

So what does she do about it? "I think you can choose one of two options. Either you become bitter, and you complain constantly about it, and argue that people will criticise you or undermine you because you are a woman. Or you decide to take advantage of it. Not overplaying the feminine side of things; not being on the seducing side, not playing the attractive woman in high heels – I've never done that and I think my mother would be horrified if I did, and I don't want that to happen because I loved her very much. But…" She falls silent. But what? "Men will not insult you or will not easily say no when you tell them you need more money to secure the institution and make sure it can do its work." Does she mean it's easier for her to ask for money as a woman? "Yes," she flashes back. "Yes. Yes. Absolutely." Because masculinity responds to a woman saying I need more money? "Yes," she agrees, smiling. "People have said that to me. 'How can I say no to you?'"

For all Lagarde's charm, it's hard not to feel a sense of Alice In Wonderland bewilderment about the IMF's work. The Americans are recovering with a stimulus programme more familiar to Europe than Washington, while a Frenchwoman is trying to save the eurozone with austerity measures that would please the Tea Party. The whole point of the European project was to prevent the sort of conflict that once engulfed the continent, and yet the IMF's life support strategy has seen neo-Nazis elected in Athens, and now risks destabilising the marriage between Germany and France on which the European dream depends. When democratic elections produce politicians unwilling to play by the IMF's rules, they have been replaced by unelected technocrats – Mario Monti in Italy, Lucas Papademos in Greece – gifting Eurosceptics evidence for their charge that the EU is fundamentally anti-democratic.

Were voters in Greece and France basically wrong to elect anti-austerity politicians? "You are never wrong when you have voted because you've acted in accordance with your conscience and your beliefs, and you've exercised your democratic right, which is, you know, perfectly legitimate in our democracies."
But Germans elected Hitler in 1933, and we don't think they were right, do we?

Were voters in Greece and France basically wrong to elect anti-austerity politicians?
"You are never wrong when you have voted because you've acted in accordance with your conscience and your beliefs, and you've exercised your democratic right, which is, you know, perfectly legitimate in our democracies."
But Germans elected Hitler in 1933, and we don't think they were right, do we?
Christine Lagarde 

"Well, somebody once said if people are not happy with their government, you change the people." She laughs, deftly sidestepping the question. "What's really interesting," she says more seriously, "is that wherever you see a change of government, for instance in Spain, do you see major changes from the economic and financial policies that were conducted by their predecessors? No." She suspects we will see a similar pattern now in France. "I'm very much a believer that it's action that matters much more so than, you know, the flurry of political promises and statements and slogans that are used during political campaigns. So let's see."

 Christine Lagarde in her youth: 'I’ve criticised enough women who are fighting so hard to look like a man that it destroys half of their own sanity and humanity.' Photograph: Holten-Arms School
Is she saying there's no need to panic about a rift between Paris and Berlin? "I should think so," she agrees quietly, with a knowing smile. "I think it's largely overstated."

Lagarde's unflappable calm seems to come quite naturally. She was born in Paris in 1956, the eldest daughter of a university lecturer and a teacher; her father suffered from motor neurone disease and died when she was just 17. After failing twice to get into the prestigious Ecole Nationale d'Administration, the elite incubator for French civil servants, she joined the American law firm Baker & McKenzie and rose to become its first female chairman. In her early 30s she had two sons with her first husband, but after that the details get a little hazy; she married again while in Chicago, to a British businessman, but now lives with a Corsican she first met in her 20s at law school. In the French tradition, that's about as much as we know of her private life, apart from the fact that she is teetotal, vegetarian and a fanatical swimmer who will stay only in hotels that have pools. "She radiates," an acquaintance once said of her. "I think that's because she swims so much."
She certainly radiates assurance, but of course part of being reassuring means not saying anything very bold. I ask how she squares austerity with growth, but she thinks the furious debate between the two is generating more heat than light.

"What we say is it cannot be either or; it's not either austerity or growth, that's just a false debate. Nobody could argue against growth. And no one could argue against having to repay your debts. The question and the difficulty is how do you reconcile the two, and in which order do you take them? I would argue that you do it on a country by country case; it's not going to be a one size fits all."
In the UK's case, Lagarde thinks we are broadly on the right lines; public spending cuts, quantitative easing and low interest rates all meet with her approval. I tell her it doesn't feel that way to a lot of people here, and ask for an exit narrative – the story of how we'll get out of this mess – that could cheer people up.

"There will be an exit," she says firmly. "No question about it." Yes, but what is it? "Well, we're going to invent it. To give you a couple of positive messages, firstly, protectionism is not reappearing. The second reason for optimism is, there's a lovely sentence by Robert Musil, which says, 'Man is capable of anything – including the best.' And when you see how a situation can be turned around by one individual – get Mr Berlusconi out, you bring Mr Monti in, he's dedicated, he couldn't care less about his political future because he's not interested. And he does the job. And he changes the perception, and restores confidence. That's also a sign of hope."

When history books are written about the financial crisis, they will say it began in 2008. What date will they give for its end? 

"Well, I'm sure about the first two digits: 20. But I'm not sure about the last two digits."
Christine Lagarde

That may be true, but it's not an exit strategy narrative. "Ah," she says briskly, laughing. "You'll have to come back for that." Could she at least say where we are on the curve; is this as bad as things can be, or will they get worse? "I'm not in the business of reading tea leaves. I don't have a crystal ball. Some of the major issues are being resolved – but it's not over now. Let's face it, it's not over yet."

And for Greece – is the euro over? Lagarde won't say. I ask if I'll be packing euros if I go on holiday to Greece next year and she just smiles. "A holiday in Greece, it's a good investment for the country!"

She will put her name to just one firm prediction: she's going to be at the synchronised swimming at the Olympics this summer. "Osborne promised me that I would be invited, so, yes, I will try to do that. I'm desperate to."

I try once more. When history books are written about the financial crisis, they will say it began in 2008. What date will they give for its end? "Hmm, after the hyphen? After 2008? Two thousand," she says firmly. How odd, I think – her English is perfect, but she must have misunderstood the question. I ask again, but she is laughing. There was no misunderstanding.
"Well, I'm sure about the first two digits: 20. But I'm not sure about the last two digits."
Source: London Guardian

BILL C-10 கியூபெக் மாணவர்கள் எதிர்த்துப் போராடும் கனேடிய கறுப்புச் சட்டம்.

What is Bill C-10?

On September 20, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson tabled Bill C-10, an omnibus bill titled the Safe Streets and Communities Act.  Combining amendments from nine separate bills that had failed to pass in previous sessions of parliament, Bill C-10 would make fundamental changes to almost every component of Canada’s criminal justice system.  It proposes:

New criminal offences

New and increased mandatory minimum sentences
The selective elimination of conditional sentences
Increased pretrial detention and new, harsher sentencing principles for young offenders
Longer waiting times before individuals can apply for pardons
Increased barriers for Canadians detained abroad who wish to serve the remainder of their sentence at home
The Bill also introduces some changes outside the criminal justice system:
Amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act would grant the Minister of Immigration broad discretion to deny work permits to any foreign national who is ‘at risk of abuse’
Amendments to various pieces of legislation to allow victims of terrorism to sue certain foreign entities and governments for damages

இரண்டரை இலட்சம் மாணவ சமுத்திரம்

What are the problems with Bill C-10?

In the CCLA’s view, the Bill proposes a few welcome changes, including requiring the Parole Board of Canada to provide annual statistics relating to record suspensions (which replace pardons for some offences) and empowering victims of terrorism to seek redress for loss and damage resulting from a terrorist act.

Overall, however, the direction these changes set out for the Canadian criminal justice system – jail more often, for longer, with more lasting consequences – is a dangerous route that is unsupported by the social science evidence and has already failed in other countries.  Indeed, the research suggests that putting an individual in jail for longer will actually increase the likelihood of re-offending.  It’s hard to see how this Bill will make streets and communities safer.  What it will do is needlessly increase the number of people in prison, skyrocketing costs and imposing unjust, unwise and unconstitutional punishments.  This is exactly the kind of policy Canada doesn’t need.

Below are six broad points where CCLA is most concerned about the impact of this Bill.

1. Broad and vague amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: Amendments give a very broad mandate to deny any foreign national a work permit and do not specify what factors would be used to target an individual as ‘at risk’ of being exploited.  It is also poor public policy to punish foreign individuals who are vulnerable to abuse as opposed to addressing the Canadian employers who exploit these populations.

2. Hollow expansion for the rights of victims: Both torture and terrorism are serious crimes of international concern.  Numerous Canadian victims of torture have been unable to access meaningful justice in Canadian courts– and yet the government has chosen only to make these amendments available to victims of terrorism.  Even victims of terrorism would have to have their cases ‘pre-approved’ by the government, which has the ability to decide which governments can and cannot be sued.  Canada should not play politics with victims of torture and terrorism.

3. Unconstitutional use of mandatory minimums: The use of mandatory minimums for broad and vague underlying offences may result in the imposition of unjust, grossly disproportionate sentences.  The drug provisions include low-level drug offences – producing as little as six marihuana plants – and extremely broad aggravating factors which would target all those who rent or live in a house they do not own.

The child pornography provisions criminalize, and would impose mandatory minimum jail sentences, for the consensual, legal sexual activities of youth and young adults.  There is little evidence that mandatory minimums provide any deterrent impact, enhance community safety or lower crime rates.  There is also little evidence to suggest that they will significantly impact sentences for the most serious offenders – who are already being sentenced to significant amounts of jail time by the judiciary.  Rather they will handcuff the judiciary, preventing them from responding to unique facts and exceptional personal circumstances.

போராடும் மாணவர்களை நையப்புடைக்கும் பொலிஸ் பட்டாளம்

4. Prison conditions and disparate impact of amendments on aboriginal peoples and persons requiring mental health care:  The proposed will amendments greatly increase the prison population, and are likely to have a disproportionate and devastating impact on already-marginalized communities – particularly Aboriginal peoples and those with mental health needs.  These populations are already greatly over-represented in correctional institutions, and existing programs and services are already ineffective and insufficient to keep up with general demand.  The elimination of conditional sentences for a range of offences is particularly concerning, as these flexible sentencing tools are used by the judiciary to allow single mothers to continue working while serving their sentence and preventing the breakup of families, or to ensure that those with underlying mental health needs get the community treatment that best ensures their recovery and rehabilitation.

5. Unconstitutional amendments to the International Transfer of Offenders Act: The amendments attempt to give the Minister an unconstitutional level of discretion over when Canadian citizens, incarcerated abroad, can return to Canada.  From a policy perspective, facilitating such transfers enhances public safety as rehabilitation and reintegration is enhanced when individuals are close to their families and have access to high-quality, culturally-appropriate programs.  When offenders serve a portion of their sentence in Canada, it also allows the government to create records of their crimes and monitor their rehabilitation.  Absent such transfers, offenders would simply return to Canada at the end of their sentence without any records or legal restrictions on their activities.

6. Increasing transparency and accountability: The CCLA welcomes the required 5-year review of the mandatory minimum provisions set out in s. 42 of the Bill and the requirement that the National Parole Board submit an annual report that includes the number of applications for record suspensions and the number of record suspensions ordered.  Similar reviews and public reports to parliament should be undertaken with respect to the changes to the other acts.

Source: CCLA

எகிப்தில் தேர்தல்

The top two presidential candidates, Mohamed Morsi, left, and Ahmed Shafik.

In Egypt’s Likely Runoff, Islam Vies With the Past
CAIRO — The runoff to become Egypt’s first freely elected president is shaping up as a contest between two of the most powerful and polarizing forces in Egyptian society: political Islam or the leadership of the past.

After a wild and fluid two-month campaign by more than a dozen candidates, Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood and Ahmed Shafik, a former air force general who served as President
Hosni Mubarak’s final prime minister, emerged with the most votes on Friday, according to independent tallies and the official state news media.

Mr. Morsi won about a quarter of the vote and Mr. Shafik slightly less, effectively reprising the power struggle decades old between a military-backed, secular strongman and Islamists
from the Muslim Brotherhood. At least for the moment, the results appeared to dim the hope that last year’s popular uprising would open a middle path, transcending divisions that kept Egypt paralyzed between fear of religious radicalism and fear of the secular police state.

The outcome provoked frantic warnings on Friday of either a counterrevolution should Mr. Shafik win, or an Islamist takeover, should Mr. Morsi emerge as the next president. The candidates who tried to offer a more unifying vision — and were critical of both the Mubarak era and the Brotherhood — failed to overcome the deep divisions in Egyptian society. The result will be a runoff that offers a wrenching choice for the majority of voters who cast their ballots for one of the
other candidates.

“It is a shock,” said Ahmed Kabany, 38, an engineer, after the voting. “I don’t want either one, so I am not going to vote.” Although Mr. Shafik never explicitly promised to resurrect the old order, he campaigned as a strongman who would crack down on street protests, restore law and order and check the power of the Islamists. He surged in popularity toward the end of the campaign, by playing to voters’ fears of crime and lawlessness, and to the worries of Egypt’s Christian minority about the
growing power of the Islamists, who already control Parliament. And he never backed away from comments he made during the uprising against Mr. Mubarak comparing the insurrection to a
disrespectful child who slaps his father.

Mr. Morsi, facing a serious challenge from an Islamist rival during the campaign, reverted to a conservative and expressly religious appeal, portraying his platform as a distillation of
Islam itself while promising to carry out Islamic law.

Although both candidates have pledged to support the peace treaty with Israel, the runoff set up a stark choice between the Brotherhood’s vows to unite Palestinian factions in order to increase pressure on Israel to recognize a Palestinian state and Mr. Shafik’s pledges of continuity with positions of the former government.

Though official final results are to be released in a few days, early returns show that about 20 percent voted for Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh, a former Brotherhood leader campaigning as both an Islamist and as a liberal in an effort to break out of Egypt’s culture war. And another roughly 20 percent voted for Hamdeen Sabahi, a secular populist with a record of fighting the Mubarak government on behalf of the poor. (Fifth place went to Amr Moussa, a former foreign minister who presented a softer and more conciliatory version of Mr. Shafik’s secular law-and-order appeal.)

Handicapping the runoff was all but impossible. Although candidates from the Muslim Brotherhood or more conservative Islamist parties won about three-quarters of the seats in Parliament, Islamists and more secular candidates split the vote in the first stage of the presidential election. It was
unclear whether voters who picked Mr. Sabahi, the secular populist, would lean toward Mr. Morsi to avoid returning a Mubarak minister to power, or to Mr. Shafik in order to avoid giving so much power to the Brotherhood. But at the end of the day, the possibility of low turnout favors the Brotherhood because its vast political machine can drive its voters to the polls.

As soon as the results became clear, each of the two leading candidates began to try to shift to the center, by rallying against the other. In a Friday night news conference, officials of the Muslim Brotherhood announced that they were inviting the other “revolutionary candidates” — effectively, all but Mr. Shafik — to a meeting to talk about a coalition to oppose the former prime minister and about sharing power in a Brotherhood-led government.

“Rescuing the homeland includes securing victory for a candidate who belongs to the revolutionary camp, and the camp that struggles against the old regime,” Essam el-Erian, a Brotherhood lawmaker, said, trying to portray Mr. Morsi as the champion of the whole popular uprising and not just the
Islamist forces.

Supporters of Mr. Shafik, meanwhile, circulated a cellphone message urging unity against the Brotherhood. “I beg you to please put your differences aside and go vote for Shafik not because you believe in him but because it will be a catastrophe if we consolidate all power to one party (presidency and Parliament)!” the message read. “History has proved, so please spread!”

The race is further complicated by the uncertainty about the powers of the next president. A committee picked by Parliament that was supposed to draft a new charter has become deadlocked
in a dispute between Islamists and liberals. The military council that has governed Egypt since Mr. Mubarak’s ouster says it will issue an interim constitution to define the president’s powers, but it has not yet done so.

Mr. Shafik has close ties to the members of the military council, and his opponents often accuse the generals of actively supporting his campaign, but no conclusive evidence has emerged. Indeed, the Brotherhood has also indicated that it intends to take a conciliatory approach toward the generals,
allowing them to preserve the commercial empire they control, protecting their budget from public scrutiny and keeping them out of civilian courts.

Mr. Morsi, the least charismatic of the leading candidates in the race, relied mainly on the Brotherhood’s political machine to turn out his voters. He sat out the one televised debate,
and his face barely appeared in his television commercials.

Mr. Shafik, a gruff former fighter pilot, earned the nickname “the Pullover” for the sweaters he wore in television interviews and on campaign posters, apparently to make him seem more approachable. It was all but unheard-of for a Mubarak minister to appear in public without a jacket and tie. Both Mr. Morsi and Mr. Shafik were derided for their awkward speaking styles. During his brief tenure as prime minister, Mr. Shafik was forced to resign after a humiliating public debate on a television talk show with a liberal critic and author, Alaa al-Aswany. “I fought in wars,” Mr. Shafik said in
exasperation at one point. “I killed and was killed.” His signature campaign commercial plays to the public anxieties about the crime and lawlessness that have swept Egypt since Mr. Mubarak’s ouster, when police and security forces scattered or stopped working. The commercial begins with jarring television images of protests and riots, and the clipped voice of a television newscaster in the background. “Chaos,” the voice says. “The country has fallen.” Then, over somber notes from a piano, Mr. Shafik says, “Egypts needs justice, and the safety for its citizens.”

ஐரோப்பாவை உலுக்கும் அச்சம்: வங்கி வைப்புக்களை மக்கள் மீளப்பெறுதல்.

Europe's biggest fear

A run they cannot stop

May 25th 2012, 11:20 by A.P. | LONDON The Economist

It’s been a week since shares in Bankia plummeted on reports, later denied, that customers were pulling deposits out of the Spanish lender. Fears of a full-scale bank run in Greece have not yet materialised. But the possibility of a deposit run in Europe's peripheral states is still very much alive. It is also the thing that policymakers are least prepared for.

As with most aspects to the euro crisis, the usual answers are not much help. One tactic is to show customers the money. Old hands of emerging-market bank runs talk of how they used to pile cash up in full view of panicking customers so that they could see how well stocked the banks were with money. The equivalent now is to let the central bank provide enough liquidity that the ATMs always spit out cash. But if the idea is to get your hands on euros today in case of a currency redenomination tomorrow, then you will still want it out of the bank and under the mattress.

Another response to runs is to calm worries about the solvency of specific institutions by beefing up the scale of deposit guarantees. In the first phase of the crisis, which now seems almost innocent in its simplicity, that is what governments did. But that makes the problem worse, not better, if

government solvency is at the root of the problem.

The logical solution, as we argue this week, is to set up a joint deposit-guarantee scheme, in which euro-zone states pool resources to provide credible reassurance that depositors across the zone will get their money back, up to a harmonised threshold of €100,000 ($125,000). To get around the

redenomination risk, the guarantee would have to be a promise to repay the original value of the deposit in euros.

The problem, as analysts have noted this week, is that even if the political will to realise this end existed (which is highly questionable), it would take a long time to negotiate an agreement. There are all sorts of fiddly details for Eurocrats to get their teeth into. Should the scheme be prefunded? Should depositors be preferred creditors, or behind the ECB in the queue? What supervisory arrangements are needed to ensure that creditor nations have sufficient oversight of the deposit-
taking institutions they now insure in peripheral countries? And that is before you get into the rigmarole of ratifying agreements.

The trouble with this is that there is a horrible, insoluble mismatch between the timescales to which Europe’s policymakers work and the timescale of a bank run. A run is most likely within the next few weeks. And if a run starts, Europe’s governments will have to reassure within a matter of hours. You might just about get a communiqué from Brussels in that timeframe, but could it really reassure when so many questions are unanswered?

If it does not, then the run will continue until such time as the banks close their doors to further withdrawals or the central banks have satisfied depositors’ demand for cash. The former means trapping depositors inside a system they do not trust. The latter means providing liquidity to a banking system that has been abandoned by its own citizens. It would be hard to come back from either position.

பாங்கியா வங்கிக் காளிக்கு 24 பில்லியன் டொலர் படையல்!

Spain's Bankia seeks record bailout of ?19 bn

by Katell Abiven | May 26, 2012

Spain's fourth-biggest bank, Bankia, said Friday it will ask the government for 19 billion euros ($24 billion) in the largest bank bailout in the country's history.

The bank, which holds some 10 percent of the nation's bank deposits, said the request will be part of a recapitilsation plan which it approved at a board meeting on Friday and is backed by the government and the Bank of Spain.

"This plan has identified capital needs of 19 billion euros which will be entirely covered by the state," it said in a regulatory filing.


The government already spent 4.5 billion euros on Bankia earlier this month when it partially nationalised the lender.
The state took a controlling 45-percent stake in Bankia by converting a loan for that amount to its parent group Banco Financiero de Ahorros (BFA) into equity.

The bailout requested by Bankia on Friday will bring to 23.5 billion euros the total amount spent by the Spanish government to rescue the bank, which was formed in 2010 from a merger of seven troubled regional savings banks.
Spanish banks are at the heart of market fears that Spain, the eurozone's fourth-largest economy, could be forced to seek an international financial bailout.

Earlier this week Economy Minister Luis de Guindos estimated Bankia would need around seven billion euros to shore up its finances although he said his government would provide whatever funds were needed.

Bankia shares were suspended from trading Friday ahead of the bank's board meeting after newspaper reports said it planned to ask the state for aid of 15-20 billion euros.

Under the recapilitisation plan it approved Friday, Bankia's parent group BFA will ask Spain's bank restructuring fund FROB to subscribe to a capital increase of 19 billion euros.

Bankia will then launch a 12 billion euro capital increase which will be underwritten by BFA.
"Bankia clients can have absolute confidence that their savings are now safer than ever," said Bankia president Jose Ignacio Goirigolzarri.

The bank also announced that it had revised its results for 2011. Instead of posting a net profit of 309 million euros, it recorded a net loss of 2.979 billion euros due to write-downs made in its loan portfolio.

Bankia had problematic property assets amounting to 31.8 billion euros at the end of last year, according to Bank of Spain figures.

Standard & Poor's on Friday cut its credit ratings for five Spanish banks, including Bankia and its parent group BFA.

It downgraded Bankia to BB+, one notch into junk status, from BBB- and reduced its rating for BFA, which was already in junk status, to B+, four notches into junk territory, from BB-.

Standard & Poor's also cut its rating for Bankinter, Banco Popular and Banca Civica.

Daniel Pingarron, an analyst at Spanish brokerage IG Markets, said the injection of public funds into Bankia to save it "will not change things very much."

"What will happen is the FROB funds will run out, the fund will have to be replenished with public debt, and that does not sent a message of confidence" to markets, he added.

The government could add two other savings banks under its control, Novacaixagalicia and CatalunyaCaixa, to Bankia, which would create "the biggest public bank in Spanish history", and then sell the lender, Pingarron said.

The government refused to comment on this possibility.

Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy's conservative government this month instructed Spain's banks to set aside an extra 30 billion euros in 2012 in case property-related loans go bad, on top of 53.8 billion euros required under reforms enacted in February.

Bankia's shares plummeted 7.43 percent on Thursday to close at 1.57 euros, taking total losses to more than 58 percent since their listing in July 2011.

AFP

===================================================

* நிதியாதிக்க வங்கி மூலதனக் கொள்ளையர்களுக்கு, மக்கள் வரிப்பணத்தை வாரி வாரி இறைப்பதன் மூலம் மரணத்தறுவாயில் இருக்கும் முதலாளித்துவத்தைக் காக்க முடியாது!

* ஏகாதிபத்திய நெருக்கடிக்குத் தீர்வு சோசலிசமே, பாட்டாளிவர்க்கப் புரட்சியே!

* வங்கிகளை பாட்டாளிவர்க்க சர்வாதிகார அரசின் உடமையாக்குவதே!

===================================================

அடிப்படை ஜனநாயக உரிமைகளைப் பறிக்கும் கனேடிய அரசு.

Over 700 students have been arrested in Canada during the latest night of rallies against tuition fee hikes and the adoption of controversial bill that is widely seen as a tool to limit freedom of speech, association and assembly.

­Police in Montreal dispersed unsanctioned protests and arrested 518 demonstrators on Wednesday night. The arrests were also made in Quebec City, where some 170 were detained, and in Sherbrooke. There were no reports of injuries or casualties.

Police used kettling tactics to encircle the protesters and contain them within a small space. People reportedly threw projectiles such as fireworks and bottles at officers, forcing them to carry out extensive arrests.

Most of those detained have already been released. Some face $1,000 fines.

­For over 14 weeks, Canada has been facing the most sustained student demonstration in its history. The protest on Wednesday started as a peaceful march of thousands, just like the majority of previous rallies.

In order to give the police another non-lethal means of pressure on protesters, Quebec's legislative assembly adopted a bill that introduces enormous fines of $24,000 to $122,000 against unions and student organizations which do not stop their members from protesting. Individuals found guilty of organizing a protest now face a fine of some $34,000.

On Tuesday, the movement marked the 100th day of demonstrations against the tuition hikes of around $250 per year with a massive rally in Montreal. Over 120 people were detained following the event.

IMF Gives Stark Warning To UK Over Eurozone

"Growth is too slow and unemployment, including youth unemployment, is too high.''

IMF Gives Stark Warning To UK Over Eurozone
Tuesday, May 22nd 2012 10:44

 Britain may have to cut interest rates and VAT to stimulate the economy amid the eurozone crisis, the International Monetary Fund has warned.

But the IMF backed the UK's deficit reduction plan, saying "substantial progress" had been made on balancing the books.

The head of the fund, Christine Lagarde, warned the eurozone crisis could prolong the UK's recession and urged the Bank of England to take action to boost growth and reduce unemployment.
She advocated a cut in the base rate of interest, which has remained unchanged at a historic low of 0.5% for over three years.

In a report on the UK, the IMF warned an escalation of the crisis would deliver a "substantial contractionary shock" to the UK economy, setting back progress made towards recovery.
It said the Government should start preparing a Plan B, featuring temporary tax cuts and increased spending on infrastructure, to support the UK economy.

Britain entered a double-dip recession during the first quarter of the year after the economy contracted by 0.2%, following a decline in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 0.3% in the final three months of 2011.

The IMF identified uncertainty over the future of the euro as the main danger to recovery and warned: "Risks are large and tilted clearly to the downside."

The report recognised "substantial progress" towards balancing Britain's books thanks to the coalition Government's deficit-reduction programme, but noted the economy remains "flat" and warned the weak recovery may be "more protracted than previously anticipated".

IMF managing director Ms Lagarde put pressure on the Bank of England for further monetary stimulus to revive the economy.

She said: "Growth is too slow and unemployment, including youth unemployment, is too high.
"Policies to bolster demand before low growth becomes entrenched are needed."

In an endorsement to Chancellor George Osborne's economic strategy, Ms Lagarde added: "The UK authorities' policy approach has reinforced credibility at a time of intensified global uncertainty."
Referring to the UK's budget deficit, Ms Lagarde said she "shivered' when she thought about what would have happened if it had remained at the 11% of GDP level it reached in May 2010.

As debt-laden Greece teeters on the edge of being forced to leave the euro - leading to a potential catastrophe across the single currency bloc - the Chancellor said the UK was preparing for all eventualities.

"The British government is doing contingency planning for all potential outcomes.

"It's our responsibility to ensure that while we work for the best, we prepare for something worse," said Mr Osborne, who was speaking at a joint press conference with Ms Lagarde.
He added: "It's clear we're now reaching a critical point for the eurozone.
"Eurozone countries need to stand behind their currency or face up to the prospect of a Greek exit with all the risks that that would involve."

The Chancellor also admitted ministers needed to do more to tackle unemployment, which currently stands at 8.2% despite modest falls over the last two months.

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls, who would like to see a less radical approach to cutting the deficit, told Sky News that Mr Osborne's plan had "failed".

============= The OECD warned the eurozone is facing a "severe recession" which poses a threat to economies across the world.

"The IMF is saying the UK economy is under-performing and needs urgent action to get jobs and growth moving," he said.

The IMF warning came as UK inflation fell to its lowest level in more than two years, providing welcome relief to household budgets.

Meanwhile, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development revised downwards its outlook for the eurozone.

It said it expects the euro area's economy to contract by 0.1% this year, compared to a previous forecast of 0.2% growth, before returning to positive output in 2013.

The OECD warned the eurozone is facing a "severe recession" which poses a threat to economies across the world.

"The crisis in the euro area has become more serious recently, and it remains the most important source of risk to the global economy," said OECD chief economist Pier Carlo Padoan.

The group left its outlook for 2012 for the UK economy unchanged at growth of 0.2%.

US and Japan economic recovery but still fragile - OECD

Tuesday, May 22nd 2012 - 18:39 UTC

US and Japan leading economic recovery but still fragile says latest OECD report

The United States and Japan are leading a fragile economic recovery among developed countries that could yet be blown off course if the Euro zone fails to contain its flaring growth crisis, the OECD said on Tuesday.

 In its twice-yearly economic outlook, the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forecast that global growth would ease to 3.4% this year from 3.6% in 2011, before accelerating to 4.2% in 2013, in line with its last estimates from late November.

 

Growth across the organisation's 34 members, generally the wealthiest in the world, would ease this year to 1.6% from 1.8% in 2011 and then reach 2.2% in 2013, also roughly in line with previous estimates.

 

“We see a slow rebound of growth in the United States driven mostly by private demand, some pick-up in Japan and moderate to strong growth in emerging economies,” OECD chief economist Pier Carlo Padoan told reporters in an interview.

 

“We also see flat growth in the Euro area which hides important differences, with northern countries growing and southern countries in recession,” he added.

 

The OECD forecast that the 17-member Euro zone economy would shrink 0.1% this year before posting growth of 0.9% in 2013, though regional powerhouse Germany would chalk up growth of 1.2% in 2012 and 2.0% in 2013.

 

Although OECD economies were on the mend, the Euro zone's debt crisis could still spiral out of control with Greece struggling to remain solvent and Spanish banks needing to be recapitalised, Padoan said.

 

The European Central Bank's injection of one trillion Euros of liquidity into the Euro zone's banking system and an increase in European bailout funds and IMF reserves had helped keep the Euro zone's debt crisis from spiralling out of control.

 

“If the situation gets worse, there are ways to enhance the firewall capacity which could include a stronger intervention or role of the ECB,” Padoan said.

 

In particular, the ECB should not rule out buying government bonds again to keep borrowing costs down, lending to the ESM European bailout fund as well as cutting its main benchmark interest rate, which currently stands at 1.00%. The ECB could also consider another injection of liquidity into the banking system.

 

In contrast to the Euro zone, the United States was expected to continue to benefit from easy credit conditions and ultra-loose monetary policy, with the world's biggest economy forecast to grow 2.4% this year and 2.6% in 2013. In November, the OECD had forecast 2.0% for 2012 and 2.5% for 2013.

 

Although some budget tightening and a still weak housing market would be a drag on growth, demand in the private sector would continue to strengthen as the unemployment rate to as low as 7.5% by the end of 2013 from 8.1% in April.

 

The OECD said that while the US needed to step up the pace of its fiscal tightening, if tax cuts were allowed to expire as scheduled in 2013 it could result in too much cutting at once and threaten growth.

 

The Japanese economy was set to grow 2.0% this year and 1.5% in 2013 as a reconstruction boom after last year's earthquake and tsunami faded although recovering world trade would offer support.

 

A rebound in global trade would be a bright spot for many economies, with the OECD forecasting it would surge from 4.1% this year to 7.0% in 2013.

 

Export-giant China was forecast to see growth rebound from 8.2% this year to 9.3% in 2013 as interest rate cuts and increased social spending propped up domestic demand in the non-OECD member country.

 

ஹில்லரியுடன் கை குலுக்கி, மெய் சிலிர்க்கும் யுத்த வெற்றி விழா!

It is not possible to remove Armed Forces camps from North and reduce attention to national security

19 May 2012, 11:43 pm
by Mahinda Rajapaksa

(Text of President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s address to the nation, at the Armed Services Humanitarian Victory Parade, Galle Face, Colombo on May 19th 2012)
I need not state afresh that this day – the 19th of May – is now a great historic day in our country.

Today marks third celebration of victory of the nation under a single flag. It is the great victory that restored the honorable peace that our country had preserved through many centuries. Similarly, it is also the great victory that freed many lakhs of people in the North who were held hostage by the forces of terror and removed the fear of death that existed among all people.

Our heroes and veterans of war gave their feet for us to walk in freedom. They gave their lives to save all people from the throes of death. They gave their last breath to the winds to let us breathe in freedom. The nation will no doubt remember all that sacrifice with great honor.

We will not stop there. We have now given a new meaning to all the blood, sweat and tears shed by them on behalf of the nation.

We are now protecting the country that was won through this sacrifice and building a great country that is free, independent and not subject to any others. I recall how when we were strengthening our armed forces, police and civil defense corps the questions being raised as to how they could be maintained after the war is over.

Is this not a great wasteful expenditure, was the question asked. These questions were raised even before we could complete the task ahead. Today, I ask you to consider whether this criticism was just or reasonable.

When terrorism prevailed, the armed forces had a great responsibility. Once peace has been established, the heroes who brought us freedom have a similar responsibility. It is the task of rebuilding the country and adding to its beauty.

I state with great humility and justified pride that we have given dignity of life to the heroes of war who brought to us the dignity of peace. I believe the Ranaviru Housing Project is the largest housing project established in Sri Lanka. We have not only given your children entry to national schools but also built a separate War Heroes school, which is today among the best schools in the country. I see some of these children present here today. Similarly, we have well thought out programs to care for the disabled veterans, especially in places such as the Mihindu Seth Medura.

We also ensure that the veterans who retire from our forces are given necessary vocational training before they return to civilian life. The Rathna Lanka Security Service has been especially established for these veterans. We extend our love to the unborn children of our veterans. This is why we proposed in the last budget that the third child of a war hero’s family would receive a grant of Rs. 100, 000.

I do not know whether this is effectively used and invite you to do so. We have also given the opportunity for those with artistic talent among our veterans to bring their talents to the fore, enhance it, and give them recognition in the country. I do not think any other country in the word respects its heroes and veterans in such manner.

You will recall how terrorism compelled us all to live in the midst of much restrictions and obstructions, through 30 years. It is just three years since the war ended. Today, the country that faced such restrictions has returned to normal. We have systematically removed from our vocabulary the references of refugee camps, land mines and villages under threat. There is no State of Emergency today.

There are no high security zones. The check points and road blocks that we had through every two or three kilometers, and even on this Galle Road, are not there anymore.

It is no secret that through 30 years there were armed groups and militias operating, especially in the North and East. All such groups have now been disarmed. There were limits imposed on fishermen under which they could not go beyond a certain distance. These restrictions are also no more. The era of the underworld and drug racketeers is ending. Today Sri Lanka is a country free of restrictions and obstacles.

Although this is the actual situation in the country, there are some who have restrictions in their minds and thinking. Although the people feel today’s relief in their hearts, some are not ready to expect the reality of such relief.

We are aware that the armed forces do not participate in the administration of the North or East. These regions are administered by the public service and the police. Despite this there are many who shout that the security forces camps in these areas should be removed.
They ask us why they are not removed. But no one asks whether those who make such demands are not seeking to achieve what Prabhakaran failed to obtain through the use of ship loads of arms, aerial attacks, sea tiger and human suicide bomb attacks through 30 years of war of terror. Are they now not asking this through different means?

It is necessary to ask those who call for the removal of the armed forces from the North whether the ‘Diaspora’ and Eelamists have stopped their work although the country has returned to normal. It is no secret that those who conscripted children to war, and other war criminals who are leaders of the LTTE, are acting with freedom in foreign countries.

Just as much as their work their demands also remain the same; they seek the same ends through different means. Therefore, we must ask if we in a position to remove the armed forces camps in the North and reduce our attention national security. That is not possible. Armed services camps are not found in the North alone. They are seen throughout the country. They are in Colombo and Giruvapattu in the South. These are found in our country. Not in any foreign country.

We are a country that is a member of the United Nations, working with friendship with all countries and sit with equality with all its members. We are a non-aligned country. We have the strength to resolve our own problems and issues. After 30 years we now see the dawn that will take us to a golden age of the future. We are a country with a free and independent policy aligned to peace.

I need not repeat that it is a difficult task to build a country with huge development in keeping with international levels of growth. Yet, we have now begun to raise our head as a nation. What we seek is to bring to the world a modern developed county. We have not forgotten the help and assistance given to us by our neighbors and other countries of the international community to defeat terrorism. Similarly, what we expect from them today is cooperation in our moves for rapid development of the country.

We appointed the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) with great expectations of bringing about reconciliation among communities. We are already carrying out what we can agree to and can implement among the recommendations of the LLRC. This is not due to any pressure from anyone. We will not abandon our responsibilities.

I believe the countries of the world should understand this when they see the service we have done in three years to the Tamil people of the North, whose freedom we have restored. Therefore, we cannot allow this report of the commission appointed to bring about reconciliation among people to be used to create divisions among people.

It is evident to you all that the narrow thinking of the past does not exist among our communities today.

We can now observe the present experiences of marriages between those of the North and the South. Today the youth, both men and women, of the North and East who once took to arms have abandon weapons and are ready to join Police and the Armed Forces. National political parties are today able to work and function freely in the North in absence of fear. Having defeated terrorism we should now fully use this opportunity for freedom afforded by peace. This is not an opportunity gained by or for Ealamists. You, our heroic forces have prevented that.

We must have the patience to save the victory we have won. This cannot be done in haste or through fear. We cannot take rush into decisions on such matters, as they will not last long. We must act with foresight and a good understanding of the future of our country. Let us join hands and work together having abandoned narrow expectations.

Let us build a great, developed and peaceful country where everyone can live without fear and mistrust that we can proudly bequeath to our children and unborn generations. That is the challenge of victory. Achieving it is greatest victory.

முள்ளிவாய்க்கால் ஒன்றல்ல இரண்டல்ல...!

ஈரோப்பியன் ஜுனியன் நிர்மூலத்தை நோக்கி நிதிமூலதனப் பண்ணை

Mass anti-austerity protests sweep through Spain
Published: 12 May, 2012, 23:50


At least 100,000 protesters angered by the country's grim economic prospects turned out for street demonstrations in 80 cities across Spain. This marked the one-year anniversary of a movement that inspired similar activist groups in other countries.

In the capital Madrid, thousands of protesters chanted and beat drums as they marched from different directions to converge on the central Puerta del Sol Square. The square was brimming with demonstrators during the evening, but visibly emptied as some of the protesters left after 10pm local time.

Protesters hold up a banner which reads, "Regime of the 1%, Crisis for 99%", during a protest marking the one year anniversary of Spain's Indignados (Indignant) movement in Madrid's Puerta del Sol, May 12, 2012 (Reuters/Andrea Comas)

Authorities have vowed to block any attempts by protesters to camp out on the square, which is the popular movement's epicenter. Marches were also held in Barcelona, Bilbao, Malaga and Seville.
The four day-long demonstration marks the one-year anniversary of the "Indignants" protest movement, as Spain’s economic woes deepen by the day.

Joblessness has soared to almost 25 per cent – the highest level in the eurozone – with half of all Spaniards under the age of 25 are out of work. As the country already faces 30 billion euros in cuts so far this year, demonstrators say the cuts have left public services greatly underfunded.

The government is planning a fresh round of austerity measures as the country sinks further into recession, prompting fears that Spain may soon require a Greek-style bailout. These measures include hikes in property and income taxes, freezes on the minimum wage and cuts to health care and education spending, as well as further slashing of pensioners' benefits.

Indignados (indignant) protesters fill up the Puerta del Sol square during a protest marking the one year anniversary of Spain's Indignados movement in Madrid's Puerta del Sol, May 12, 2012 (Reuters/Paul Hanna)

“We are here because we continue to be angry over the austerity policies which an economic elite is imposing on us," 21-year-old student Victor Valdes told AFP in Madrid. Another protester said it was important to let the government  know “we are still here.”

The government has vowed not to see a repeat of last year’s scenario, when the “indignados” managed to erect a sprawling tent city in the heart of Madrid. After violent clashes with police, the demonstrators were forcibly evicted.

Authorities in Madrid issued a permit for a five-hour long gathering on Saturday, and the protesters were required to vacate the square by 10pm but will be allowed to return the following day.
However, activists said over social media that they would call for a “permanent assembly” to be held on Puerta del Sol throughout the four-day protest.

Spain's "indignants" protesters demonstrate at the Puerta del Sol square in Madrid on May 12, 2012 (AFP Photo/ Jaime Reina)

The government has warned that there will be enough officers to enforce the law, with some 2,000 riot police deployed in the capital.

Victor Sampedro, a professor of political communication, believes the demonstrators have headed to the street in order to participate in politics.

“These people want to take part in politics, and they cannot take part in politics because they have reached the conclusion that while it is worth voting, it does not reflect the public opinion because only two main parties can govern. Actually it’s a bi-partisan system, de-facto,” Sampedro noted to RT, "and both main parties coincide fully in their economic measures.”

முள்ளிவாய்க்கால்ப் பிரகடனம் 2012

http://senthanal.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/blog-post.html

முள்ளிவாய்க்கால்ப் பிரகடனம்

தமிழீழ தேசம் தனது பிரிந்து செல்லும் உரிமையை வென்றெடுக்க, சிங்கள-மலையக-முஸ்லிம் மக்களை ஐக்கியப்படுத்த, உலகத்

தொழிலாளர்களுடனும், ஒடுக்கப்பட்ட தேசங்களுடனும் ஒன்றுபட்டு தொடர்ந்து போராடும்.

 மார்க்சிய லெனினிய மா ஓ சே துங் சிந்தனை வழி நடப்போம்!

 மாண்ட நம் மக்களே மாவீரத் தோழர்களே செவ்வணக்கம்!!

பிரகடன விபரம் புதிய ஈழத்தில்

CPG: On the results of the- Greece - elections of the 6th of May 2012

KKE: In the frontline of the struggles from today against the new anti-worker storm

“The election results definitely show a reversal of the political scene we were familiar with, the interruption of the rotation of the two parties, PASOK and ND. We are moving into a transitional phase where there will be an attempt to create a new political scene with new formations, new figures with a centre-right orientation or based on a new social democracy that will have SYRIZA at its core, aimed at preventing the rising radicalism of the people that would lead things towards a true overthrow in favour of the people. There will be an attempt to form a government either from these elections or from the elections to follow, a government made up of all parties, or a government of national unity, or a coalition government aimed precisely at preventing the creation of a majority current that will struggle for change.


We address the members of the party, the members of KNE, the friends, the supporters, the voters, the people who cooperate with the party, to everyone who has been with us at the frontline of the movement and the electoral battle and call on you to be at the frontline of the struggles in the next days because we have pressing, serious issues which are in progress, such as the collective bargaining agreements, the protection of the unemployed, the bankruptcy of the social security funds, the new measures which amount to 11,5-14,5 billion euros which will be paid for out of the pockets of the people. We cannot waste any time. The people must not waste time.

We urge the voters of PASOK and ND in particular, those who belong to the working class and the other popular strata to be at the frontline too, together with us and other militants, in the struggles, in the workplaces, in schools and universities, in the people's neighbourhoods. They are the ones who have to provide a new momentum and a mass character to the struggle. We call on the people not to be deceived by the attempt to disguise the political system that will take place in the days and months to follow. The election results, despite the fact that the votes were scattered in both directions, right and left, objectively demonstrate a positive tendency: that radical changes are maturing or will mature in the peoples consciousness, that the movement of the real overthrow will mature and this movement will not be far from, or even more so will not be in opposition to the political proposal of the KKE on the immediate problems, for the workers' and people's power.

We consider significant, positive and at the same time a great legacy for the next period the fact that we confronted on our own the pro-European, pro-EU forces in their entirety, irrespective of the positions they took concerning the memorandum, the fact that we fought in order to promote our own alternative proposal which responds to and satisfies the people's interests. We consider that this proposal constitutes a significant legacy for the people and of course will add a new momentum to the people's struggles. We feel that our responsibilities and our role in relation to the people and their problems must be strengthened and we believe that, in fact we are certain, we will continue to be the irreplaceable force that defends the people's interests.

Regarding the election result of the KKE: of course the CC will issue a comprehensive assessment after studying the results as a whole and the tendencies of the electorate in each region so as to draw more complete conclusions. But we can say that the KKE literally went through obstacles on both sides. On the one side there was the anger, the protest, the indignation which was absolutely justified but it was mainly without focus and on the other side there were the illusions. As the results show up to this point the KKE had a small increase. Of course we would have liked a bigger one. Nevertheless, I have to say that the CC and the party as a whole had no illusions that the votes of the KKE could increase exponentially because the performance of the KKE in the elections is above all related to the formation not only of a militant people's movement but to the formation of a powerful majority current that will be emancipated from the well-known dilemmas but also from the regenerated illusions.

The KKE had made public in good time, before the elections and without any hesitation, what kind of stance it will take towards any government that will emerge from the elections, centre-right, centre-left or “left' as it was served up or in the instance of a government of national unity or an all-party government as is being discussed right now.


We clarify our position: of course we are sure that neither PASOK not ND will make us a proposal for cooperation. They are very well aware of the deep differences between us. But we would like to answer once again the proposal that SYRIZA repeated after the elections concerning a government of the left. We will answer clearly without invoking what we can all see, namely that the votes and the seats are not sufficient. Maybe SYRIZA thinks they are enough, as it will try to gain support and votes from MPs of all the other parties. We clarify our position: we continue to say no to the cooperation because in the final analysis we have not come to this no position according to our high or low expectations regarding the results of the elections.

We heard that the president of SYRIZA will ask for a meeting and that they want to hold private discussions about the programme of the coalition government. Logically whoever has made a proposal for a coalition government should have said in detail before the elections what they will do in June, in July, in relation to concrete issues etc instead of general slogans and general denunciations of the memorandum. Or at least they should have been ready now. What do they want exactly? We have only heard about some allowances which can be ensured or other such things.


Nevertheless a government, irrespective of its composition, must deal with the whole spectrum of the problems. It should not merely denounce the memorandum but return to the people the gains that were abolished before the memorandum - because most of the gains were lost before the memorandum- as well as many others abolished after the memorandum. A government has to manage everything and not merely the unemployment benefit, as was mentioned. It has to manage issues of economy, the stance of the business groups towards the working people, the list of the privatisations adopted in the previous years. It has to handle issues of foreign policy such as the general commitments that arise from the EU, NATO, from the strategic alliance with the USA. There is no government that tears the agreements into pieces, abstracts politics and only promotes the packet of measures of the next day.


In order to agree with such a government the KKE needs to make a U-turn, a summersault and not merely a small retreat, a small turn. It must make a root and branch change. And above all it would have to make unacceptable compromises that have nothing to do with the people's interests. Maybe the people are not interested in the ideological purity of the various parties, but in a party that all these years, from the very first moment of its foundation, has been in the frontline of the struggle does not want to abandon this position in order to gain some ministries. The people do not need this kind of KKE”.

ATHENS 06/05/2012
THE PRESS OFFICE OF THE CC OF THE KKE

பிரான்ஸ்: நிதி மூலதன நலனுக்கு சிவப்புச் சாயம்

The challenge for Hollande

Exclusive7 May, by Roland Hsu

The French have voted for François Hollande as their next president. Behind their choice was the important question of trust. In the US, opinion polls often ask voters whether they “trust” a candidate. In France, since 2007, the question has been moot. For French voters of all political affiliations, Nicolas Sarkozy had for the last five years pursued a vigorous platform of distrust — distrust of organized labor, welfare security, immigrants, rivals among the far right, and of compromise and traditional democratic process.

What have we learned from the results of the election? In round one, French voters relegated the incumbent Sarkozy to second place, but they also held the Socialist challenger François Hollande to a meager lead, and gave the far-right Front National (FN) a record number and percentage of votes. This was a reprimand to both final contenders for president. But the real story, and the one that will continue to play out into the new Hollande administration, is that, by design or by default, voters gave the party that most clearly vocalizes a politics of resentment (the FN) a loud voice — and a plan to amass a block of seats in the National Assembly at the next legislative election this June. This development warrants very close monitoring: as we look ahead we should see May-June as a season of continuous campaigning for the leadership of the political right.

The new generation of FN leadership under Marine Le Pen successfully undermined Sarkozy’s campaign, sensing the consequence of the Hollande victory. The FN under Marine’s father Jean-Marie Le Pen was focused on what it saw as problems in society — immigration and loss of the traditional way of life of the small shop owner. But under Marine Le Pen it is now focused on the problems of government.

She achieved her aim to break the hold on the power and politics of the right, previously exerted by Sarkozy’s Union for Popular Movement (UMP). Under Sarkozy, the center-right was able to appeal to voters swayed by its general platform of fiscal and social conservatism. Apart from those voters who were willing to support a marginalized party (such as the FN), most people who defined themselves as conservative loyalists had no option but to support Sarkozy’s UMP. But with the defeat of Sarkozy, center-right community loyalty has imploded, and will continue to do so for the rest of the legislative campaign season. The resulting vacuum offers the Front National the best opportunity since its founding to step in as the viable party to represent those leaders and voters who seek a totally reorganized right wing.

To whom can President Hollande and his ministers of finance and of labor turn for partnership, and with whom will they be forced to make deals? The new French administration may have to do deals with a block of legislators loyal to the FN in order to pass and enact major policy on economic reform, immigration and foreign affairs. Yet we saw that the Sarkozy campaign’s courting of the far right had the effect of giving Le Pen a stronger voice in the future of policy-making than even Sarkozy had calculated.

Will the new French government continue along the “Merkozy” path — the Angela Merkel/Sarkozy duet that pushed austerity? Or will it now, as Hollande promises, lead a eurogroup of “growth” economies, and push through amendments to the proposed treaty on Stability and Coordination of EU economies?

It remains to be seen whether France finds a balance between austerity and stimulus. But the evidence suggests that the new administration will not be able to push through either austerity or stimulus in any meaningful way unless it repairs the mistrust that has been created between government, industry and that underclass of the unemployed.

In France, fixing employment means bridging deep chasms between employers and recent immigrants whom we know face discrimination in hiring. Since coming to office, the Sarkozy government focused on lowering the “cost” of employment (relaxing termination rules, reducing pensions), but this did little to address the problem of double-digit unemployment rates for recent immigrants. To lower unemployment, one first must address social conflict; and to address conflict, France needs a dialogue between political and disenfranchised community leaders. To date, the record of such dialogue has not been good.

Political leaders have not prioritized making first- and second-generation immigrant youth employable. Those who live in the suburban banlieues of disenfranchised youth and the unemployed have not forgotten that Sarkozy, when he was interior minister, responded to the riots of 2005 by labeling the participants (many of North African descent) as racaille orscum.

That memory should serve as a lesson to the new Hollande government. It will need to devote real and political capital to programs of social inclusion and job training. And it will need to do so while trading legislative favors with Le Pen and her new post-UMP colleagues on the far right. This is not an enviable prospect, but it is the likely, and perhaps only, scenario for creating sustainable employment.

For Hollande’s government to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio, it must lighten the weight of pensions. But to do so is impossible without winning at least minimal cooperation from organized labor. France is well known for its tradition of labor militancy, but in the recent past this has been played out in relatively impotent rituals of periodic demos: the last nation-wide, effective general strike was back in 1995 (protesting pension cuts under President Chirac).

Again, Hollande would do well to learn the lesson from his predecessor. In 2007 Sarkozy began his term with his budget minister describing French labor relations as being in the stone age, and unilaterally rolling out an aggressive labor reform package that had the effect of invigorating the anemic unions. That led to demonstrations whose size and vigor surprised even labor leaders. The reform package was mostly withdrawn, and government, labor and industry leaders have since then mistrusted each other.

So the critical question for the Hollande government is how to restore trust and win effective cooperation from organized labor, industry, the international investment community, immigrant community leaders, and also the far right. Hollande has little room to maneuver, and no better option than to invite his finance ministry to the table with representatives of industry and labor. Hollande and his Socialist Party could be better suited than their center-right predecessors to court labor. Can they also craft bargains that balance deficit reduction, economic growth, social justice and the demands of the invigorated center-far right? Perhaps this is the most pressing challenge for President Hollande as he begins his term.