Top IMF post should not be reserved for Europe
An unprecedented scandal involving the former head of the International Monetary Fund has left the organization's top post vacant.
No time should be wasted in selecting a new IMF chief to ensure the organization will be able to regain its international credibility, which has been diminished by the scandal.
Former IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who was arrested and indicted on charges of a sexual assault on a New York hotel maid, resigned as head of the IMF.
Although he denied the charges, it was clear he was no longer in a position to direct the IMF, a world organization tasked with such important duties as overseeing economic policies of member countries. His resignation should be considered inevitable.
Hailing from France, Strauss-Kahn assumed the post of IMF managing director in 2007 after serving in such positions as French finance minister.
In the global financial crisis that followed the collapse of Lehman Brothers in the autumn of 2008, he had a major hand in leading policy coordination among the Group of 20 major countries and regions, including Japan, Europe and the United States.
In dealing with Europe's financial crisis, Strauss-Kahn delivered good results in speedily working out bailout packages in collaboration with the European Union for such faltering economies as Greece and Ireland.
===
Pile of challenges
Although some have recently questioned the necessity of the IMF, Strauss-Kahn's ability to take effective action can safely be said to have enhanced the presence of the organization.
The world's financial markets have recovered a degree of stability, and global business activities are improving. However, many challenges remain, such as instability in the Middle East and soaring crude oil prices, in addition to the still smoldering fiscal problems in Europe. The impact the Great East Japan Earthquake may have on the world economy must also be watched.
The IMF's role in ensuring stability of the global economy remains very important. It should continue to expedite reform of financial regulations to prevent global financial crises and rectify imbalances among world economies.
Given these key issues, the absence of a chief must not be allowed to impede the IMF's role. The question is, who is the right person to succeed Strauss-Kahn?
There has long been a tacit agreement about the top posts of the IMF and the World Bank, both of which were established after the end of World War II: The successive heads of the IMF should be Europeans, while the presidents of the World Bank should be American.
In Europe, French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde is among the names cited as possible candidates to replace Strauss-Kahn.
===
New economic landscape
However, it should be noted that the landscape of the world economy has changed drastically in recent years.
After the financial crisis that followed the Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy, such emerging economies as Brazil, China and India have conspicuously gained strength, increasing their quota subscriptions to the IMF and therefore their say over IMF policies.
Considering that the IMF was founded about 65 years ago, the practice of reserving its top post for Europe seems to be no longer considered a matter of course. This practice should end, and candidates for the IMF's top post from Asia and Central and South America should be considered.
It appears the United States, which holds the world's largest quota subscription to the IMF, will have a decisive say in the selection of a new IMF head. Whether a successor to Strauss-Kahn is selected through a highly transparent process will serve as a touchstone for gauging the prospects for IMF reform.
U.S. should show concrete plans for Middle East peace
Demonstrations that erupted in several nations in the Middle East and North Africa in recent months have apparently also started to shape the United States' Middle East policy.
In his first speech on the Middle East in about two years, U.S. President Barack Obama said the borders of Israel and a future Palestinian state should be determined based on the lines that existed before the Middle East War of June 1967, also known as the Six-Day War.
Israel expanded its occupied territories in one swoop in this war against Arab states. Since then, it has built homes for Jewish settlers in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
The return of occupied land to the Palestinians is a core tenet of peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine. However, many settlements now exist in these areas and as many as 500,000 Jewish settlers live in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
===
Can talks get back on track?
Former U.S. President George W. Bush said it was "unrealistic" to expect Israel to return all the occupied territories. By contrast, Obama has come out and said their full return should be the basis for peace negotiations. His position is that some compensatory measures must be provided if Israel incorporates these settlements into its territory.
Obama's speech largely sided with the position of the Palestinians.
The key question now is whether Obama's comments can shunt the deadlocked Middle East peace talks back on track.
During a meeting with Obama the day after his speech, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu bluntly rejected the U.S. president's vision, saying Israel cannot pull back to the 1967 lines. Some critics have suggested Obama's vision has weakened the U.S. position as a mediator in Middle East peace negotiations.
Now that the United States has taken action toward resuming the peace talks, it has a responsibility to present concrete measures to advance the peace process.
===
Sweeping changes in region
Political changes in the Middle East over the past five months are behind the shift in Obama's Middle East policy.
Pro-democracy demonstrations that ousted dictators in Tunisia and Egypt have spread to Arab states and became a powerful groundswell toward democratization.
People in Arab states have tended to perceive the United States as a backer of Israel and dictators in those countries. To maintain its influence in the Middle East, the United States, therefore, decided it had to clarify it was siding with people demanding democracy and to keep a certain distance from Israel.
In his speech, Obama announced the United States would provide financial assistance to Tunisia and Egypt, and denounced the Libyan and Syrian governments for opening fire on demonstrators. This was intended to show that U.S. policy has changed.
Obama also clearly sought to defuse the Palestinian Authority's move to unilaterally declare independence, signs of which have been seen recently.
Washington needs to ensure Middle East peace negotiations make progress if it is to regain the trust of nations in the region.
0 comments:
Post a Comment