Exciting news from Adil Najam, Vice Chancellor of LUMS – for those who don’t know him, Dr. Adil Najam was the Frederick S. Pardee Professor of Global Public Policy at Boston University and served as a Lead Author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), work for which the IPCC was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize along with Al Gore. He left BU (where his office had the most gorgeous view overlooking the Charles River) to head the Lahore University of Management Sciences.

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Adil Najam
Date: Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 4:07 PM
Subject: A request… Help realize a dream!

Dear Friends

Having now been back in Pakistan more than half a year I write to you today with a special request.

I had planned to add an update but these last months have been so amazingly full as well as absolutely fulfilling that I cannot do justice to them in an email. I will await our next meeting to do so in full detail! At the personal front, the family is well and enjoying Lahore in all its glory. Professionally, the intellectual vibrance and excitement of LUMS keeps me constantly engaged and enthused. To give you just a glimpse of the what keeps me excited:

- The University’s social engagement and purpose is infectious; 40% of our students are on financial aid from LUMS (more than Rs. 250M this year only), and our students continue to break national and international barriers;
- Late last year we started a new undergraduate major in history;
- We followed this up by introducing a new Weekend EMBA option;
- Our new School of Science and Engineering is ready to graduate its first full class and our students are already amassing achievements;
- We just announced our 2012 Commencement Speaker – Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy, Pakistan’s first Oscar winner!

But today I write to request your help and support for a very specific initiative.

I am proud to announce that The Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) has formally launched a campaign to create an Abdus Salam Chair at LUMS to honour one of Pakistan’s first Nobel Award winner, and one of our greatest scholar. Once funded, the Abdus Salam Chair will be a University-wide honor to be held by a Professor of international repute and distinction in any academic discipline who has already made major international contributions to his or her field of study. In establishing this Chair my hope is that we will be able to attract other Abdus Salams back to Pakistan and it will help create a new generations of Abdus Salams right here at LUMS.

Dr. Abdus Salam was the first Pakistani to receive the Nobel Award (in Physics) and he is widely considered to be not only one of the great physicists of the last century but also a builder of research institutions – including the establishment of the International Center for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) in Trieste, Italy, and also the Third World Academy of Sciences (TWAS). He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1979, for his theoretical unification of the two fundamental forces of nature. A year before his Nobel Prize, he was awarded the Royal Medal of the Royal Society of London.

I am happy to say that we have already been receiving general and wide-spread support and have been able to raise about half the Rs. 85,000,000 goal for the Abdus Salam Chair. I would be delighted if we could announce having reached the full goal by June when we have our 24th Annual Convocation Ceremony. Details of the Abdus Salam Chair fundraising campaign here.

I am writing to you in the hope that you will be able to assist me and LUMS in this cause. You can do so in at least two ways:

1. For those of you who are in a position to do so, please contribute to the Abdus Salam Chair in whatever amount you can. It is as important to get a large number of individuals donating as it is to reach the required amount. Details on how to donate are available here (including how to give online via credit card, or give in USA and Canada with tax benefits).

2. Please spread the word to others in your circles of influence about this initiative and encourage them to contribute if they can. We want to not only reach our goal but to have as many people contribute to reaching that goal as possible.

I do hope that you will be able to join me in this good cause and contribute in whatever way you can. I am convinced that this will make a real difference in many deep and lasting ways.

Regards,

Adil Najam
Vice Chancellor, LUMS

Autos aren’t necessary recreation. These days, they have become a want for folks and households. Autos present comfort and ease and safety but not everybody has the economic capacity to get a single. This can be where a bad credit score automobile loans play a crucial role. They may be quite so it’s possible to push the automobile you’ve always dreamed of.

For some with bad credit score, getting a car or truck loan could be hard. It’s a good point you will discover now many different organizations giving a bad credit score auto loans. These lenders are experts in giving loans to personal car or truck consumers with poverty. They could say yes to those that have inadequate credit standing though the rates could be better as well as the strategy could also simply take drastically extended. This can be why you should suffer particular person when control your application.

Those with a bad credit score may well however possess a opportunity to personalized a vehicle. All you should do is locate honest fund organizations giving auto students loans if you have a bad credit score. They could demand better rates than excellent buyers but i am not saying they are getting good thing about the reputation. They could be just shielding on their own as well as other debtors too. This may probable keep away from the possibility of go into default and overlooked repayments.

A effective request is like a chance with the lifetime. They’re in a position to provide comfort and ease and safety. Traveling your personal car or truck provides mobility. If you have children, it’s possible to very easily simply take young kids to varsity or fall off your husband or wife to her workplace. This chance, nevertheless, requirements much more obligations and complete dedication. You’ll want to trim down on some unnecessary bills, when you’ve got further monthly bills. Be sure to spend the money you owe promptly in the event you don’t need the credit card companies to claim your motor vehicle.

It’s in no way smart to pay big straight up funds just to get a clean car or truck. You do not need to lessen your personal savings consideration simply to buy a fresh car or truck. In the majority of situations, people the two find yourself rental the automobile or buying it through financing. If you have inadequate credit standing, your best gamble is usually to use for a bad credit score automobile loans. It could take some time but it’s all worth the cost.

Remember, you will not maintain difficulty when you provide with spending the money you owe promptly. Get observe with the output deadlines. You’ll be able to make using a web based loan car loan calculator to work with you deal with your instalments and common finances.

Examination your overall reputation and evaluate it for a past rating. While you comprehend you’ve got a bad credit score, you however need to know the full particulars. Request a credit file from organizations like TransUnion, Equifax, or Experian. You can even look at your credit rating reputation on the internet.
Look for honest financing organizations

Pick an verified financing organization which could grant you loans. Suffer particular person when evaluating an individual and don’ just accept a single present. Other folks may well only take full advantage of your predicament. Analyze their certification just before employing to get a loan.

Now you might be a single point better in direction of traveling your new car or truck. Keep in mind, a bad credit score auto loans may still enable you to push the automobile you’ve always dreamed of, but they are available in a cost. Assume responsibilty and steer clear of delinquencies.

Sites like Tweets, which demand a personality reduce about what consumers publish, made these types of services common, making it much more probable that consumers will click a web link with no ending to considering its prospective vacation spot. Most companies would turn off a web link once notified who’s was malicious, and Tweets has got a unique shorter support, which inspections your Site to see if it’s very damaging or provided on a variety of blacklists just before creating a website link.

All of the Internet sites recognized by Symantec thus far appear to be located on many different IP deals with of a Great Britain-centered part of a giant service provider, which Symantec decreased to name. All of the domains implemented the same calling pattern and were signed up with contact information in Italy.

Right now, the decreased hyperlinks from these companies appear to be provided only in prescription junk. This issue outlines fluctuate, or shorten links might be empty, though the communication entire body typically constantly included a decreased website link produced from the spammer’s support. The url would then direct consumers with a prescription junk website, as outlined by Symantec.

This new tactic is probably in reply to huge enhancements in junk detection by common Website-shorter web sites. This was Inchone more case in pointInch of cyber-crooks adopting new technological innovation to avoid traditional security measures, Bradley Anstis, vice-leader of complex tactic instructed.

By Said A Chaudhry:

The most vexing debates are often those that end with no winners. Whether it’s ideas of revolution in Pakistan or the good old Evolution vs. Creationist debate. One is usually left with a cerebral convulsion begging for clarity. Regardless, I have a simple axiom, Pakistan does not need a peoples revolt and that something as beautiful as a human being could not have been formed by mere chance. Learning the complexities of the human body in medical school and reading a few history books helped me arrive at this logic. It also led me to question; why functioning intricacies of the human body can not be translated into social life and statecraft. There is a shrieking call for change in Pakistan. But who exactly is it that has to change? Perhaps, the answer lies in history books, or in the microscopic confines of our bodies. There is no greater place to dwell for answers pertaining to humanity than our own self.

It is implausible to expect our entire populus to change its often contradictory and primitive customs. It also seems impossible that the growing religious intolerance will give way to humanism. All of that should not disconcert those who revel in meeting challenges waiting to be surmounted. The change we seek has to come only from a very small fraction of the population. The enlightened population. The population that looks at our ailing society and generates ways to meliorate it. The power of individual evolution garnering enough strength to change the state of affairs is conceivable and proven by nature itself.

The comparison to nature is taken from simple physiology. The average healthy adult weighs around 70 kg. The pancreas, a gland in our intestinal tract, weighs only about only 70 grams with only only 1% of it producing the hormone, insulin. That one percent of pancreatic cells producing insulin are more vital to our body’s metabolic needs than any other group of cells. All the vital organs and muscles in our body are intimately dependant on insulin to provide a source for livelihood. Without it, a person would die with in a matter of hours. If we take into context that all humans are made of carbon atoms formed into cells, then it’s agreeable that as a population we are all a large carbon compost. It can be argued then, that it is “human nature” for a tiny percentage of the compost to evolve and become the focal point of change for the entire population, just as the beta-cells in the pancreas evolved to become the focal point of our bodies metabolic demands. A glance at an important historical period of civilization backs this theory.

The Renaissance in Italy serves as an apt example. A minority of enlightened individuals of various disciplines inspired a cultural movement that bloomed into prosperity and transition from the Dark Ages to Modern Era. Atrocities, corruption and bigotry under the banner of religion were common practise in the Dark Ages. Even the great scientist, Galileo Galilei, was placed under house arrest for two years by the Church. Perhaps, we are living in a Dark Age of our own, but to ignore history would be criminal for us. There is a minority in Pakistan who are thinking and evolving at a faster rate than the national average, it is important for those thinking minds to believe in their individual evolution and to express themselves freely and with pride. Such individuals may stand on various platforms on the social and professional landscape, but that diversity should be encouraged despite individual differences so long as everyone is aiming for the same goal.

It’s inconceivable that a thinking mind will fall victim to the idea that Pakistan is destined for doom given the current atmosphere. A time of crisis upon any nation is a test of its identity, and while it is easy to be disheartened, it is more important to be a cog for positive change. Whether that change is seen in our life time or not, is irrelevant. Our individual lives are far too short on the time scale of human civilization to expect grand changes. However, to work on those grand changes in our individual capacity serves an enticing answer to the question of our purpose of existence. It is important now more than ever for the thinking minds to believe that though they maybe a small percentage, they can change the face of reality for the better. “La Rinascita” which means “The Rebirth” in French, was coined by Giorgia Visari to describe The Renaissance in Italy. Perhaps, our rebirth will come soon too, but not before we believe in the power of individual evolution and expression.

S&P finally downgraded France’s credit rating several weeks ago along with some other EU Member States. Such decision by S&P could undeniably cost Sarkozy’s reelection in May 2012. Many see the downgrade of France’s credit rating as Sarkozy’s sole responsibility. But May 2012 is still very far away from a political standpoint. Since his election in 2007 Sarkozy has been a very polarizing political figure in France as proven by the large variety of nicknames given by the media such as President Bling-Bling, Sarko l’Américain, and so on. This blog will put into perspective Sarkozy’s first and maybe last mandate as French President by assessing his contribution to the construction/safeguard of the EU (in defense and security questions), advancing French foreign policy, and the buildup of the transatlantic relations.

Sarkozy, son of a Hungarian immigrant, rose to the highest political sphere quite quickly and unconventionally in French standard. He started his political life in the mid-1970s in the Municipal Council of Neuilly-sur-Seine, one of the richest suburbs of Paris, wherein a large segment of France’s political, economic, industrial and financial elites live. The fact that Mr. Sarkozy’s political life started surrounded by the French elite was considerable for his political career. The creation of an intellectual and support base traditionally takes place in the famous Grandes Ecoles, such as Ecole Nationale d’Administration (ENA), as it has been the case for previous French presidents and ministers, and certainly is the case of François Hollande, the Socialist Candidate. Sarkozy was able to compensate this lack with its Neuilly connections. The latest scandal connecting Sarkozy with the L’Oreal heiress, Liliane de Bettencourt, is one example of his powerful network. A paper produced by the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute counts some interesting facts on the rise of Sarkozy and his understanding of politics.

Following his election in May 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy appeared to have changed radically the direction of France’s foreign policy, especially towards the US. Sarkozy’s decision to re-establish ‘cordial’ relations with the US, still under the presidency of Bush, was in direct rupture with his predecessor, Jacques Chirac. The latter opposed his American counterpart, President Bush, in 2003 on the hot topic of the invasion of Iraq. The 2003 transatlantic and European split was real and substantial. The European unity was only reinstituted with the approval of the 2003 European Security Strategy, which symbolizes the agreement between EU Member States of a common agenda and united security vision. As per Donald Rumsfeld, US Secretary of Defense at the time, Europe was then divided between Old and New Europe; France being one of the old members considering its opposition to the Iraq war. The tensions between the US and France remained high until the election of Sarkozy. Some talked at the time of ‘Sarko l’Américain,’ as he expressed at many occasion during and after the presidential race his admiration for the American model. However, Justin Vaïsse of the Brookings, argued that in fact the Americanism of Sarkozy is much more embedded into Hollywood and Elvis Presley rather than the admiration for the American political system.

The transatlantic relations between France and the US can be divided into three periods. First, from 2007 to 2008, the last part of the Bush administration, which I often refer as the ‘good Bush period,’ was favorable for a rapprochement between the two sides of the pond. Second, after the election of Obama, the honeymoon was extremely short. Very early in his presidency, Obama reoriented the attention of the US foreign policy from Europe to Asia. Such strategic move by Obama has affected the relations with his European counterparts. And the third period was since the G8 summit in Pittsburgh, following the collapse of the financial system in 2008, with closer relations on dealing at the international level with the financial crisis and with Iran. However, in general, the rupture with Chirac was over-emphasized, as Sarkozy did not change that much the direction of the French foreign policy. Sarkozy’s decision to fully reintegrate France within the military structures of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was a moderate signal of his Atlanticism considering that France was always an active and core member of the alliance. The debate in France about such move was certainly excessive.

France was also a key actor during the summer 2008 crisis in Georgia. Following the invasion of Georgia by Russia, Sarkozy played an important role in monitoring Russia-West relations and in limiting a major split between the former Cold War enemies. Sarkozy did play a central role, but made some costly decisions and compromises for not only Georgia, but also the field of international law and human right. At that time France held the EU Presidency and was the voice of the EU, undermining Javier Solana’s role. Russian-French relations have historically been good since the late 19th century and remain quite stable. The latest part of this love story was the sale by France of a French Mistral class amphibious assault ship, creating criticism on both sides of the Atlantic.

One of the highest points of his presidency will remain the gamble on the Libyan campaign. Following a disastrous beginning of the year 2011 with total miscalculations and evaluations of the importance and reality of the Arab spring in Tunisia and then Egypt, Sarkozy decided to be proactive in the support of the rebels in Libya fighting Colonel Qaddafi. The miscalculation by the prestigious French diplomatic corps and intelligence services will remain as a stain and most likely become a cas d’école of diplomatic failure for future generations. Sarkozy did play a crucial role in getting the UN Security Council to agree on the UNSC Resolution 1973 allowing the implementation of a no-fly zone over Libya. Sarkozy was then able to bring the Americans on board and get NATO involved in the war in Libya. The use of NATO was critical for the success of the mission as French and British armies, navies and air forces have been considerably affected by budget cuts. For example, as of today Britain does not have an aircraft carrier, which seems quite contradictory to its historical strategic culture and heritage as a maritime power. The Libyan mission was a success and will become a template for future military interventions: short, precise, highly technologized, multilateral, and quite cheap. However, Sarkozy’s decision to use NATO was a major setback for the EU, which was completely bypassed by London and Paris, as well as discredited. The best example of the CSDP weakness is the fact that EUFOR Libya was created, but never deployed. Thus, HR Ashton remained quiet and irrelevant throughout the different steps of the Libyan campaign.

What next for 2012? Sarkozy does have a busy schedule until the first round of the presidential election. The year starts quite well for France and ultimately Sarkozy considering the fact that India decided to buy for $20bn of France fighter jet, Rafale, at the expense of the EADS’ Eurofighter Typhoon. Such contract is a true illustration of Sarkozy’s understanding and mastery of politics. The Financial Times published an outstanding article on the dogfight taking place backstage in order to sale the fighter jet. In addition to his reelection campaign, several topics need to be addressed, or at least discussed: first, Iran. What should France do about it? Is it the time to empower the EEAS led-by Lady Ashton and use the similar approach of 2003 EU3+1 implemented during Solana’s mandate? Or is it the time to discuss military operation within NATO? What is certain is that Sarkozy will not get a UNSC Resolution as China and Russia will definitely oppose it. Second, the mission in Afghanistan. France has been progressively removing its troops from Afghanistan, but has actively contributed to the European Gendarmerie Force (EFG) in charge of training the Afghan National Police and Afghan National Army. With the announcement by the US to remove the troops by 2014, the Europeans will soon be following this trend. Will the EGF remain or should it come back home as well? Third, Syria. The violations of international law by the Syrian government are undeniable and some members of the Arab League monitoring team have even expressed their anger and opposition to the Assad regime. Avoiding and sidelining Syria could haunt Sarkozy in the future, the same way the Rwanda genocide has been haunting French political elites for over 15 years, but for different reasons. Sarkozy understands that the UNSC will not agree on a Resolution, but decision needs to be taken on the matter. Unfortunately until today China and Russia have favored sovereignty over humanity. Could it be done outside the laws with a NATO-led operation as it was done in 1999 in Kosovo? It would be ethically a right mission embodying the R2P concept, but wrong as it would violate international law. Fourth, Turkey. Franco-Turk relations have been at their lowest since the adoption by the French Assembly of the recent law criminalizing the denial of the Armenian genocide. Poor bilateral relations with Turkey will ultimately hurt and affect the overall EU and NATO relations. Turkey could block, as it has done in the past, Berlin Plus type NATO operations. Sarkozy must address the matter with Turkey and find new common ground. Fifth, the economic crisis has been painful for the Euro-Atlantic community. The Eurozone is still not safe and saved, as the financial and economic situations of Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal remain volatile. Sarkozy with his German counterpart, Ms Merkel, have a lot of work in readjusting and agreeing on the rules of the game and reforming the Eurozone. Sixth, the British headache. Since the gamble of Prime Minister Cameron back in November, the relations between Britain and France have not been of the most pleasant. The Franco-Anglo relations are central for the construction of the common EU defense polict as it was the case in the 1998 Saint-Malo Treaty creating the ESDP, and in the 2010 Defense Treaty. Both actors need one another in order to maintain their active foreign policies and keep the construction of the CSDP going. 2012 will be interesting to see how France and Britain readjust their relations either with the reelection of Sarkozy; or with the election of Mr. Hollande.

Even though, I have not been a supporter of Mr. Sarkozy’s domestic and social policies as well as fundamentally disagree with his leadership and governing style, I have to admit that he has been an interesting international leader. His approach to foreign policy is quite in the continuity of French Gaullist heritage. However, the case of the French operation in Ivory Coast, last April, has been completely under-studied and under-covered by global media. Some have argued that the Libyan mission was a simple cover-up for the real mission and French interests, Ivory Coast. I would also criticize his lack of commitment to the construction and strengthening of the EEAS. It is true that Ms. Ashton has not been the best representative as well as has been unable to establish a common EU vision, however she was appointed by the 27 Heads of State and Government. Sarkozy was part of the appointing committee, and privileged at that time the securing of the DG Internal Market to Michel Barnier rather than getting a French HR. Sarkozy’s priorities were set: French’s influence over the common market, even though the Directors are theoretically not supposed to represent their national government; l’Europe de la defense after.

Until then there is one thing that I can’t wait to see: who will be representing France at the NATO summit in May in Chicago?

Italy has presented a proposal to Turkey in creating the country’s first
fighter jet including technology transfer and establish local
production, Italian Ambassador to Turkey Gianpaolo Scarente said.

Italy has given a proposal to Turkey to build the first Turkish national
fighter jet in the country, according to Italian Ambassador to Turkey
Gianpaolo Scarante.

“There is a proposal for a project. We would like to participate in a
very important program to create a national fighter for Turkey. It is in
the phase of evaluation of the studies right now, but we have the
proposal,” Scarante told the Hürriyet Daily News in a recent interview
at the Venice Palace in Istanbul.

“The most important fighter in the world now is Eurofighter system. We
would like to share with Turkey in order to cooperate to realize this
important aim to have a national Turkish jet,” he said

Scarante said since beginning cooperation with Turkey, Italy has decided
to transfer technology to Turkey and delocalize the production in order
to bring the industrial capability to the country.

‘We want to share our technology’

“Our attitude is to cooperate in technology transfer in order to
establish an industrial cooperation. So we do not only want to sell
products, objects, systems, etc., but also to share technology and build
together in order to improve the technology and the capability in the
country,” he said.

Scarante said this was proved with the production of the attack helicopter Agusta in Turkey.

READ MORE

A recent article by Nathan Brown in the FP (Americans, put away your quills), argues very eloquently against the advocacy and promotion of ‘American constitutional ideas’ (and ideals) in Arab countries currently in transition due to the Arab Spring.  Although the history of U.S. constitutional transplantation is mixed at best (failed in Latin America in the eighteen hundreds, was somewhat more successful in Germany-Japan-Italy after WWII, remains to be seen what happens in Iraq), I respectfully disagree with Mr. Brown’s assertion that “much of our advice will be bad and most will be irrelevant.”

The Middle East – North Africa (MENA) region represents that last remaining undemocratic region of the world.  No other region has the highest concentration of authoritarian regimes and absolute monarchies.  Although the U.S. has a lot of baggage on its side, especially when it comes to its foreign policy during the past 60 years, the one thing that America can still brag about is its system of governance.  The one thing that the U.S. can still educate the rest of the world is governance!  [Do as I say, not as I do!]

Mr. Brown is right in pointing out that the U.S. constitutional experience is very idiosyncratic.  On the other hand, I would venture to say that the U.S. system of governance is what has contributed immensely to the longevity of the republic and the overall success of the American economy.

For comparison, consider Greece (my home-country, with a population of similar temperament but only slightly better luck then the Arab people) and its current sovereign debt crisis.  The true reason of Greece’s economic misfortunes (the high government spending and low tax collection) is DUE TO (what I like to call) the dictatorship of the Prime-minister.  For the majority of the past 30 years, the office of the Prime-minister exercised complete control over the Greek government – no checks and balances, no divided government between different parties, just a Westminster model tailored to the ‘idiosyncratic needs’ of the Greek society where the prevailing political philosophy/ideology demands a strong executive branch with enhanced legislative powers in order to ‘swiftly pass vital reforms.’  Greece’s system of governance, in itself a foreign transplant that has now become part of the Greek political identity, is primarily responsible for the current state of overall disrepair.

The right form of governance for the right society has never been easy to identify.  A lot of times, societies have adopted forms of governance that were imposed to them by past colonial masters or short sighted revolutionary uprisings.  The MENA region, with its long set of constitutional traditions, is no different.

The prevailing parliamentary system of governance currently in effect in most North African countries, which Mr. Brown argues should be respected because of its long routes in the various societies and the familiarity of local actors (politicians, academics, judges) with it, is also a transplant of European origin.  Parliamentary democracy where the executive and the legislature come from the same body (united against ‘the crown’) is not indigenous to Egypt or Tunisia, let alone Jordan or Morocco (not to mention Libya!).

Instead of tweaking around the edges of the current political/constitutional systems (as Mr. Brown suggests), the people of the region might be better served if their opted for a whole new system of governance!

It is time to end the experiment with the Westminster model: of government being derived, depended and tethered of the legislative branch.  American federalism is hard to implement because it demands too much from both the people and politicians – constant participation on the part of the people (at multiple levels of government) and mature restrain on the part of politicians.  However, the world has changed since Latin American countries tried to implement U.S.-style federalism, and I believe young people are now better prepared to adopt a system of governance that demands much but can deliver even more!

Constitutional Suggestions for the ‘Arab Spring’

When federalism at the national level is applied properly it leads to multiple centres of power (and thus multiple leaders), not just one strongman (a president or a prime-minister with all the power).  What could be more appropriate for the people of North Africa and the Middle East, which have suffered so much at the hands of a few dictators, than to adopt a political system that does not deify one person or one family?  The U.S. federal system of governance provides an excellent starting point for any discussion about constitutional reform in the region.

The most fundamental tenet of the U.S. federal system of governance is the complete institutional separation of powers at the national level, while at the same time every decision at the national level requires the consent of all the branches of government.  Therefore, Legislative (Congress), Executive (President) and Judiciary (Supreme Court) branches are completely separate, but laws passed by the legislature need the approval of the President), and are subject to review by the Courts.

Second, the legislative process is performed by a bi-cameral legislature, where one chamber represents the people (House of Representatives) while the other (Senate) represents the sub-national units (States), and both chambers are equal in power and responsibility.  Furthermore, by staggering the terms of legislators (2 years for House members, 6 years for Senate members) and staggering the election of Senators (one third up for re-election every two years), the legislature is being renewed every two years while being insulated from dramatic swings in popular opinion.

Third, Cabinet and sub-Cabinet officials, Ambassadors, and Judges have to be considered and approved by the legislature.  This oversight role of Congress continues after Cabinet members are appointed, when they are required by law to appear in front of select legislative committees and report on their departments activities, answer questions, and make available to legislators any and all information’s that legislators deem relevant.

Finally, the independence of the judiciary branch is guaranteed through life-time appointments.  Although judges are selected by the President and approved by the legislature, they are appointed for life, and their removal is exceptional and very hard to achieve.  Furthermore, judges have the power to review the constitutionality of laws, and through the years have many times struck down laws which were not consistent with the letter or the spirit of the Constitution.

Add to these fundamental elements of the U.S. system, term limits for politician, clear provisions for amending the constitution and removing the President, an independent Electoral Commission, and an independent and competent Office for the protection of Human Rights, and you have a recipe for political stability and economic success.

The Right Form of Governance

The history of modern economic development is full of successes and failures.  The failures appear to be more than the successes; from the many African nations that have never truly improved their condition since independence 60 years ago, to the Middle East, rich with oil but stagnant economically and democratically.  Now, the nations of the Arab world are going through some major changes to their regimes and future systems of governance.  Identifying the right form of governance for the right society has never been easy, but federalism could be the most appropriate of all possible choices for the nations of the ‘Arab Spring’!

During the 19^th century, the exportation of U.S.-style federalism was deemed detrimental to the political development of Latin America nations.  I believe the times have change, and U.S.-style federalism could serve as a future system of governance for the ‘Arab Spring’ nations.  Furthermore, by advocating for constitutional reforms that promote federalism and good governance, and by rewording those nations that truly adopt such changes, the U.S. can restore its role in the world stage as a champion of democratic principles.

We owe it to the world, whether they need our advice or not!

The Dassault Rafale fighter jet,
manufactured by the French company Dassault Aviation, has won India's
mammoth contract worth $10.4 billion, say sources. The Indian Air Force 
plans to buy 126 aircraft over the next ten years.

The process
to determine the L1 (lowest bidder) has been completed, and sources
indicate that the final contract is expected to be signed in  the next
financial year. The first 18 aircraft will be bought off the shelf. The
rest 118 will be manufactured in partnership with an Indian company.

There
were six contenders for the world's biggest defence deal which included
the Russian MiG- 35,Lockheed Martin's F-16 Falcon, Boeing's F-18
Hornet, the Swedish Saab Grippen, Euro-Fighter Typhoon and Rafale.

Of
these, the European EADS Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale were
in the final race for the global tender for a medium multi-role combat
aircraft (MMRCA). The Eurofighter bid was backed by four partner nations
including Germany, Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom while the
Dassault Rafale was backed by the French Government.

READ MORE

10 Secrets of the Vatican Exposed:

Vatican City may have fewer than 1,000 citizens and span only 110 acres, but it also has a multimillion-dollar budget and an unbelievably complex history. Understanding how it all works requires parsing through centuries of religious texts. Is the Vatican confusing and mysterious? Is the Pope Catholic? Here’s a look behind the scenes.

1. Regular Exorcise!

Baudelaire once said that “the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn’t exist.” But in modern-day Vatican City, the devil is considered alive and well. The former Pope John Paul II personally performed three exorcisms during his reign, and the current Pope Benedict XVI is expanding the ranks of Catholic-sponsored exorcists throughout the world. In fact, Father Gabriele Amorth, the Church’s chief exorcist, claims to expel more than 300 demons a year from the confines of his Vatican office, and there are more than 350 exorcists operating on behalf of the Catholic Church in Italy alone. Amorth also teaches bishops how to tell the difference between satanic possession and psychiatric illness, noting that those who suffer from the former seem to be particularly repulsed by the sight of holy water and the cross.

2. Where Thieves Go to Prey

With 1.5 crimes per citizen, Vatican City has the highest crime rate in the world. It’s not that the cardinals are donning masks and repeatedly robbing the bank, it’s just that the massive crowds of tourists make Vatican City a pickpocket’s paradise. The situation is complicated by the fact that the Vatican has no working prison and only one judge. So most criminals are simply marched across the border into Italy, as part of a pact between the two countries. (The Vatican’s legal code is based on Italy’s, with some modifications regarding abortion and divorce.) Crimes that the Vatican sees fit to try itself—mainly shoplifting in its duty-free stores—are usually punished by temporarily revoking the troublemaker’s access to those areas. But not every crime involves theft. In 2007, the Vatican issued its first drug conviction after an employee was found with a few ounces of cocaine in his desk.

3. The Worst Confessions

Some sins are simply too much for a local bishop to forgive. While priests can absolve a sin as serious as murder (according to the Church), there are five specific sins that require absolution from the Apostolic Penitentiary. This secretive tribunal has met off and on for the past 830 years, but in January of 2009, for the first time ever, its members held a press conference to discuss their work.

Three of the five sins they contemplate can only be committed by the clergy. If you’re a priest who breaks the seal of confession, a priest who offers confession to his own sexual partners, or a man who has directly participated in an abortion and wants to become a priest, then your case must go before the tribunal to receive absolution. The other two sins can be committed by anyone. The first, desecrating the Eucharist, is particularly bad because Catholics believe that the bread and wine transubstantiate into the body and blood of Christ. Messing with them is like messing with Jesus. And then, there’s the sin of attempting to assassinate the Pope. That one’s pretty self-explanatory.

The meetings of the Apostolic Penitentiary are kept confidential because they’re a different form of confession. The sinner is referred to by a pseudonym, and only the Major Penitentiary, Cardinal James Francis Stafford, decides how the sin shall be dealt with. Presumably, a bunch of Hail Marys doesn’t cut it.

4. Read the Pope’s Mail

The Vatican Library. (Image credit: Flickr user Francesco Costa)

The Vatican’s secret archives haven’t been truly secret since Pope Leo XIII first allowed scholars to visit in 1881. Today, it’s even more accessible. Outsiders are free to examine the correspondences of every pope for the past 1,000 years, although there is one catch: Guests have to know exactly what they’re looking for. With 52 miles of shelves in the archives, the librarians prohibit browsing.

The most famous letter there is probably Henry VIII’s request that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon be annulled, which Pope Clement VII denied. Henry divorced Catherine anyway and married Anne Boleyn (and four other women), leading to Rome’s break with the Church of England. The archives also contain an abundance of red ribbons, which were used to bind 85 petitions from English clergyman and aristocrats.

5. The Pope Likes to Text Message

Pope Benedict XVI routinely sends text messages of his homilies to mobile subscribers around the world, and in 2009, the Vatican opened up an official YouTube channel to show various Papal addresses and ceremonies. The Vatican even released an iPhone application that contains multilingual versions of the Breviary prayer book and the prayers of daily mass. But the Pope’s enthusiasm for technology isn’t limited to cell phones and the Internet. The Vatican has also added solar panels to the roof of the Pope Paul VI auditorium as part of its commitment to fight climate change.

6. They Have the Finest Swiss Bodyguards

(Image credit: Flickr user Robert Young)

Nowadays, the Swiss have a reputation for pacifism, but back in the 1500s, they were considered an unstoppable military force. Swiss armies were renowned for the their mastery of a weapon called the halberd, a deadly combination of a spear and an axe, and their ground troops were famous for routinely demolishing legions of enemies on horseback. After Pope Julius II witnessed their ferocity in battle 500 years ago, he recruited a few soldiers to become his personal bodyguards. Ever since, Swiss Guards have pledged fidelity to the Pope, sometimes dying for the cause. During the sacking of Rome in 1527, for instance, three quarters of them were killed while providing cover for Pope Clement VII to escape.

Today, the hundred or so members of the Swiss Guard spend most of their time bedecked in Renaissance garb, twirling their halberds in ceremonies or manning checkpoints around the Vatican. When the Guards are actually protecting the Pope, they wear plain clothes and carry distinctly modern weapons.

7. The Mafia Dipped into the Collection Plate

In The Godfather: Part III, a shady deal between the mafia and the Vatican leads to the murder of the Pope. Was this based on a true story? Possibly. On the morning of September 29, 1978, Pope John Paul I was found dead, sitting up in his bed, after only 33 days in office. Although Vatican officials claimed the 65-year-old pope died of a heart attack, there was never an autopsy, and at the time, the Vatican definitely had ties to organized crime. Sure enough, in 1982, Vatican Bank president Father Paul Marcinkus resigned from his post after a series of scandals exposed the bank’s ties to the mafia. Eventually, the bank had to repay more than $200 million to its creditors. But Marcinkus was never indicted of a crime. And though he was suspected of being involved in several mysterious deaths, including Pope John Paul I’s, Marcinkus successfully claimed diplomatic immunity in the United States and retired to Arizona in 1990.

8. There’s No Vice-Pope

Once a cardinal becomes the Pope, he’s the designated leader of the Catholic Church and God’s representative on Earth for the rest of his life. As with Supreme Court justices, he can resign before his death, but that’s unlikely. (It’s been more than 500 years since the last papal resignation.) Further, as modern medicine improves, even seriously ill people tend to stick around longer, meaning that a Pope could be alive but unable to perform his duties for years, as was the case with John Paul II. What happens then? Well, no one is really sure. A cardinal can take over the Pope’s responsibilities as the Vatican’s head of state, but no one else is allowed to carry out his ceremonial duties. In the end, many masses and benedictions simply go unperformed until the Pope either passes away or recovers.

9. Faith-Based Economics

The Vatican needs several hundred million dollars per year to operate. Its many financial responsibilities include running international embassies, paying for the Pope’s travels around the world, maintaining ancient cathedrals, and donating considerable resources to schools, churches, and health care centers. So where does that money come from? Catholics pay tithes to their local parishes and donate about $100 million every year to the Vatican itself. But collection plates aren’t the Vatican’s only source of money. The city-state also gets cash from books, museums, stamps, and souvenir shops. (Get your limited-edition Vatican euros here!)

But that’s not always enough. By the end of 2007, the city-state was $13.5 million in the hole. Part of the problem was the weakened American dollar, which translated into less purchasing power. Another contributing factor was the lackluster performance of the Vatican’s newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano. To boost subscriptions, the Pope has asked the editor to spice up the layout with more photos and allowed him to cover world news stories in addition to the traditional religious fare.

10. Even the ATMs Are in Latin

(Image credit: Flickr user Seth Schoen)

The Vatican Bank is the only bank in the world that allows ATM users to select Latin to perform transactions. That’s just one symbol of the Holy See’s continued devotion to the language. Pope Benedict XVI has been particularly passionate about reviving the language and purportedly holds many informal conversations in Latin. (Pope John Paul II generally spoke Polish.)

The Vatican’s Latin Foundation tries to keep the language relevant by translating modern phrases into the ancient tongue. In 2003, they released an updated dictionary that included the terms “rush hour” (tempus maximae frequentiae) and “dishwasher” (escariorum lavatory). Interestingly, the translations can have serious consequences. A recent U.S. lawsuit was brought against the Vatican for conspiring to protect a child-molesting priest, and it was held up for months as the Church’s experts rejected the prosecuting team’s Latin translations of terms such as “conspiracy to commit fraud.”

(Title image credit: Flickr user David Paul Ohmer)

__________________________

The above article was written by David Goldenberg. It is reprinted with permission from the May/June 2009 issue of mental_floss magazine.

Don’t forget to feed your brain by subscribing to the magazine and visiting mental_floss‘ extremely entertaining website and blog today for more!

Until the Arab spring movement and its legion of revolutionaries came to clash with President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s regime, demanding an end to decades of autocracy and repression, the Americans considered Yemen’s autocrat a “bulwark” against terrorism, a strategic ally in the region in the fight against al-Qaeda, the well-known Islamic organization.
When it became clear that Yemenis were determined to depose the aging dictator, no matter the amount of blood his armed forces were willing to shed, the White House started to shift its rhetoric, calling for reforms and a transition to more “democratic institutions.”

The “beautiful friendship” which united the 2 countries started to melt away at the pyre of people’s anger, threatening to damage America’s foothold in the region.
Although many democracy militants have accused the United States of America of siding with dictators for it served their middle-eastern policies, accusing them of protecting and in the case of President Saleh harboring war criminals; one could wonder whether America is not playing a much sinister game of plots and betrayals.
One does not need to go back to far up in the history book to remember another well-known autocrat whose friendship was discarded when he failed to fulfill his purpose. Mohamed Reza Shah of Iran was abandoned by his “American friends” and almost sold back to the Ayatollahs when he failed to live up to the White House foreign policies’ expectations.
Could the Obama’s administration turn against Saleh and hand him over to those who are clamoring for his arrest? Could Yemen’s infamous statesman become the new Shah of Iran in his desperate search for political asylum?
One cannot draw away from the remarkable symmetry in between the two deposed leaders. One ran away for his allegiance to the West angered his people so that he feared they would execute him, another was forced to relinquish the power America’s helped him to master for 3 decades. Both turned to the United States and were denied entry, both insisted, both were eventually allowed.
One was betrayed, one is awaiting his fate.

Mohamed Reza Shah of Iran

The very countries which are claiming to be promoting Democracy and Freedom across the Globe, saying that they will always side with those who seek to emulate western standards, are the very ones who crushed the little hope Iran had at becoming a successful democratic state.
Because Iran’s emancipation stood in the way of their economic interests, the United States and Britain decided to assert the Shah’s absolute power over his people.
When Mohamed Mosadeqq, the founder and leader of the National Front of Iran was elected Prime Minister by the Parliament, he immediately announced the nationalization of Iran Oil industry, shutting out the immensely lucrative Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which at the time was one of Britain main economic pillars.
The British then convinced the Americans of the need to overthrow Mosadeqq and re-establish the Shah of Iran as the only authority in the country, arguing that the move would serve both nations interest in the region.
Iran strategic geo-political position and its vast Oil reserves represented too much of an asset for western hegemony to let something such as democracy get in the way.

After a “coup d’état” known as the “operation Ajax” failed, the Shah was pressured into issuing a decree stating Mosadeqq’s demotion. Subsequently the Shah fled to Iraq, then Italy for he feared for his life. He later came back under the protection of his allies.
2 decades later, the Shah was ousted by his people as his attempts to westernize and secularize Iran had anger the people and the political class to such an extent that they sought his execution.
In exile and ill with cancer the monarch turned to the United States of America for safety only to be denied asylum. After he insisted for he said he needed urgent medical treatment, the Pentagon agreed to allow him in for a limited period of time. It turned out that the visit of the Royal coincided with an attack against the American Embassy in Tehran and the kidnapping of some 400 American nationals.
Caught in the middle of much controversy, shun away by his former friends, a terminally ill Shah sought refuge in Latin America to finally come to die in Egypt where he is buried.

Ali Abdullah Saleh

In the wake of the attack on American soil by al-Qaeda in 2001, President Saleh realized that if he had any chance of surviving the military wave which was threatening to come his way he had to quickly seal an alliance with the Western giant.
The Yemeni-American fight against terrorism was born.
And if Saleh manipulated his new “friends” by playing up their fear in exchange for financial support the alliance cost him dearly on the political front.
As Drones attacks became more frequent and civilian casualties mounted, Yemenis started to speak of treason, accusing the autocrat of allowing foreign forces to enter Yemen air space in exchange for cash.
The seeds of revolt were planted.

And although it took Yemen nearly 2 decades to finally mobilize the needed momentum to rise up against the state apparatus, Saleh’s opponents proved impossible to stop.
Having witnessed first-hand the power of the people in Egypt, the White House decided to operate differently in Yemen, preferring to prepare the autocrat’s exit according to a specific set of terms rather than let the mob overtake the presidential palace and potentially ruin any hope of further cooperation on the al-Qaeda front.

But if Saleh successfully secured his political and financial safety as well as that of his extended family, his troubles might not be over yet.
Just as Yemen is preparing to welcome a new president, Saleh who was victim of a bomb attack in 2011 at the very heart of his presidential compound has since been suffering from ill-health, requiring extensive medical attention.
As the Shah did before him, Saleh asked to be allowed to travel to the United States to undergo some much needed medical treatment, only to be refused. Following weeks of intense negotiations and much political controversy, the White House finally agreed to allow Saleh in, providing that his visit be brief and strictly confined to the hospital.

And as the Shah before him, his countrymen are already gathering, demanding that he’d be deported to the International Criminal Court of Justice for crimes against humanity and his assets frozen for having pillage Yemen’s riches.
Only weeks after Yemen’s parliament granted him immunity, Saleh runs the risk, like the Shah did, of being sold out to his opponents for he no longer serves his purpose and has become somewhat of a liability. And since United Nations, Secretary General Ban Ki Moon declared that no immunity would stand in a court of law when it came to war crimes and gross violations to human rights, the White House could in all good conscience leave the autocrat to suffer the fate he deserves.

EU NAVFOR Atalanta in action (source: German Navy)

The last two years were a bumpy ride for the European security policy. One may claim that the Europeans once again failed not only to convey a clear message about their security goals to the foreign partners, but also to take concrete actions in order to stave off the creeping erosion of the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP). Do we really face a European strategic decay in that domain? Indeed, some serious doubts about this statement may be raised. Therefore, it is high time to debunk three prophecies about European security in 2012.

1. Do worry, do not be happy. The Polish Presidency did a good job. The last six months have been the most fruitful and substantial for CSDP since the French Presidency in 2008. The joint conclusions of the Council of the European Union of December 2011 gave a vivid signal that the EU Member States are still willing to further develop the CSDP concept and necessary capabilities (personnel, assets, intelligence analytical support.) It was not easy to reach a consensus as there are multiple visions of European security and the pace in which it should evolve. Despite that fact the current message is a bit more optimistic than a year ago: Be of good cheer! After two years of stagnation there is a light of hope for CSDP. However, there are still a lot of obstacles on the European way toward ultimate success. One of them are financial constraints.

2. Crisis will impede everything. Against the backdrop of current financial constraints, the challenge for Europe is to do better with less while making good on its responsibilities. The crisis has inevitably made it more difficult for politicians to sell the benefits of the ongoing defense integration to the wary public. The crisis has blunted the importance of Europe in the world, exposed the Old Continent to numerous risks and threats, but also put it to the critical test that it cannot fail. The biggest challenge for Europeans remains the weakening of mutual trust between the Member States. The Weimar initiative from December 2010 – which sought to strengthen CSDP – has to some extent filled the gap. Poland, France and Germany were able to build a coalition of the willing and able (e.g. Finland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Romania) to spark a new wave of trust that may empower CSDP. However, crisis can only be overcome by concrete actions. Therefore, without a visible sign of progress in the implementation of the pooling and sharing initiative in 2012 it will be hard to revamp CSDP. In fact, an agreement on at least basic issues (e.g. support structures required for education, training and exercises) is a must.

3. The EU will diminish its external security policy engagement. To be fair, a glance at the number and locations of the past and current EU missions around the world reveals the union’s clear desire to live up to its ambitions in terms of crisis management policy. Since 2003, the EU has launched 25 civilian and military missions, in such far-flung countries as Chad and the Central African Republic in 2008-2009 and Guinea-Bissau from 2008-2010. Currently, the EU’s engagement in the world stretches from the Balkans, in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo; through Eastern Europe, in Georgia and Moldova; to the Middle East, in the Palestinian territories; up to Africa, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Horn of Africa and Uganda. In 2011, as a result of budget cutbacks, the EU has struggled at least to maintain the status quo of its foreign operational engagements. Some experts even thought that the EU was likely to adopt an even less expeditionary posture in the future. On the contrary, the 2012 agenda looks both ambitious and promising. Besides, the ongoing operations the EU will remain committed to addressing the security challenges in the Sahel with a view to start a CSDP mission to reinforce regional security capabilities, in close cooperation with the African Union. A second operation, in South Sudan (with a focus on airport security), is also being prepared. Finally, the Polish Presidency has facilitated the amendment process of the Athena mechanism which administers the financing of common costs of EU operations having military or defence implications. Therefore, it will be now easier than before to set up a mission.

On paper it all seems doable and easy. But, as diplomats say: Paper is patient. After the Libyan crisis there is a growing sense of ambiguity about the real outcome of the EU’s crisis management policy. Therefore, it is more than certain that the development of CSDP will be a long process. But Europeans should not forget that they are approaching a “do or die” moment for Common Security and Defense Policy.

Dominik P. Jankowski serves as Expert Analyst at the National Security Bureau of the Republic of Poland and is pursuing a doctorate at the Warsaw School of Economics.

The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Security Bureau of the Republic of Poland.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy (AFP, Pierre-Philippe Marcou)

Standard and Poor’s rating agency has lowered the credit ratings of 9 eurozone members, including formerly AAA-rated France and Austria. The move is significant, affecting as it does the future of the eurozone’s bail-out fund, the French presidential election, the roll-over of existing European sovereign debt, and more. However, the downgrade is not really a catastrophe for the nations downgraded nor for the European economy’s prospects. Our purpose here is to understand what the downgrade is, what it means and what it may not mean.

First off, what is a sovereign credit rating and what does a downgrade mean? There are numerous entities in finance that offer their well-informed (or otherwise) opinions about a variety of investment instruments. What we are concerned with here are the three main credit rating agencies: S&P, Fitch and my former employer Moody’s. What they do is issue a rating, that is an alphanumeric symbol, that encapsulates the agency’s detailed analysis of a debtor’s ability and willingness to repay a debt. In that sense, their ratings aren’t a whole lot different from the FICO score you have that is supposed to tell lenders about your creditworthiness.

While the methodologies vary a bit from one agency to another, the ratings scales of each are comparable by and large. For example, AAA is the best rating possible (Aaa at Moody’s). Junk status is about 10 notches below that at BB+ (Ba1 Moody’s) , and default is another 10 or so notches down. Because these agencies have been in the business of issuing ratings for decades (Moody’s was founded in 1900), it is possible to tie actual default experiences to the ratings. S&P’s can be found here.

On Friday, France and Austria fell one notch from AAA to AA+, Italy fell a couple of notches from A to BBB+, Spain went down one from AA- to A, Cyprus dropped two notches to BB+, Portugal’s two notch fall leaves it at BB (junk status, and it also has a negative outlook), Malta went down one notch to A- from A, Slovakia fell a notch to A from A+, and Slovenia is one notch lower at A+ from AA-. The other members of the eurozone retain their ratings. That means Germany, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Finland kept their AAA. For the record, the other members states and their S&P ratings are: Belgium (AA), Estonia (AA-), Greece (CC) and Ireland (BBB).

What is extremely important to remember is that the downgrades were only to the ratings issued by S&P. Moody’s and Fitch did nothing. In their eyes, France and Austria (and the USA for that matter) are still AAA. Split ratings, when the agencies don’t agree exactly, are rather common. And in every regulation where ratings agencies are mentioned, two different agencies’ opinions matter, not three. So, there is a real question as to whether Austria and France are still AAA or not. The market, of course, is not focused on the dog that didn’t bark – it’s paying attention to S&P despite it having the minority opinion.

Be that as it may, the S&P downgrades for France and Austria are economically inconvenient but not really all that important for investors. Yes, both will have to pay a bit more in interest to fund their debts. However, a study by JPMorgan Chase looking at the nine sovereign borrowers that lost their AAA ratings between 1998 and the US downgrade in August shows an increase of 2 basis points (or 0.02%) in the following week. Is it a make or break situation if your mortgage is 4.12% or 4.14%? France and Austria will face no funding problems as a result of the downgrade. And indeed, the US saw its borrowing costs actually decline immediately after S&P downgraded it a few months ago.

The reason for this minimal change lies in the default record of AA+ issuers. According to the chart cited above, issuers rated AAA will default 0.00% of the time in the next 12 months. An issuer with a rating of AA+ has the same default rate over 12 months. Over a 5-year period, the default rate for AAA issuers is 0.10%; for an AA+ debtor, it’s 0.15%. In other words, if you lend to France or Austria by buying a 3-year bond, you still have a 99+% chance of getting paid back in full with interest on time.

Where the downgrades do become problematic is in the political sphere. In three months’ time, the French will go to the polls to elect a president. France lost its AAA rating on Nicholas Sarkozy’s watch, and whether justly or not, he will take some blame for it – the leftish newspaper Liberation ran a headline calling him S_RKOZY, having lost an “A” of his own. He currently trails socialist candidate Francois Hollande by 10% in the polls. With 53% of the electorate believing that the loss of the AAA rating is a serious matter, the downgrade only makes his re-election more difficult.

In the end, though, the ratings come back to the issue that undermined them in the first place – the euro. The bail-out fund that has kept Greece, Ireland and Portugal afloat so far, the European Financial Stability Facility, was rated AAA because of its backing from AAA-rated sovereigns. However, 16 January 2012, S&P dropped that rating to AA+ because of the French and Austrian downgrades. S&P said that the EFSF could get its AAA back if it could obtain more guarantees (from whom I wonder?) or if it raised less money that would be better protected by the existing guarantees. A smaller bail-out fund, however, is less likely to succeed at stabilizing the eurozone. At the same time, a fund rated less than AAA will have to pay more for its funds, and that will make the bail-out fund less effective as well.

So what does it all mean? Objectively, the difference between AAA and AA+ is very small, and it should not have much impact. Markets, however, are never objective. They are fueled by greed and fear. S&P’s downgrade of these nations has made the eurozone’s problems harder to solve.