[This is the last Posting until 18 August. Every year, we intend to take a summer break, not just because of the Season but because we believe that Bloggers can get tired and hackneyed if they fail to stand back from their commitment and consider what they are doing and why.

Our commitment was a Posting every Monday, Wednesday and Friday and we have done this since last August. Now is the chance to consider how to proceed without being overwhelmed by our sense of duty.  So, see you again in four weeks ... ]

We are now well into the second phase of the economic crisis.

In essence, we may be moving from incipient stagflation (slow growth with high inflation) to a more serious global down-turn in which a massive ‘jolt’ is given to the system as power shifts from West to East and from traditional services businesses to the new technology economy.

Nothing is certain in this analysis. The US economy actually performed better than expected in the first half of 2008 but Morgan Stanley is now speaking of a better than 50-50 chance that we will see a double-dip recession stateside.

US housing indices suggest continued falls in prices throughout the year ahead, oil and food are contributing disproportionately to US inflation and inflationary expectations are now (regardless of recent oil price falls – see below) in danger of locking price rises into the system.

The Federal Government’s actions in underpinning Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have not entirely restored confidence because attention has turned to the dire state of smaller institutions, especially regional banks (following the collapse of IndyMac Bank in California).

Nor is Wall Street out of the woods yet: Merrill Lynch announced a massive $9.4bn write-down, a $4.6bn loss in Q2 2008 and emergency asset sales designed to raise $8bn.

Similarly the dollar remains under threat. There are reports that Sovereign Wealth Funds [SWFs], notably those of the Chinese, are trying to cut their exposure to the dollar. The Financial Times reported on this at length on 17 July.

Serious SWF money has been lost in the first wave of bank recapitalisations, suggesting that there may not be funds for a second wave, placing yet more pressure on Wall Street. The state of the US economy has also damaged global confidence in American policy-making.

Gulf money is critical to support for the dollar yet a Saudi Shura Council Committee is recommending a revaluation of the riyal by up to 30%. This must be placed in the context of a similar recent report from an Abu Dhabi economic advisory body.

No major Gulf revaluation is likely in the sort term if only because national policy makers in the Gulf are fully aware that any adjustments will have a severe effect on the dollar. They are prepared to trade inflationary pain against other global economic and political effects.

But frustration at the effects of the dollar on Gulf inflation is definitely growing. Another surge in inflation might raise a serious conflict of interest between the domestic concerns of dynasts and their perception of the defensive value of the Western alliance, aka the US nuclear umbrella.

The seriousness of the situation in the US was reflected in the oil price, which reversed its drive towards $150 and plunged on fears about global demand, settling at around $138 on 15 July.

It then fell further, to $132 (we use the headline Nymex West Texas Intermediate rather than ICE Brent as marker), settled at $134.60 at close of play on 16 July, then fell below $130 on 17 July.

These falls may seem like good news (and they are for inflation, which is reaching politically critical levels) but, given supply issues, they merely indicate falling demand.

Commentators have been clutching hard at this straw of falling prices but oil traders are wiser, saying that volatility is high and that we could see a rebound. The fact that growth appears to be slowing in China may be good for the environment but not for the world economy.

Politically, we also have the odd situation of two presidential candidates trading insults on foreign policy while Americans are more concerned about their jobs and savings. It is as if the political elite have become entirely bogged down in international affairs.

Obama and McCain either do not understand the seriousness of the domestic situation or they have nothing to say to the public on the crisis. Both candidates appear weak on economic matters just when economic policy is about to become the key issue for the electorate.

Putting all this together, we are entering a time of great uncertainty for the American economy. This is bad news insofar as any of us are engaged in a global economy that has been structured around Wall Street and American consumerism.

We would be fools to predict just how bad things might get. We still think that this is a correction rather than a meltdown but it is becoming clearer by the day that we are seeing the emergence of a serious problem for American political and economic hegemony.

Whether this is a blip that lasts just eighteen months (say) or represents a more fundamental long term shift in global power relations is not yet clear ... watch this space.

www.tppr.co.uk

One of the tropes of conservative Arab fear of the West is that the West is determined on undermining traditional culture, specifically the Arab cultural association with Islam.

At its most extreme, amongst many Levantines, the proposition is that Israel and the US are pursuing exterminatory settlement strategies that are little better than those employed by white settlers against the Amerindians.

This is an absurd proposition when set against the relative populations of Israel (even if you include minority Christian elements in the region as 'pro-Western' which should not be assumed by any means) and those who were brought up as Muslims.

Muslim identity has displaced more secular identities partly as a result of this fear that Western ideology has become militant against the community rather than representative of common values. The collapse of the Left as a co-equal strain within the West hastened this process.

The most historically aggressive anti-Israeli elements have not been Islamist until the last thirty years. Prior to the 1980s, anti-Israeli sentiment was centred on highly secularised national socialist regimes with a strongly republican and leftist feel, where not directly fascistic.

But the charge that traditional Islam is under threat is less easy to refute, although the undermining of Muslim practice possibly comes more from the pleasures of the flesh brought about by liberal globalisation than any deliberate Western conspiracy.

The question is whether Christian interests (since Jewish interests have almost completed the process of bringing the diaspora in Arab lands within the boundaries of Israel) are actively engaged in proselytism or not.

Officially, the mainstream churches operate defensively and they certainly have a great deal to defend. 

Very substantial Christian minorities, sheltering under a religion far more tolerant of dissent than its Christian counterpart in the medieval West, are, for the first time, facing serious persecution and threats of pogrom in reaction to Western military intervention.

Unofficially, especially where Christianity meets Islam along the African-Arab borderlands, there are some Christians who have determined that Islam is evil by its very nature and are working not merely to defend but to turn the West into God's weapon against the darkness.

An easy turn on the African Christian Right has been from an attack on godless communism to the war on Islam. We in the UK are perhaps only now seeing the full force of the new Protestant fundamentalism in the cultural wars that are tearing apart the Anglican Church.

Christian lobbyists have taken a major role in the Darfur case and in others. The diplomatic establishment is now seeing one fruit of their (and that of many others') mobilisation in the International Court of Justice charges laid against President Bashir of Sudan over 'war crimes'.

China, the African Union and the Arab League are not at all happy about this ICC intervention but neither are many of those engaged in trying to manage a difficult situation in a country that could implode into a much more dangerously anarchic Somalia if central authority crumbles.

Unfortunately, there are interests quite relaxed about seeing Sudan, perceived as representing the worst of Islamic fundamentalism, collapse, in the belief that some components will emerge as sovereign Christian states and the tide of Islam be pushed back north.

We could soon see a break-down of all semblance of civil authority in a zone extending from Somalia through Sudan itself and beyond Chad into the Sahel far to the West.

With climate change stripping away resources and populations increasing, the arrival of aggressive Protestant evangelism could become a major geo-strategic threat to stability.

This is not only because of its potential for mobilising insurgencies but because it has a major support base and so influence on the vote in black America.

An interesting figure in this respect, not necessarily powerful but indicative of radical Christian thinking in Africa, is Dr. Peter Hammond  of the Frontline Fellowship. 

The links on his website are a litany of Baptist causes. He is a white South African so it is no surprise to see anti-Mugabe campaigning on Zimbabwe in the links nor perhaps a link to the website of anti-communist Christian crusader General Partin. Sudan is another common theme.

On the same list is Dr. Ian Paisley's European Institute of Protestant Studies and Christian Action for Reformation and Revival which has 42 Articles of the Essentials of the Christian World View.  These include propositions such as:

" We deny any and all views of God that negate or deviate from the traditional Judeo-Christian concept of God, including Atheism, Deism, Finite-godism, Panentheism (Process God), Polytheism, and Pantheism. [Article 1 (part)]"

" We affirm that the only perfect, comprehensive, and complete expression of God's values is to be found in the Bible. We deny that those who are unaware of the Bible are thereby excused from moral obligations revealed by God in the hearts of men. [Article 24]"

" We affirm that the laws of man must be based upon the laws of God. We deny that the laws of man have any inherent authority of their own or that their ultimate authority is rightly derived from or created by man [Article 29]"

" We affirm that the institution of human government has been ordained by God. We deny that any form of government (or ruler) has authority from any source other than God or that God approves governments indiscriminately [Article 35]"

" We deny that any form of human government (or ruler) has valid authority from any source but God or that any human government has either absolute or complete jurisdiction over all other governments [Article 36 - part]"

"  We affirm that it is the duty of all citizens to obey God ordained authority. We deny that any citizen is obliged to obey any government when it transgresses its God given mandate or requires him to disobey God's Laws [Article 37]"

The Coalition on Revival claims to be broad-based - "People of Anabaptist, Arminian, Lutheran, Calvinist, and Wesleyan denominational backgrounds are all represented among COR’s leaders" and its founding in America has led to the current Africa Christian Action operation in South Africa.

In essence, COR and ACA thinking is no different from the thinking (but on the opposite side) of the typical proponent of the radical imposition of Sharia law, merely substitute Koranic, Koran and Allah in the appropriate places.

In fact, it could be argued that such thinking is more fundamentalist than Caliphate thinking because it allows no tolerance, as Islam has done, of those who are not believers in God/Allah and the revelation of the appropriate book (see Article 24 above).

But what most interests us is Hammond's entirely negative view of Islam in the round. There are no concessions from Hammond. There is no idea touted by moderates of Islam as a religion of peace (never entirely convincing historically but convincing in aspiration).

There is no subtlety. He postulates in his book 'Slavery Terrorism & Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat' a trajectory of evil ...

• Muslims are not a threat at 2% of the population
  
• Between 2 and 5%, "they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs"
  
• From 5% on, "they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population", including twisting the law to their own needs and trying to introduce Sharia
  
• At 10% or thereabouts, "they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions"
  
• At 20%, "hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues"
  
• At 40%, " widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare"
  
• From 60%, "unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels"
  
• At 80%, "daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim" - and so on.

[The quotations are from a summary text issued as an e-mail from the US and are not necessarily precisely as appear in the book]

All utter nonsense, of course.

With material like this spewing out into the African ether and the 'other side' developing a theory of threat in which similar percentages can be used to claim Christian minorities as potential dangers to cultural integrity, then we could be excused a deep pessimism about Africa.

Already, the Algerian authorities are engaged in their own operation against the Christian 'enemy within' with accusations of funding of proselytism against an as-yet-unnamed American organisation.

We know that Iraqi Christians are fearful, that Lebanese and Palestinian Christians are highly aware of their different status and are turning to the West for protection and that the Copts feel vulnerable as the Muslim Brotherhood becomes the voice of the inflation-struck Muslim poor.

Just as jihad has been declared by Islamic extremists against Christians within the world of Islam (no doubt to construct a Caliphate to renew a wider jihad in the wide-eyed fantasies of the nuttier elements), so the Word of the Lord is moving at the same pace against Islam.

In some ways, the Christian extremists are more worrying because they have the potential ability to affect American foreign policy and so firepower through the Black Churches and are taking the ideological war deep into enemy territory.

There are also signs that a secular-Christian anti-Islamist intellectual alliance has been developing in Italy and Northern Europe to parallel the Judaeo-Christian neo-conservative alliance that fuelled the Bush administration.

Half the Anglo-Saxon Left has become 'progressive', abandoning socialism and even liberalism for emotional post-imperialist crusades against sovereign regimes such as Zimbabwe, Sudan, Burma and China whose agenda accidentally merges with that of the Christian Right.

One effect of 9/11 was to concentrate Western minds on ideological extremism entering through Arab funding of mosques. Gulf interests have collaborated in containing the politicisation of Islamic cultural investment overseas.

Unfortunately, the reverse is not happening. Western interests have not helped to contain Christian extremism as it has moved on from organising African communities against native traditions towards declaring war on Islam in its borderlands.

Now the danger is that pressure on Christian minorities within the Arab, Persian and wider Islamic worlds will invoke Christian extremist intervention and pragmatic non-theological conflict resolution will be thrust aside to carry out God's Will in rescuing the Heathen from his sins.

From this perspective, Muslims have some evidence for a war on their values even if there is no evidence whatsoever that such a war is carried out by any of the Western powers - perhaps bar one. 

Once again, it becomes hard to see who precisely is the aggressor and who the defender in the current situation ...

www.tppr.co.uk

[With thanks to Bood & Co. for web references - the opinions in this posting are not to be ascribed to Bood]

The first meeting of Sarkozy’s Mediterranean Union has taken place in Paris. The British have tended to be a bit stand-offish, perhaps because it is not our idea and perhaps because it is understood that it is not our place to steal the limelight from the French President

Our view is that the Union is being over-promoted on fundamentals - it is all talk unless the EU follows up with some hard cash for major infrastructural and trade development - but it is not to be entirely dismissed in terms of France's European aspirations.

Nevertheless the general purpose of the Union - the integration of the Mediterranean into the European sphere of influence - was overshadowed by Syria’s reintroduction to the international community of which more below.

France is also seeking to take a more direct role in the Peace Process, although getting a desultory handshake between the two weakened leaders of Israel and Palestine is scarcely going to be remembered in the history books.

Whatever the headline successes regarding Levantine politics, the French official ‘spin’ on affairs should be taken with a slight pinch of salt.

This is really a pitch in advance of the arrival of ‘President Obama’ (who is getting ready to embark on a Grand Tour of Europe) for France to be a natural bridge in the Peace Process, to lead European Middle East discussions and to act as sherpa for Washington.

Perhaps there is an ambition to displace the Washington-London axis and pre-empt a Washington-Berlin axis with a Washington-Paris-Damascus/Tel Aviv/Beirut axis.

The main game is to have the US turn to France (since there is no 'Europe' as such while the Lisbon Treaty remains in abeyance) rather than to any other ex-colonial power or to the German behemoth to get things fixed. It really is a crude and calculated gamble for French gloire.

The Mediterranean idea, which may yet bring (in theory) Israel and the Arab Republican tradition into line, is so central to France that it has been quite happy to alienate the main pro-US Sunni Arabs (notably Saudi Arabia) in the short term in order to get from A to B as fast as possible.

The initiative might also reasonably be interpreted as a pre-emptive pitch by the 'Europeans (on the basis that, to France, ‘L’Europe, c’est nous’) to ‘own’ the Mediterranean and, by extension, take a more equal stake in Gulf affairs with the Americans.

Bear in mind that the British are not entirely accepted as 'Europeans' and this perception is strengthening as it looks increasingly likely that the eurosceptic Tories will be in power within two years.

Since Israel, Egypt and Syria are Mediterranean littoral states, it is axiomatic that they are (as the French see things) within the European sphere of influence, certainly no less than Ukraine, Belarus and Romania which tend to be the primary subject of German concern.

As for Syria, Al-Assad got the full treatment. Le Monde's interview of 12 July was not surrounded by unnecessarily rude material as happened in London with the much less fulsome Times treatment organised by the FCO for the Syrians in 2002.

A full page with photo drew a rather favorable profile of the leader of the Syrian Republic. The interview mentioned Flynt Leverett's book published by the Brookings Institution and quoted Henry Kissinger that it was "impossible to make peace (in the region) without Syria".

Leverett has a strongly realist view of Syria and his assessment always implied dialogue rather than the confrontational model of current White House thinking. The use of his book in media briefings with European journalists is symptomatic of current French thinking.

The article emphasised that the President was educated at the exclusive franco-arab lyceum of Damascus, speaks and understands French and English and would be standing in a place of honour, next to Sarkozy, at the 14 July military parade.

Nicolas Sarkozy has, in one decisive act, reversed French foreign policy towards Syria and balanced his recent "emotional" trip to Israël. In the UK, Assad’s trip to Paris is regarded as a ‘remarkable comeback’ - he is, so the FT says, ‘embraced’ by the French Government.

This is a major split in the unity of the Atlantic Powers, with France believing that it can remove Syria from its alliance with Iran through diplomacy. Pro-Zionist activists in the US are seeing their strategy of isolating Damascus crumbling before their eyes.

Syria has also positioned itself as a natural bridge between the US and Iran - and, implicitly, despite appearances that France wants the intermediation role, it has made a move towards accepting the US, once Bush has gone, as the natural bridge between it and Israel.

The assumptions surrounding the new US administration are fascinating because it is almost being taken for granted that Obama will not merely win but will be in a commanding position to use US influence (still considerable) to force through a lasting Peace Process.

The weekend has been a triumph for Syria and for its strategy of just sitting there until someone in the West (France on this occasion) ‘cracked’ and opened the door to its real strategic aim – the full return of the Golan Heights in return for acceptance of Israel as a fact on the ground.

By establishing itself as key to any eventual regional settlement between the US and Iran if Ahmedinejad is ousted, the Syrians have proven that patience pays. They can sit back now and wait until a new US Administration is in place.

www.tppr.co.uk

[With thanks to Bood & Co for support material from Paris]