Charlie’s Lament: The Greatest Tax Story Ever Told

How U.S. companies learned to relocate their official addresses overseas and avoid taxes—in one operetta.

The only operetta ever written about Subpart F of the Internal Revenue Code made its debut on a rainy Sunday evening in May 1990, in a Fifth Avenue apartment overlooking Central Park. In bow ties and spring blazers, partners of the law firm of Davis Polk & Wardwell dined on lobster prepared by a Milanese chef. Then everyone gathered around a piano, and a pair of professional opera singers, joined by the few Davis Polk men who could carry a tune, performed what sounded like a collaboration of Gilbert & Sullivan and Ernst & Young.

The 13-minute operetta, Charlie’s Lament, told how the party’s host, John Carroll Jr., invented a whole category of corporate tax avoidance and successfully defended it in a fight with the Internal Revenue Service. The lawyers sang:

The Feds may be screaming,
But we all are beaming
’Cause we’ll never pay taxes,
We’ll never pay taxes,
Never pay taxes again!

The first corporate “inversion,” as Carroll’s maneuver came to be known, was obscure then and is all but forgotten now. Yet at least 45 companies have followed the lead of Carroll’s client, New Orleans-based construction company McDermott International, and shifted their legal addresses to low-tax foreign nations. Total corporate savings so far: at least $9.8 billion—money that otherwise would have gone to the U.S. government.

This year, inversions have received more attention than ever, as well-known companies such as Burger King and Pfizer announced plans to change their addresses. (Pfizer didn’t follow through.) In July, President Obama called the practice an “unpatriotic tax loophole” and urged Congress to put a stop to it. In September, the Department of the Treasury tightened regulations to discourage the deals. “My attitude is, I don’t care if it’s legal,” Obama said in July. “It’s wrong.”

If history is any guide, the stiffer regulations won’t stop the exodus. Ever since the McDermott deal, inversions have been the subject of legions of congressional hearings, bills, and regulations, yet companies continue to find ways to circumvent them and escape the U.S. tax system.

John Patrick Carroll,
You’re the man for me.
You have a firm that is first-rate.
You have the skill to solve
this tax quandary
(Although you come in
to work very late).

Around the Manhattan offices of Davis Polk, Carroll was known as a wit and a curmudgeon. To keep fellow lawyers on their toes, he slipped nonsense words, such as “phlaminimony,” into legal documents. He always seemed to do his best work in the middle of the night. His office was a mess. He didn’t own a television set. If someone asked how he was doing, he’d reply, “They haven’t caught me yet.”

A Brooklyn native who served in the Marine Corps in China during World War II, Carroll attended Cornell University and Harvard Law School. He worked at the IRS before joining Davis Polk in 1957, when the firm still required its men—there were no women partners as yet—to wear hats. A committed liberal, he was one of the few members of his firm to oppose the war in Vietnam. He once considered leaving the practice to work for antiwar candidate George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign. “He would stop by my office and say, ‘Let’s go commit lunch.’ He had all sorts of wonderfully fictional phrases for noncriminal crimes, like ‘mopery in the second degree,’” says M. Carr Ferguson, a colleague. “I simply adored him.”

Carroll proved to be a brilliant pioneer in corporate law. He helped open the North Sea to oil exploration and invented a financial instrument known as the currency swap, now a $2 trillion-a-day market. Carroll was modest about that achievement. When a book credited him with inventing the swaps, he penned a tongue-in-cheek letter explaining that, although he attended the London brainstorming sessions where the idea was hatched, he was merely “a foreigner who attended most meetings principally for beer and free lunch.” He named five others who he said deserved more credit.

Around 1980, Carroll got a call from a client: Charles Kraus, the tax director at McDermott, a construction and engineering giant with a thriving business in building offshore oil rigs. Throughout the 1970s, high oil prices, helped by the Arab oil embargo and the revolution in Iran, had kept its tugboat crews and welders busy from Indonesia to Saudi Arabia. McDermott was the biggest company in Louisiana’s booming oil-services industry. It occupied half of a downtown skyscraper and, at its peak, employed more than 40,000 people around the world.

My name’s Charlie. Here’s my problem:
Our subsidiary
Pays too much in bloody taxes.
It’s dying fiscally.

As Kraus explained to Carroll, McDermott’s profits had created a big tax problem. Most of the income had been earned abroad, and the parent company in New Orleans couldn’t touch it without first paying U.S. taxes on it—at a rate of as much as 46 percent. The earnings were piling up in Treasury bonds offshore. When they came back, the total bill would be about $220 million.

John, be a hero; cut our
tax down to zero,
Because if your plan’s not inspired,
Next month we may all be fired!

After months of kicking around ideas, Kraus and Carroll hit upon an elegant but untested solution: Simply flip the company structure, so its main foreign subsidiary, incorporated in Panama, becomes the parent. Just like that, all those offshore profits would slip out from under the U.S. corporate tax system. Carroll nicknamed it the Panama Scoot. There was something screwy about the plan, like a daughter legally adopting her own mother, and the details were staggeringly complicated, involving share swaps, dividends, and debt guarantees. But Kraus and Carroll were convinced it would work.

Kraus, now 85, is a slight man who relishes the arcana of tax accounting. He once dreamt of becoming a concert pianist, and he used to spend his free time rehearsing Chopin’s polonaises on his baby grand piano. During an interview in his pink-brick home in the Louisiana woods, he recalls using a different name for the novel deal he helped put together. “We called it the Flip Flop,” he says, laughing, his hands folded behind his head. “There was a loophole in the law, and we capitalized on it legitimately.”

Kraus’s boss, John Lynott, McDermott’s chief financial officer at the time, says he sometimes puzzled over Carroll’s motivations. “It was always an enigma to me,” Lynott says. “We knew this guy was a Democrat, and yet he would take on the government in a New York minute over a tax issue. There was nothing liberal about his thinking as far as the tax code was concerned.”

John’s really flipped this time.
He’s surely lost his mind.
If we should do it,
I know we shall rue it.
We’ll pay interest, penalties and fines.

The McDermott team knew the deal would face resistance. Shareholders needed to approve the transaction, requiring a public announcement and a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which would inevitably forward the papers to the IRS.

Then there was the U.S. Navy. McDermott was a major supplier of nuclear fuel and boilers for the fleet. When Admiral Hyman Rickover, the father of the nuclear Navy, caught wind of the plan, he was alarmed enough to summon Lynott and another executive to Washington. Lynott says he and his colleague spent half a day waiting outside Rickover’s office until they realized the admiral was snubbing them and had left the building. They flew back to New Orleans on their private jet without meeting Rickover. Eventually, the Navy set aside its concerns about Panama, Lynott says. “They were reassured there was nothing there but a post office box,” he says. “We weren’t moving anything.”

McDermott disclosed the plan publicly on Oct. 28, 1982. The next day, the New Orleans Times-Picayune quoted the company’s chairman, who assured the community that “no changes in the operations and management of the company are planned, and the principal executive offices will remain in New Orleans.” Shareholders had no objection, and by December, the address change was official. Kraus hung a skull and crossbones in his office, a nod to Panama’s piratical past.

Once the deal was announced, McDermott rushed to complete it as quickly as possible, according to Carr Ferguson, who was a federal tax prosecutor before he joined Davis Polk. They were hoping to reduce the chance the Treasury Department would learn about it and ask Congress to block it. As it was, no one heard from the Treasury until the following January, when Ferguson got a call from a top tax official he knew there.

“Carr, you can’t do this,” Ferguson remembers the official saying.

“That was my first impression,” Ferguson replied, “but we worked at it pretty carefully, and we think we can.”

“You’re going to have to prove that in court to me.”

Move down to Panama!
Think of our painful chagrin:
The Feds will be cheerful,
and we will be tearful
’Cause we’ll all end up in the pen!

The IRS fought the case for seven years, giving up in 1989 only after a federal appeals court upheld a U.S Tax Court decision in the company’s favor.

In 1984, Congress passed a law specifically designed to prevent more McDermott-type arrangements. But don’t bet against the imagination of tax lawyers. A decade later, a company in El Paso that made curling irons and hair dryers found a way to create a foreign parent in Bermuda without triggering the McDermott rule. More laws and regulations followed, in 1994, 2004, and 2009, but the deals just kept coming, each permutation more complicated than the last. Somewhere along the way, tax lawyers started calling them inversions, because they turn a company’s corporate structure upside down.

However helpful the Panama Scoot was for avoiding taxes, the new address couldn’t protect McDermott from getting clobbered by an oil slump. Lower energy prices and an economic downturn led to a series of losses during the 1980s, Kraus says. Later, the unit that supplied the Navy’s nuclear fuel was engulfed by asbestos claims. After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, McDermott moved its corporate headquarters to Houston. It closed its remaining office in downtown New Orleans last year.

In a way, Admiral Rickover’s beef with McDermott got a second life in 2007, when Congress passed a law banning federal contracts for inverted companies. Eventually, McDermott was forced to spin off the unit that worked with the Navy to avoid losing all its contracts.

Kraus says he hasn’t thought much about inversions since his retirement in 1989, nor has he followed the debate in Washington this year. He remains proud of his work. When a congressional committee in the 1980s complained that the McDermott deal made a “mockery” of the tax code, Kraus says, he half-jokingly called it “the crowning achievement of my career.”

“The law is an unintelligible monstrosity, and it’s Congress’s fault,” says Kraus, who still has a small Lucite trophy commemorating the Panama deal. He uses it as a paperweight.

A few months after Carroll’s victory over the IRS, he and his wife, Luceil, threw the party at their apartment. A video survives of the moment when, to his surprise, his colleagues began performing Charlie’s Lament, named for Kraus. A musically inclined lawyer in the tax department, William Weigel, wrote the libretto and recruited a professional tenor and soprano through his church choir. Carroll listened from an armchair, and at the finale he clapped and rose. Somebody called for a speech.

“I wrap myself in the American flag,” he said. “And I say, without the slightest fear of successful contradiction—blah, blah, blah, blah!”

Carroll retired later that year. He didn’t play a role in the copycat deals that eventually followed McDermott, nor did he seek any recognition. In a tax journal in 2007, a law professor referred to the McDermott deal’s creator as “a brilliant tax lawyer (I don’t know who).”

One of Carroll’s two sons, Brian, recalls that his father, toward the end of his career, reflected on his role in making the tax system even more convoluted. “Look, I did all these crazy things,” Carroll told him. “I would really like to see the tax code completely scrapped. The whole business of trying to define income and deductions is pure madness. And I’ve got no one to thank except myself for creating that.”

Carroll died in 2009 at the age of 84. Following his wishes, in lieu of a funeral there were parties with food and wine, including one for his many friends at Davis Polk’s Manhattan headquarters. Amid the talk and laughter came the familiar strains, playing over and over again on a TV in the next room:

The Feds may be screaming
But we all are beaming
’Cause we’ll never pay taxes no,
Never pay taxes,
Never pay taxes again!

This feature is part of a 2014 Pulitzer-Prize winning series for Explanatory Reporting. See the rest of the series here.

En: bloombergbusiness

The Long Journey of Chief Joseph’s War Shirt

Important Native American artifact seen in Smithsonian portrait fetches $877,500 at Nevada auction.

By Emily Spivack

Chief Joseph painting by Cyrenius Hall at the National Portrait Gallery.

Chief Joseph painting by Cyrenius Hall at the National Portrait Gallery.

You know Chief Joseph, even if you don’t know him by name. He’s not Sitting Bull, or Geronimo, but you probably recognize Chief Joseph, leader of the Nez Perce tribe, whose famous image was commemorated by the U.S. Postal Service with the 6-cent stamp in 1968. Notice what he’s wearing—a tan garment with blue beaded brocade that was his war shirt , which just sold to an anonymous buyer at the annual Coeur d’Alene Art Auction in Reno, Nevada, for $877,500.

The whopping sum doesn’t just come from the beauty of the well-preserved garment (although it’s a stunner), but its provenance: It’s one of the most important Native American artifacts to come to auction, according to Mike Overby, the event’s organizer. And a story made for Antiques Roadshow. The shirt was sold at a Native American relic show in the 1990s and changed hands again before anyone realized its historical importance.

Chief Joseph’s auctioned war shirt.

Chief Joseph’s auctioned war shirt.

Chief Joseph was documented wearing his deerskin war shirt not once, but twice: first, in an 1877 photograph taken by John Fouch just after the Nez Perce had surrendered to U.S. soldiers in Montana. Joseph, whose heroic retreat and eloquence in surrender helped form his legacy, still had frostbite on his fingers from snowbound combat, and yet he still looked proud, sitting for Fouch in his war shirt, his hair done up in a warrior pompadour.

Reproduction of Chief Joseph’s portrait on a 1968 stamp

Reproduction of Chief Joseph’s portrait on a 1968 stamp

The shirt makes a second appearance when Chief Joseph, imprisoned at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, agreed to pose for a portrait by Cyrenius Hall in 1878. The painting of the disheartened resistance leader, festooned in his resplendent garment, now hangs in the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery. That is the portrait that appeared on the 1968 stamp.

With detailed beadwork and blocks of bold, geometric color representing what scholars call the “Transmontane art style,” it’s striking how much today’s Native American-inspired designs have derived from this graphic style–for better or worse. The auction describes the shirt’s detailing:

The shirt is of the classic sleeved poncho type, made of two soft thin skins, probably deerskin. The skins were cut in two behind the front legs, and the two back halves were joined at the shoulders to form the front and back of the shirt. The two front halves of the skins were folded to make the sleeves, with the forelegs retained below the open armpits. Thus, the natural shape of the animal skin was preserved as much as possible in the design of the shirt, thereby honoring the animal’s spirit. Sewn onto the front and back of the neck opening is a hide flap or bib covered with red wool trade cloth and partially beaded. Provided by family or friends were the long tassels of human hair, their quill wrappings attached to the base of the neck flap. Though symbolic of personal war experiences they are not ‘scalp locks.’

Now the question remains: Who bought the famed shirt (and when can we all see it publicly displayed)?

En: smithsonianmag

Federal Appeals Court Tosses Out Texas Voter ID Law

A sign shows the way to a polling station in Austin, Texas. A federal appeals court has knocked down a state voter ID law. Erich Schlegel/Getty Images

A sign shows the way to a polling station in Austin, Texas. A federal appeals court has knocked down a state voter ID law. Erich Schlegel/Getty Images

A federal appeals court Wednesday struck down a voter ID law in Texas, saying it violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act. A 5th Circuit three-judge panel ruled unanimously that the law does not equate to a “poll tax” but does discriminate against minority voters.

The 2011 law, considered one of the toughest in the country, was in effect during the midterm elections last year. It was one of a handful of voter ID laws enacted in Republican-governed states. The Texas law required voters to provide certain forms of identification before they could cast a ballot.

Supporters of the law say strong ID is needed to prevent voter fraud. The law’s detractors argue the requirements suppress legitimate voter turnout, particularly among minorities, who tend to vote for Democrats.

NPR’s John Burnett reported in Wednesday’s newscast that the Justice Department had argued that tens of thousands of minority voters would be prevented from casting ballots because they lacked one of seven types of approved ID card.

State Attorney General Ken Paxton says he will “continue to defend this important safeguard for all Texas voters.”

According to the Dallas Morning News, Texas has a few options for how to proceed.

“Texas is likely to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the state also could ask the full 5th Circuit to review the case.”

The case will now go back to a lower court for further review.

En: NPR

US border patrol violated agency rules in deporting thousands of children

US Customs and Border Protection deported unaccompanied children from Mexico and Canada without documenting how they knew minors would be safe

US border patrol agents violated agency rules in deporting thousands of unaccompanied immigrant children from 2009 to 2014, according to a federal audit released this week.

The US Government Accountability Office audit said that US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) repatriated 93% of unaccompanied children under age 14 from Mexico and Canada without documenting how they decided that the children would be safe when they return to their home countries.

Jennifer Podkul, a senior program officer for the Migrant Rights and Justice program at the Women’s Refugee Commission, is one of several people to have questioned how effective the CBP process is in earlier reports.

“The part that is illegal is not that they have not been giving them documentation, the part that’s illegal is that they have not been adequately screening them according to the law,” Podkul said.

The GAO report was released on Tuesday, the same day that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement said it had released about 200 Central Americans in just over a week as it sped up the interview process used to determine whether those people would be in danger if repatriated. Advocates like Human Rights First say asylum seekers should generally not be held in detention centers.

Detention centers have been overwhelmed by the recent spike in unaccompanied child migrants, who primarily come from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, and cross the Mexico border to get into the US.

Last year, Barack Obama said the border crossing of more than 47,000 unaccompanied children that year was an “urgent humanitarian situation”.

There was a vast reduction in the amount of unaccompanied children who made it to the border in the first five months of this year, compared to the same period last year, according to a study released by Pew Research Center in April. This, as Mexico deports a record number of Central American immigrant children.

The screening process used to determine whether Mexican children could be endangered by being repatriated has been a long-held concern for immigration rights groups. While children under 14 from most countries go before a judge to have their safety determined, Mexican and Canadian children are exempt from this rule and are instead asked a set of questions by a border patrol officer or agent.

“CBP just does not have the training, the understanding of humanitarian protection, to make the assessment of these children from Mexico before sending them back to their home countries,” said Greg Chen, director of advocacy at the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Chen said that the AILA’s primary concern is that the existing law assumes that an unaccompanied child can give a sufficient response to the questions while at a border patrol station, where they have likely been for a short time, and could be hungry, dehydrated and cold. “Can that child actually tell an agent, realistically, that he or she is afraid – and answer those questions well?” Chen said.

Under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, border agents try to determine whether the child is a victim of trafficking, could become a victim of trafficking, has a fear of persecution and is competent to make decisions about their situation.

But, as the GAO report shows, there is little documentation to show that this process is being completed.

While children 14 and under are presumed to typically be unable to make such a determination, there is no documentation for how these decisions were made for 93% of Mexican and Canadian children detained from the fiscal years 2009 to 2014. In that period, the Department of Homeland Security apprehended more than 200,000 unaccompanied children.

Michael Tan, an attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said that the GAO report was troubling, but not surprising.

“It’s common sense that in order for CBP to meet its obligation under law, it has to be reporting what its agents are doing,” Tan said. “And of course, the fact that they aren’t, makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to hold them accountable to what Congress requires them to do.”

The murkiness of the documentation standards is exemplified in part of the GAO report which said that a CBP memorandum from 2009 instructs agents to document how they determined whether someone could make an independent decision on form I-213. This form includes biographical information about the immigrant and their encounter with federal officials. But, the GAO’s analysis of 180 cases from 2014 led it to estimate that none of the 15,531 forms for unaccompanied Mexican children from fiscal year 2014 included documentation of how they determined a child’s ability to make an independent decision.

Rebecca Gambler, the GAO’s director of homeland security and justice, said in an email that: “It is not a legal or statutory requirement; rather it is something required by CBP policy.”

CBP did not respond to an emailed request for comment. But in the report, the Department of Homeland Security said it concurs with 12 recommendations the GAO handed down in the report, including looking into how it can add to its process a way to document an unaccompanied child’s independent decision-making ability.

“We feel like this is a huge step forward,” said Podkul, who said this is the first time the government has agreed to speak with NGOs about the documentation issue.

En: theguardian

Iran, world powers reach landmark nuclear agreement

The United States and other world powers reached a historic agreement with Iran on Tuesday that calls for limits on Tehran’s nuclear program in return for lifting economic sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy.

“Every path to a nuclear weapon has been cut off,” President Obama declared in Washington. Addressing critics in Congress and Israel who say Iran can’t be trusted to honor the agreement, Obama said the deal is not just built on trust but “on verification.”

The deal will keep Iran from producing enough material for an atomic weapon for at least 10 years and impose provisions for inspections of Iranian facilities, including military sites.

In Tehran, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani heralded “a new chapter” in relations with the world community. The agreement marks the first time the two countries have engaged in direct and open diplomacy in more than a generation.

The Republican-run Congress, where many question whether Iran will live up to its commitments, has 60 days to review the agreement and could issue a resolution of disapproval.

Congressional leaders remained skeptical of the deal and promised to scrutinize it closely, while many Republican presidential candidates blasted it. “My initial impression is that this deal is far worse than I ever dreamed it could be,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to Bloomberg News. He called it a “nightmare” for Israel, the Middle East and the world.

Obama, however, vowed to veto any congressional move to block the agreement, saying that “I am confident that this deal will meet the national security interests of the United States and our allies.”

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu assailed the deal, calling it a “mistake of historic proportions.” Israel fears that Iran will still find a way to acquire a nuclear weapon and threaten Israel’s security.

The Iranian government insists its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes and Obama said the deal will make sure of that.

Obama is expected to make calls to other world leaders in the coming days about the Iran nuclear agreement — including Netanyahu.

The deal was formally announced at a news conference in Vienna, where negotiators have spent weeks nailing down final details. Federica Mogherini, the European Union’s top foreign affairs official, and Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad, Javad Zarif, said, “Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons,” according to a joint statement by the two officials.

Mogherini and Zarif said the agreement will result in the lifting of all United Nations Security Council sanctions and multilateral and national sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear program. The agreement calls for the sanctions to be lifted in phases as Iran meets terms of the deal.

The agreement respects the interests of all sides, they said. The text will be presented to the Security Council in the next few days for endorsement.

Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomed the agreement, saying: “The world can breathe a sigh of relief.”

The United States, United Kingdom, France, China and Russia — the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — plus Germany have held nuclear negotiations with Iran for over a decade, but the talks have progressed unevenly and at times stalled.

European Council President Donald Tusk said the “breakthrough” deal brought an end to a 13-year standoff.

“If fully implemented, the agreement could be a turning point in relations between Iran and the international community, paving the way to new avenues of cooperation between the EU and Iran,” he said. “Geopolitically, it has the potential to be a game changer.”

Oil prices dropped around 2% Tuesday as news of the deal broke, but then rose again. Once oil-rich Iran is permitted to sell on world markets, it would do so at a time when crude prices have been under pressure because of a global supply glut.

Contributing: Kim Hjelmgaard and David Jackson

En: USAtoday

What’s the future of world order?

Globe-low-res-628x330

The latest G-7 summit, in the beautiful Alpine setting of Garmisch-Partenkirchen in Germany, has come and gone. No longer the G-8, owing to Russia’s suspension, the forum is again composed exclusively of traditional Western powers. At a time when the emergence of large, densely populated economic powerhouses like Brazil, China, India, and Indonesia is challenging Western dominance, many believe that the current international system is due for an overhaul.

In fact, a new world order is almost certain to emerge – and very soon. The shape it takes will be determined by two key phenomena: globalization and digitization.

Globalization is enabling economies that are not yet fully industrialized to reap the benefits of industrialization and become integrated into global markets – a trend that has redefined the global division of labor and transformed value chains. The revolution in digital communication technology has underpinned this shift.

Of course, the impact of digitization extends beyond economics; it has broken down many cultural barriers, giving ordinary citizens in even remote regions access to information and ideas from all over the world. As globalization-enabled economic development continues to raise incomes, this cultural integration will undoubtedly lead to broader political participation, especially among an increasingly large – and increasingly demanding – middle class. Already, this trend is complicating governments’ efforts at domestic monitoring and control.

In terms of the global economic balance of power, however, the impact of globalization and digitization remains difficult to predict. While these trends have undoubtedly fueled the economic rise of some developing countries, the West – especially the US – retains a technological and innovative edge. Indeed, America’s technological lead – together with its enormous capital assets and dynamic business culture, exemplified in Silicon Valley – could ultimately reinforce its global standing.

But, with major emerging economies like China and India working hard to foster innovation, while still benefiting from technological catch-up, it is also possible that continued globalization and digitization will propel continued “de-Westernization” of the international order. Only time will tell whether these countries will successfully challenge the established powers.

Even if the US – and, to some extent, Western Europe – does retain a competitive edge, it is unlikely to retain the kind of global geopolitical control that it has had since World War II and, especially, since the Soviet Union’s collapse left it as the world’s sole superpower. In fact, even though the US remains dominant in military, political, economic, technological, and cultural terms, its global hegemony already seems to have slipped away.

The reality is that America’s global geopolitical supremacy did not last long at all. After becoming overstretched in a series of unwinnable wars against much weaker – and yet irrepressible – opponents, the US was forced to turn inward. The power vacuums that it left behind have produced regional crises – most notably, in the Middle East, Ukraine, and the South and East China Seas – and have contributed to a wider shift toward instability and disorder.

The question now is what will replace Pax Americana. One possibility is a return to the kind of decentralized order that existed before the Industrial Revolution. At that time, China and India were the world’s largest economies, a status that they will regain in this century. When they do, they might join the traditional powers – the US and Europe, as well as Russia – to create a sort of “pentarchy” resembling the European balance-of-power system of the nineteenth century.

But there are serious questions about most of these countries’ capacity to assume global leadership roles. With the European Union facing unprecedented challenges and crisis, it is impossible to predict its future. Russia’s future is even more uncertain; so far, it has been unable to rid itself of the phantom pains over its lost empire, much less arrest the deterioration of its society and economy. India has the potential to play an important role internationally, but it has a long way to go before it is stable and prosperous enough to do so.

That leaves only the US and China. Many have predicted the emergence of a new bipolar world order, or even a new Cold War, with China replacing the Soviet Union as America’s rival. But this, too, seems unlikely, if only because, in today’s interconnected world, the US and China cannot allow conflict and competition to obscure their common interests.

As it stands, China is financing America’s public debt, and, in a sense, subsidizing its global authority. And China could not have achieved rapid economic growth and modernization without access to US markets. Simply put, the US and China depend on each other. That will go a long way toward mitigating the risks that a new global power’s emergence inevitably generates.

Against this background, it seems likely that the new world order will resemble the bipolar order of the Cold War – but only on the surface. Underneath, it will be characterized by engagement and mutual accommodation, in the name of shared interests.

The G-7 represents a dying order. It is time to prepare for the G-2.

This article is published in collaboration with Project Syndicate. Publication does not imply endorsement of views by the World Economic Forum.

Author: Joschka Fischer was German Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor from 1998-2005, a term marked by Germany’s strong support for NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999, followed by its opposition to the war in Iraq.

Image: A boy touches a 45-metre (148-feet) long wall lighted by colour rays at an exhibition hall in Wuhan, central China’s Hubei province May 1, 2007. Picture taken May 1, 2007. REUTERS/China.

Posted by Joschka Fischer – 13:38
All opinions expressed are those of the author. The World Economic Forum Blog is an independent and neutral platform dedicated to generating debate around the key topics that shape global, regional and industry agendas.

En: worldeconomicforum

EEUU reconoce que sus fuerzas armadas mataron accidentalmente a dos rehenes en ataques con drones

Los secuestrados eran de nacionalidad italiana y estadounidense. Estaban en manos de Al Qaeda y fallecieron durante dos operaciones antiterroristas.

20150423-drones_g_0.jpg

Estados Unidos ha reconocido que sus fuerzas armadas mataron accidentalmente a dos rehenes en sendas operaciones militares con drones este pasado mes de enero. Los secuestrados eran de nacionalidad italiana y estadounidense y estaban en poder de Al Qaeda en la frontera entre Afganistán y Pakistán.

“Una operación antiterrorista del Gobierno estadounidense asesinó el pasado mes de enero a dos rehenes inocentes de Al Qaeda”, ha anunciado la Casa Blanca.

En un comunicado emitido por el secretario de prensa Johs Earnest, la Casa Blanca cita a Warren Weinstein, un americano en poder de Al Qaeda desde 2011, y a Giovanni Lo Porto, un italiano que fue secuestrado por la misma organización terrorista en 2012. Ambos son las víctimas.

“La operación tenía como objetivo un complejo de Al Qaeda, donde no había razones que apuntaran a que los rehenes estaban allí… No hay palabras para mostrar nuestro pesar por esta tragedia”, se puede leer en el comunicado.

En: elmundo

Ver: 2 Qaeda Hostages Were Accidentally Killed in U.S. Strike, White House Says

Leer más

¿Está Occidente perdiendo su ventaja en Defensa?

Los encargados de la defensa de Occidente y los que lo eran hasta hace poco están preocupados.

Hablan sin cesar de la decadencia de sus propias fuerzas y de la mejora de las de sus rivales, y les inquietan las consecuencias a largo plazo para la estabilidad en muchas partes del mundo.

“Lo que hemos visto en las últimas dos décadas es una especie de desarme físico y moral… estamos en un lugar muy peligroso”, dice el general Richard Shirreff, quien hasta el verano pasado fue el número dos en la estructura militar de la OTAN.

Y, al explicar que Estados Unidos ha comprado muy pocos aviones de combate, el exjefe adjunto de la Fuerza Aérea de EE.UU., el teniente general David Deptula, opina: “tenemos una fuerza geriátrica”.

Pero, ¿cómo puede ser cierto si tanto la OTAN y como EE.UU. gastan vastas cantidades de dinero en sus ejércitos?

Salarios y juguetes caros

Según le dijo a la BBC Michele Flournoy, quien hasta 2012 ostentó el tercer cargo en importancia en el Pentágono, más de la mitad del presupuesto se va en salarios, mientras que los poderes emergentes, como Rusia, China e India, gastan mucho menos en quienes visten uniforme.

El ejército también ha contribuido a sus propias desventuras al conspirar con contratistas de defensa para hacer armas cada vez más costosas de las que no puede comprar las mismas cantidades que las que debe reemplazar.

Pierre Sprey, diseñador en jefe del caza F-16 subrayó las consecuencias desastrosas de pagar cientos de millones de dólares por cada avión furtivo.

“Es un triunfo de las artes negras vender un avión que no funciona”, dijo.

“Básicamente, hemos arruinado el poder aéreo estadounidense”.

Equipos mayores de edad

20150418-150417150514_west_aviones_verdes_624x351_thinkstock.jpg
Desde 2012, EE.UU. ha cortado su gasto militar de 4,6% a 3,9% del PIB.

Como resultado de estas prácticas de adquisición, los cazas del Pentágono ahora son en promedio de hace 24 años y los bombarderos, de 38.

El año pasado compró menos aviones que cualquier otro año desde 1915 y por primera vez Rusia le aventajó en entregas de cazas.

Por supuesto que EE.UU. sigue teniendo una fuerza muy grande; será sólo durante la próxima década que se empezarán a notar las consecuencias del creciente envejecimiento de gran parte de sus equipos, muy probablemente en la forma de una baja significativa en el número de sus principales sistemas de armamento.

Los senadores republicanos han prometido frenar los planes del presidente Barak Obama de hacer importantes cortes en el gasto de Defensa (como proporción del PIB), pero hasta ahora no han cambiado la tendencia general.

Otra guerra fría

Con Washington enfocado cada vez más en China y la presión para que se hagan más cortes, la idea de que EE.UU. debe seguir cargando con el 70 a 75% del gasto de la OTAN es “insostenible”, según Douglas Lute, embajador de EE.UU. a la alianza del Atlántico Norte.

De manera que aunque el Pentágono ha mandado un puñado de soldados y jets tras la crisis de Ucrania, está dejando a los europeos la cuestión de escoger la mejor manera de responder a la creciente firmeza del Kremlin.

20150418-150417152201_west_anders_fogh_rasmussen_304x171_getty.jpg
Anders Fogh Rasmussen piensa que entre menos se invierta en defensa, menos influencia internacional se tiene.

Quizás la advertencia más cruda sobre la situación de la defensa de Occidente es la de Anders Fogh Rasmussen, el secretario general de la OTAN.

“Mi opinión es que hemos entrado en una nueva era de guerra fría y creo que durará décadas”.

Las consecuencias de que la capacidad militar de Occidente esté en declive en momentos en los que sus rivales se hacen más fuertes son tema de acalorados debates.

Rusia y China exigen más libertad para lidiar con los retos de seguridad en sus periferias sin que EE.UU. interfiera.

Mientras que el canciller ruso Sergei Lavrov advierte que Washingon se va a tener que acostumbrar a un mundo más multipolar, sin un poder dominante único, en Occidente a muchos especialistas en defensa y seguridad les preocupa que la ventaja que alguna vez se tuvo haya desaparecido para siempre.

En: BBC

Leer más

Texas quiere que las personas porten pistolas a la vista

Si el gobernador la firma, medida se aplicará desde el 2016.

20150418-armas_a_la_vista.jpg

En una votación de 96 a favor y 35 en contra, la Casa de Representantes del estado de Texas, Estados Unidos, aprobó una ley que permite a los ciudadanos de cargar abiertamente pistolas y revólveres.

Si bien hacer lo mismo con escopetas es legal, la medida no se aplicaba para armas de menor tamaño, las cuales sí podían cargarse, pero escondidas bajo la ropa, en estuches y con permiso.

Este es el segundo proyecto de ley aprobado para el transporte a simple vista de estas armas, de modo que ambas iniciativas deben refinarse y ser presentadas al gobernador del estado, Gregg Abbot, quien está de acuerdo en apoyar lo que amplíe los derechos de la segunda enmienda de la Constitución.

Los congresistas opositores, del Partido Demócrata, indicaron que en una situación extrema, la Policía podría confundir a inocentes que carguen armas con personas potencialmente peligrosas.

Otra de las leyes que el Partido Republicano quiere promover es la de portar armas en campus universitarios, pues las leyes aprobadas recientemente señalan a estos lugares de estudio como excepción. (Dallas News/ Fox News)

En: larepublica.pe

Leer más

Alcohol en polvo podría ser prohibido antes de su lanzamiento

20150418-palcohol-alcohol-en-polvo.jpg

EE.UU. El creador del alcohol en polvo está tratando por todos los medios evitar que políticos prohíban la llegada de este nuevo producto a las tiendas estadounidenses. ¿Lo logrará?

Después de recibir la aprobación del gobierno federal el mes pasado, Mark Phillips, creador del Palcohol, se prepara para sacar pronto a la venta el polvo, con el que se pueden preparar bebidas alcohólicas cuando se mezcla con agua.

Pero primero Phillips debe convencer a legisladores escépticos, desde el estado de Hawai hasta el de Maine, quienes trabajan a todo vapor para impedir su salida al mercado.

“Todos estamos tratando de implementar leyes antes que el producto llegue a las tiendas, y él quiere que llegue a las tiendas lo antes posible para demostrar que no es un problema”, dijo el representante Mick Devin, demócrata por Maine que presentó un proyecto de ley que prohíbe el alcohol en polvo, producto que recibió el mes pasado el aval de la Oficina de Tributación y Comercio de Alcohol y Tabaco de EE.UU.

Seis estados ya han prohibido el producto, y legisladores de otros 30 estados han presentado iniciativas de ley similares. Estos políticos alegan que temen que el alcohol en polvo pueda llegar fácilmente a manos de menores de edad.

Phillips dice que cree que la resistencia al Palcohol se debe en parte a la industria de bebidas alcohólicas, a la que le preocupa la competencia. Asimismo, rechaza de plano la insinuación de que su producto sea más peligroso que el alcohol líquido y dice que prohibirlo impulsará la demanda.

“Sabemos que la prohibición no funciona”, dijo Phillips.

El Palcohol se venderá en pequeños sobres equivalentes a una porción de alcohol. Al agregar agua, jugo de frutas o refresco se pueden preparar bebidas alcohólicas. Las autoridades todavía no han aprobado una versión con sabor a limón.

El producto tiene como público objetivo a personas activas que desean disfrutar de bebidas alcohólicas pero que no quieren llevar botellas pesadas cuando realizan actividades como escalar montañas.

Devin y otros críticos dicen que temen que los adolescentes lo inhalen y lo usen en fiestas y eventos deportivos. Otros dicen que pudiera facilitar el agregar más alcohol a otras bebidas.

Erin Artigiani, subdirectora de Políticas y Asuntos Gubernamentales del Centro de Investigación de Abuso de Sustancias de la Universidad de Maryland, dijo que le preocupa que la gente, incluso sin darse cuenta, pueda preparar bebidas extremadamente fuertes mezclando el polvo con menos líquido del necesario.

Alaska, Louisiana, Carolina del Sur, Utah, Vermont y Virginia han aprobado prohibiciones desde abril, según la Conferencia Nacional de Legislaturas Estatales.

En: elcomercio

Leer más

1 5 6 7 8 9 14