2 Harvard International Review Blog » 2006 » April

April 27, 2006

Truly “Still Soviet?”

Filed under: General — Omar Abdelsamad @ 8:10 pm

In the HIR’s current newstand issue on the Soviet Union, Professor Vitali Silitski, Visiting Fellow at Stanford University, suggests that the Belarussian government is far more entrenched in the authoritarian years of the Soviet Union than in its supposed democratic present. That argument is perfectly represented in today’s news that Belarus’s opposition leader, Alexander Milinkevich, was sentenced to 15 days in prison for taking part in an unlawful political rally. Numerous other opposition party members were also detained, calling into question exactly how much democracy is present in the former soviet state. Of course Belarussian leader Alexander Lukashenko denied claims of democratic interference, yet his actions are increasingly characteristic of dictatorship.

True, semblances of authoritarianism in the developing world are nothing new. Putin is famous for actions of this sort in Russia, Mubarak exercised the same infraction during the last national elections in Egypt, and, using one of history’s many examples, General Pinochet of Chile used to dispose of political enemies in a less “humane” manner. What sets Belarus apart, for one, is that it is in Eastern Europe, not Asia, causing the neighboring European Union to take notice. Additionally, it is arguably the most economically advanced of the former soviet states, giving promise for the future of Eastern Europe.

While the actual term of imprisonment is largely inconsequential, it symbolizes the failure of democracy to take hold and fails to show a dedicated resolve for change. The difficulty is easily evidenced in such matters as the government’s stifiling of free press and peaceful protest, hoping to stave off a revolution akin to Ukraine’s “orange” movement. As Belarus stands, there is no hope for a true democracy. It seems the “former” in former Soviet Union is largely a technicality.

April 25, 2006

The Effects of Torture on Terrorism

Filed under: Human Rights, North America, Terrorism — Killian Clarke @ 11:30 pm

In a recent speech to the Harvard community, Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, discussed both the ethical and practical implications of torture. His point was simple: not only is torture inherently wrong, but it also has the opposite effect than is intended.

Functional arguments regarding torture have typically taken a back seat to moral and ethical discussions. And when the practicality of torture is discussed it is often with regard to torture in general rather than specific situations. Torture doesn’t work, its critics say, because the information acquired through torture is often times false. Victims will simply admit to whatever their torturers want in order to stop the pain, and thus the information culled from such practices is never truly verifiable.

However, there has been little analysis of how torture affects dynamics between Arabs and Americans in the Middle East and what its larger implications are for the War on Terror. Some of the strongest proponents of the practice defend it on the grounds of the “ticking time bomb” scenario. Torture, they say, should not be a widespread practice but should be used in situations when it can save a large of number of lives that are immediately at risk (a ticking bomb, for example). This argument is particularly applicable to the case of terrorism, since stopping an imminent terrorist attack is a perfect example of a situation dire enough to warrant the use of torture. Torture, then, by this argument will serve to curb terrorism and will thwart future terrorist attacks.

The flaws with this line of reasoning are numerous. Without going into too much depth, these arguments fail to clearly specify what exactly constitutes a “ticking time bomb” situation. What if the attack is likely to occur tomorrow? What about next year? What if the prisoner doesn’t know anything directly about the imminent threat but knows the whereabouts of someone who does? What if he simply knows the cousin of the friend of the neighbor who might have some information about an upcoming attack? Clearly the dilemma of the slippery slope is a primary one in this model.

Yet the more profound flaw with this justification is that it fails to account for the effects of torture on the opinions and mindsets of Arab citizens. The discovery of the United States’ use of torture in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib provoked something of a public outcry among many Arab citizens. The perceived hypocrisy and racism of such practices increased the already existing hostility between American forces and Arab locals. Such hostility is much more likely to foster further terrorism than torturing is likely to thwart future attacks. Intelligence regarding terrorist plans is rarely acquired from forced confession but more often from anonymous tips or willing admissions given in a spirit of good faith. But the use of torture completely undermines the development of any sort of positive relationship between Americans and Arabs and in this way decreases the likelihood that such willing admission will occur. In addition, heightened hostility and increased tensions will induce more Arabs to resort to terrorism or guerilla warfare as an outlet for their anger and frustration. Such a response is quite contrary to what we ought to be working toward in the region and, as such, we ought to completely relinquish the use of torture against Arabs, whether they be terrorists or not.

When Not Voting Doesn’t Work…

Filed under: Latin America — Nathan Sharp @ 1:11 am

Reading over the daily headlines about the increasing strength and popularity of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, one has to wonder about the fate of that opposition that stole headlines themselves with a failed coup in 2002 and a recall referendum in 2004. As it turns out, it does still exist. It even has an organized party and a presidential candidate in the running this year. However, the prospects are unfavorable for Julio Borges and his opposition party, First Justice, to say the least, not only because of the widespread popularity of Chávez, but also because some of the tactics employed by the opposition in the hopes of undermining Chávez are the same ones defeating their cause. By choosing to boycott elections to express disapproval of the electoral process of Chávez as they did last December, the opposition stands to miss its best opportunity to showcase the many reasons Mr. Chávez is hurting Venezuela—and there are many reasons.

Without the avowed nonparticipation of his would-be supporters, Borges has enough to worry about. Though there exists conflicting reports about his government’s approval rating, Hugo Chávez rules Venezuela with an approximately 55 percent approval rating, a rating undoubtedly influenced by his ability to sustain social programs in Venezuela with the massive revenue from the country’s oil production. And with the increasing global demand for oil, and its accompanying price increases, this revenue can only grow. This popularity is also partially based upon Mr. Chávez’s ability to rouse support through a scathing criticism of US President George W. Bush. The persona that Chávez has created for himself, that of a hero of the people, is reinforced and empowered with every verbal assault and taunt directed toward Bush and the United States, the government approved scapegoat of the past economic failures of Venezuela. The popularity gained from “standing up” to Bush also seems like it will only swell as it becomes ever more fashionable to assail the US President around the globe. In fact, it would seem that President Bush may have something to learn from President Chávez about global popularity—Chávez is successfully courting other countries with aid from oil revenue just as ardently, if not more, than the people Venezuela. But it is this very attempt at gaining the support of other nations that renders Chávez vulnerable to his domestic opposition, and the opposition must come to recognize this as a potential rallying point for their movement.

Literally hailing from the school of Simón Bolívar (Caracas’ Simón Bolívar University), Chávez has taken his Bolivarian ambitions of uniting a pan-American state to another level with his lavish gifts of oil revenue throughout Latin America. According to the New York Times, these subsidies and loans have financed everything from health care in Mexico to sambas in Brazil. Most notably, Chávez took over the burden of Argentina’s US$2.5 billion debt. But the spending does not stop there: even citizens of the northeastern United States have been on the receiving end of Chávez’s generosity, receiving substantial discounts from Petroleos de Venezuela via Citgo to help heat their homes. It is estimated that as many as 30 countries as far away as Indonesia received some form of aid from Chávez. Though First Justice conservatively estimates that Chávez has spent $16 billion abroad, the Center of Economic Investigations puts the number at around $25 billion since his election in 1999.

Although this giving demonstrates an admirable generosity, it comes at the expense of Chávez’s own people: poverty estimates for the people of Venezuela remain 30 percent at best and over 50 percent at worst. Although Chávez intends to increase his funding of social programs from US$8 billion to $US10 billion, these numbers still fall short of indicating that the Venezuelan impoverished are Chávez’s first priority. However, Chávez’s reckless spending not only represents his skewed priorities; it also demonstrates a fiscal irresponsibility that could lead Venezuela into economic collapse if the oil prices on which Chávez so heavily depends ever fall below their current level.

It is clear that the opposition is not gaining enough ground with its current criticism of the way in which Chávez continues to undermine democratic institutions in Venezuela, especially when it chooses to voice this criticism in the electoral process with no voice at all. If this opposition hopes to succeed, it must get back in the race, climb onto a platform, and appeal to the people’s interest. Democracy means little to those that live in streets riddled with crime and poverty. The most appealing promise to these people is a promise of order and material gain. If the opposition will not take up issues of human rights or crime committed by government officials themselves, it must at least appeal to those material interests. The poor of Venezuela are concerned about their own welfare, not that of Argentina, or Indonesia, or the United States for that matter. The opposition can capitalize on this fact. They can cast Chávez for what he is: a leader that overlooks his own country to focus on goal much larger than Venezuela and, in the process, neglects to take advantage of present wealth to provide adequate relief to his own people. If not an appeal to democracy, perhaps an appeal to patriotism might win the opposition sufficient support to overthrow the corruption of the Chávez regime.

April 24, 2006

The Implications of Protest in Nepal

Filed under: National Politics, South Asia — Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza @ 10:09 pm

Pro-democracy protests continue through the fifth day of King Gyanendra’s curfew. Fourteen have died. Kathmandu’s hospitals are overflowing. The US embassy has evacuated non-essential personnel while China ordered its citizens leave Nepal. Gyanendra, who dissolved Nepal’s elected government in October 2002 and took direct power in February 2005, has begun to show signs of capitulation.

The conflict between the Nepalese government and Maoist rebels, which has caused 13,000 casualties over the last decade, has waned as popular protests against the government escalate. Nepal has rallied behind pro-democracy protests, defying not only the curfew but continuing to disregard “shoot-to-kill” threats.

The opposition, led by Shobhakar Parajuli, is not satisfied with Gyanendra’s concession to reconvene parliament Friday. Protestors continue to push for legal and constitutional reforms that will abolish Nepal’s constitutional monarchy, paving the way for democracy.

While Ukraine’s Orange Revolution of 2004 may have served as model for Nepal, the Nepalese protests may inspire protests in nations suffering under dictatorship. Dr. Stan Mukasa of Zimbabwe, for one, has held the growing impact of the protests in Nepal as a paradigm for protest that may be reproduced in his own country, Zimbabwe.

April 17, 2006

Why Iran’s Actions Should Surprise No One

Filed under: General — Hampton Foushee @ 10:27 pm

While having to confront the threats of economic isolation and possible military threats from the United States, Iran’s decision to resume its nuclear energy program should surprise no one. Since the 1953 coup in which Shah Pahlavi took power, the country has faced fervent western political intrusion while having to balance against the hostile forces of Pan-Arabism. Despite maintaining close ties to Syria and Shiite Hizballah forces, Iran lacks a strong network of regional allies, thus forcing the country to often act unilaterally in order to pursue its own goals. As a result, Iranian policy reflects its individualistic necessity to follow aspirations that are independent of outside influence and will allow Iran to remain a regional power.

Although Washington characterizes Iran as a rogue state that threatens stability in the Middle East, Iranian history should serve as proof that Iran has more reason to fear western interference than western sanctions. The 1953 ousting of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh by British and American intelligence operatives established western oil interests as a priority over Iran’s national sovereignty. With the elimination of diplomatic ties between Tehran and the Washington following the 1979 Iranian Revolution and America’s subsequent support of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, who can blame Iran for fearing that the United States will once again try to forcefully remove its government from power? The Iraq war is further proof that the United States is willing to accept vast collateral damage for the ouster of an unappealing Middle Eastern leader.

With numerous threats lurking, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is using the Iranian nuclear program as an appeal to national pride that can help to cement the loyalty of a young and increasingly progressive Iranian population that boasts a median age of 25. While the country remains closely harnessed to its Islamic government, Iran contains a large number of well-educated and secularized youth that are opposed to the state’s oppressive government. Active American intervention in Iran would drive this increasingly strong element into Ahmadinejad’s corner and generate strengthened support for the leader, further underscoring Iranian allegations of Western interference within the state. While aerial bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities would prove effective in the short run, such a move would simply force the Iranian nuclear program further underground, making a subsequent round of strikes against Iran much more difficult, while giving the Iranian government stronger incentives for the development of nuclear weapons.

It is time that Washington acknowledge both sides of the Iranian debacle, for while a hard-line approach to Iran appears to be the most effective way of reducing the threat of a nuclear Iran, diplomacy will surely prove to be the best way of ensuring that a nuclear Iran does not become a nuclear-armed Iran. If the United States and Europe gives Iran space for peaceful enrichment, while continuing IAEA inspections of Iranian sites, the West will convey a peaceful message to Iran and deny the state an incentive for the development of nuclear weapons.

April 16, 2006

The dream that was “Hamastan”

Filed under: General — Doug Lieb @ 5:50 pm

Many forecasters feared that a Hamas victory in Palestinian elections would lead to a resurgence of violence and an undoing of what little stability existed in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. A creatively counterintuitive minority, however, thought that a Hamas government might be the best thing that could happen to Israel. Months into its tenure, the Hamas government’s sheer ineptitude has in fact advanced the Israeli cause — and perhaps, in the long run, the interests of peace.

Hamas continues to declare that it has no intention to recognize Israel. The European Union and the United States have cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority. While this decision has unquestionably increased hardship in the Palestianian territories, the objection that the Palestinian people should not be “punished for their democratic choice” will not persuade the United States or the European Union to change course. (First, the termination of aid was an easily forseeable consequence that should have been factored into that democratic choice; second, even if the termination of aid is morally wrong, denying funding to terrorists is a higher EU and US priority.) Hamas’ unwillingness to make even small conciliatory gestures has effectively bankrupted the Palestinian Authority; today’s announcement of US$50 million in aid from Iran is both a further provocation and a financial quick fix that does not address the long-term issue of sustainability. This uncompromising approach is fundamentally misguided: facing severe financial difficulties and an inability to pay civil servants, Hamas must now confront popular criticism and a politically resurgent Fatah faction. Hamas seems to be forgetting that the provision of vital social programs — not reflexive, drive-’em-into-the-sea radicalism — is what earned it broad political support in the first place.

Prime Minister Ismail Hanieh might think he’s scaring Israel and the West with such statements as, “We are ready to eat salt and olives but we won’t be humiliated.” But he’s not. By presenting Hamas as a completely inflexible adversary with no intenion of negotiating, Hanieh provides a domestic political impetus for Israel to draw the final boundaries of a Palestinian state unilaterally, and gives the United States and the European Union no reason to persuade Israel to do otherwise. Moreover, this proclaimed readiness to eat salt is probably unwelcome news to the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who primarily want to live normal lives.

Hamas leadership in the Palestinian territories appears short-lived. Whoever wants to win the next election will need to adopt a conciliatory tone, as Palestinians begin to realize that their ability to build a functioning society is inextricable from their willingness to make progress toward peace.

April 12, 2006

Grading the United Nations

Filed under: General — Ryan Thornton @ 1:07 pm

On a failure scale from 1 to 10—one being geopolitical burnt toast (slight failure) to ten being League of Nations (colossal failure)—it is at a 7, but on an upward climb. The biggest organization subject to the least amount of scrutiny, the United Nations sees itself as the best hope for promoting peace throughout the world. As written in the preamble of its charter, the United Nations was founded with the mission “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war… to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights… to establish conditions under which justice…can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.” Noble goals, less than noble results.

The detractors of the United Nations readily attack the weakest point of any institution that claims some semblance of moral authority—the corruption of its agents. A problem inherent to any large institution, perhaps innate to all humanity, corruption is the most effective and most common means of discrediting a group. In the Oil-for-Food Scandal, the allegations of corruption have been confirmed by the reality of ineptitude, if not complicity, at the highest levels of the organization. (See the complete Volcker Report for a complete assessment of the problem). In turn, this adds great fervor and persuasiveness to the arguments of the United Nations’ opponents.

Absurdity is another favorite of the detraction game. In the case of the United Nations, one common example is the UN Commission on Human Rights. Because the Commission has on it countries such as the Sudan, China, and Saudi Arabia, namely states with some of the worst human rights records of the last quarter of a century, it seems a patent absurdity—the diplomatic equivalent of letting the wolf look after the sheep.

What these two arguments share is that they are both external arguments. There is an assumed premise that it is not good to be corrupt, that it is not good to have countries with bad human rights records supervising how human rights are protected. Implicit here is that there is some objective “good” to which the United Nations can be compared. However, I do not think that one needs to go that far in evidencing that the United Nations has failed. Rather, there is a more basic and more damaging argument that is internal. In fact, it is the most basic of all arguments, and it is based on the principle of non-contradiction. The idea is that there is nothing that can both be and not be at the same time; as a result, if something tries to be one thing and tries to be the opposite of that thing at the same time, it is a failure in that it is meaningless. In the case of the United Nations, it cannot both be for peace and be against peace. If its mission is to prevent injustice, it cannot promote injustice. Therefore, if there is a case where the United Nations subverts itself, where it says one thing in one committee and the opposite in another committee, this would be a real sign that it is a failure.

Moreover, if it can be shown that the United Nations says something and does nothing to promote that end, this is equivalent. To say that something should be the case, either means that action should be taken to make it so or that action should not be taken to make it so. But, it was said that something should be the case, which requires action to bring it about. Therefore, action should be taken to make it so. In other words, when you say something, you should work to make it so. Thus, if the United Nations can be shown to say that something should be done and then not work towards it, even worse to do the opposite of what they say, it can be found to be contradictory and, consequently, a failure on the most basic of terms. Such cases are all too apparent.

As the central authority of the United Nations, the Security Council is charged with actively maintaining the security of the world. When it passes resolutions, it sets ends. It sets ends for action. Yet, the United Nations takes no action. It has made many statements and done nothing to see them through. Of course, this argument was rather fallaciously invoked to justify the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, but that is not the point. UN Security Council Resolutions relating to Turkey, Indonesia, and Israel are not merely ineffectively enforced (which, for the record, was the case in Iraq—they were enforced, but inadequately), but have involved no concrete action by the United Nations to see that they are upheld. As the issue of Iran’s acquisition of nuclear technology comes to the floor in a series of diplomatic movements not altogether dissimilar from those prior to the Iraq War, the problem evidences itself once more.

The fact that the United Nations is unable to take action to achieve what it says constitutes a failure. A failure that has occurred many times and on increasingly larger scales. For this reason, it is a failure of a sizeable magnitude and on its way to being colossal. The way to change this is for the United Nations to act; something unlikely to happen for a very long time. And so, the United Nations will continue to be a failure.

April 11, 2006

Stop Sweating the Sweatshops

Filed under: General — Omar Abdelsamad @ 12:43 pm

If you ask any rational American what he or she most fears, most will probably list terrorism as their number one phobia. If you ask the same American what his or her next greatest fear is, you’ll probably hear a few mention China and trade deficits. Because once public opinion focuses on one specific opinion, people are not prone to heed alternate theories to the point where a national furor arises. For that is what the China fear has become to the United States, a commotion inducing college students to pack into introductory Chinese classes, making citizens lament our economy’s deficit, and causing parents to start teaching their toddlers Chinese along with English (an interesting point is that the United States currently has a shortage of Chinese-speaking nannies). Not only do we fear the Chinese taking over the world, we are also prone to criticizing their harsh sweatshop working conditions, their dumping of textiles, and various other atrocities of human rights. Because if we can’t beat their manufacturing might, we might as well represent their working conditions as abusive slave-labor that will never have an impetus for change.

Whether it is a Middle East ports deal, an adjustment to Social Security, or a democrat’s impression of Economics, the truth of the matter is often a far cry from public opinion. To show portents of a less than Cinderella-like future progression for the Asian behemoth, the New York Times published an article about the current unskilled labor shortage in China. This labor shortage is due in part to the government’s farm subsidies that keep workers in the fields instead of the factories, more people picking higher education instead of factory work, and child-limiting edicts that skew the country’s labor distribution. Yet the most interesting effect is what labor shortage has done to those bastions of American ire and dismay: it has actually improved the sweatshop’s working conditions.

The sweatshop was never bad for the Chinese economy, if anything creating a manufacturing economy engendered financial booms in those villages that chose to adopt advanced non-farm production. While those towns grew at furious rates due to wages that were usually the best offered, the West turned a harsh eye on child labor, dangerous working conditions, and even high levels of pollution, perhaps forgetting that all developed countries, especially the United States, exhibited the same social infractions when they were at China’s same level of development. The dirt-cheap labor couldn’t last forever (a point ignored by those China-fearing souls), however, and as such wage rates have begun to rise due to the labor shortage. In an even more unprecedented move, factories have started offering additional benefits to workers in order to keep them working. But why the labor shortage?

The obvious reasons are a desire to be more educated and farm subsidies, even the United States has farm and manufacturing subsidies that ignore development to preserve a few jobs at ridiculous costs. The issue that is less obvious is that of population control: limiting the number of children a family can have in order to reduce future populations. It seems to have worked with Chinese population projected to grow at much slower rates, yet I feel that lauding the action is a bit hasty. In the oft-ignored field of Human Geography (not many universities even offer the program), one studies population pyramids–a pyramid is what the population graph should look like for healthy developing nations. You can see a comparison here:

Pyramid Comparison

China’s economy should be a pyramid, yet population controls that aim to stabilize growth serve to invert the pyramid (and everyone knows that an inverted pyramid can not stand). To give an idea of the problems this can cause, one may look at the US Social Security program which will soon have two workers for every retiree. This shouldn’t be a problem, yet the rate used to be three and four. As the number gets closer to one, retirees can no longer be supported and growth rates are stifled because there are no longer workers to support previous growth explosions. China’s landmark plan to reduce population may actually be a roadblock to continuing it’s massive growth.

However, I’m still not calling for the demise of China. The country has shown unprecendented growth and use of the GDP “catch-up” effect, yet it is nothing to be alarmed about. Just as one shouldn’t worry if his or her child doesn’t speak Chinese by the age of 12, one also shouldn’t worry about China taking over the world’s manufacturing. What Americans should be worried about is that the United States loses incredible growth potential for every manufacturing job it protects, much more than the cost of retraining those workers. If you want to know what to do about China, just remember that the United States is a services economy and China is a manufacturing economy. Let’s stop worrying about our Chinese jeans and start worrying about our American consultants.

April 4, 2006

France: The Problem with putting Labor Reforms to work

Filed under: General — James Kwok @ 7:11 pm

The endgame of the political crisis in France is unlikely to produce benefits for French workers, employers, or the French government itself. The actions of French politicians in dealing with the CPE (or First employment contract) is threatening the current and future French governments in their ability to enact effective and much-needed labor market reforms.

Even if the CPE, which allows French employers to fire younger workers easily, is rendered impotent, French workers and trade unions have won a hollow victory. France’s current labor laws still cause a high degree of labor market rigidity, specifically the difficulty of French firms in hiring workers, whom they may not easily lay off in poorer economic times. This type of rigidity has led to an unemployment rate of 10% and has depressed business activity in France throughout the 1990s. The rationale for a more flexible hiring law for employers is that it encourages businesses to hire youth workers more readily from the labor market, effectively increasing the rate of job finding in the economy.

To a large extent however, the CPE is not likely to make another appearance in the spotlight. Though it was signed into law amidst the complaints and threats of workers throughout France, Chirac later attempted to limit the scope of its effects by reducing its trial period to 1 year and calling for a new law that would modify the CPE so as to mollify the striking French workers. However, given that Chirac is not eligible for another presidential term in 2007, he has not seized any of the initiative in seriously considering future labor market reforms in France.

Instead, this state of turmoil in France has demonstrated the presidential inclinations of both Sarkozy and de Villepin, who probably will be top contenders for the Presidency in 2007. Indeed, Sarkozy, who is the Minister of the Interior and head of the right-wing UMP party, has played heir apparent to Chirac, working against Prime Minister de Villepin to broker a deal with the legions of dissatisfied trade union workers and youths who have railed against the CPE. In the same vein, de Villepin forcefully encouraged Chirac to promulgate the CPE, as well as to face down the erstwhile threat of a general strike at the end of March. Their actions during this crisis underscore the potential problems that the victor of the 2007 presidential race will face–the unappealing idea of labor market reform.

While there are other factors that have led to a weaker economy, the main hurdle France has yet to overcome is its labor laws. France has continued to post a weak growth rate, with only a 1.5% increase in GDP from 2005. Labor market reform, then, is key to encouraging greater economic growth. Sarkozy and de Villepin both still want to encourage a looser labor market through reforms like the CPE, but both are completely aware that their political positions are difficult ones. As a prominent figure of France’s right wing, Sarkozy risks alienating his supporters by being too accomodating to the trade unions and workers on the matter of the CPE. However, he is also mindful of the fact that an overly tough stance on workers will demonstrate his inability to act as a mediator of France’s political elements, which in turn will probably weaken his general appeal as a presidential candidate. Likewise, de Villepin must play a balancing act between ensuring civil harmony and pushing through relatively unpopular economic policies that will increase the economic well-being of French citizens. No matter what happens in this crisis, whoever emerges as Chirac’s successor in 2007 must have the stomach to deal with political turmoil of this order in the future.