Connect with us

Economy

Airlines as Geopolitical Agents of Power

Published

on

Airlines are agents of geopolitical power. They are agents of geopolitical power, because they have the power to become the bridge between the core and peripheries of the world.

For example, in spite of the current civil strife in Mogadishu, Somalia, Turkish Airlines, during March, 2012, was the first and only internationally-acclaimed airline that began flying (via Khartoum at the time) to Somalia. Flying into Somalia, for Turkish Airlines, meant: We back Somalia. And let this flight herald our trust in Somalia and our Somali partners.

Geopolitically what does this mean? Since 2011 it was President (former prime-minister at the time) Recep Tayyip Erdogan that first visited Mogadishu (the highest non-African ranking official that Somalia has ever received after years of internal strife). Despite of the fact that Turkey initially began its bilateral relation with Somalia based on humanitarian aid, the Turco-Somali relationship would evolve into that of a political and commercial interest, particularly in Turkey’s interest of supporting vital infrastructure—i.e. ports—programs in Somalia by investing approximately over $500M. Yet, going back to the main topic of this article (airlines and geopolitics), what does it mean when an airline goes to another poorly served, connected country? It means one thing and one thing only: geopolitical trust (country stability) and geopolitical territorial linkage (exertion of state power from the airline’s country of origin. Think of Netherlands and Suriname).

Before studying and working in geopolitics and investment projects, I, myself, lived some kind of a hybrid life. Let’s say somewhere between business and aviation. From 2007—2011, I studied business administration at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (which actually has a huge military culture and values, and which also taught me, generally speaking, how many of my American colleagues in the military perceive the world), focused in the geographies of air transportation; in other words, commercial geographies and mobilities, combined with business administration critical thinking. Yet, throughout those years I became a pilot and even did an internship in Panama City, Panama, in Copa Airlines headquarters (Panama’s main airline).

Now, fast forwarding time, by combining both geopolitics and aviation studies, I have undoubtedly learned that airline routes are one of the prime indicators when a country’s socioeconomic status is improving, heading in the wrong direction, or a sign of the geopolitical influence one state exerts into another; airlines are the first geopolitical agents that have the power to suspend or completely terminate a destination, consequently, eliminating the bridge between one space and another, isolating an entire country, for example (e.g. Google: Yemen Sana’a airport).

Take for example Bangui, in the Central African Republic. What if I tell you that if you were to fly to the CAR, it is Air France (as the former—and still—colonial power) the only European airline that serves Bangui only once a week? What if I tell you that though Royal Air Maroc serves Bangui as well, it does so in the same degree—once a week—as Air France? And the same can be said for the relatively internationally known TAAG Angola airlines, which operates from Luanda. Regardless of how you look at it, if you were to fly to Bangui M’Poko International airport, in a trustworthy international airline (those that fly into Europe and the US are considered safe, trustworthy and high-standard airlines, because of both the FAA and EASA high-standard requirements on aircraft safety), most likely, you would have a really hard time in securing the correct flight schedule, price and, most importantly, the time and date you’d like to fly into the CAR. In the commercial aviation network and planning parlance, the CAR would be technically isolated. If Air France is the only European airline serving the CAR, can this mean that there are still some colonial, pastoralist-type of linkages? Or that an ex-colonial power controls the mobility and connectivity to its former colonies? I’ll let you be the judge of that question.

But, also, did you know that Air France has, from Europe, a complete monopoly on Cayenne, French Guiana, and to a certain extent to Papeete, French Polynesia? (Air Tahiti Nui—Air France’s only competitor—is supported by the French Government in the form of +$300M in subsidies, in spite of the fact that its main shareholder is the French Polynesian government, and though I am indeed generalizing, I am suspecting that the same French Government’s subsidies are the ones that are partially supporting Air Tahiti Nui vis-à-vis the Government in Tahiti). And, lastly, the same can be said about West Africa and the Sahel air travel network—until Turkish Airlines has come into play.

From a geopolitical point of view, Air France’s destination network is one of the most interesting to research as well as the rapid expansion of both Emirates and Turkish airlines’ networks (e.g. from Tajikistan to Eritrea). For example, Turkish airlines currently competes with Air France’s extensive West Africa network. Turkish airlines flies into the same cities were Air France’ airline empire once had a complete monopoly, including cities like Nouakchott (Mauritania), Niamey (Niger), Ouagadougou, (Burkina Faso), Conakry (Guinea), N’Djamena (Chad), and Libreville (Gabon). Therefore, as a result, one could generally conclude that Turkish Airlines is challenging many airline networks that aroused during colonial times (e.g. Turkish is challenging Aeroflot’s network in Central Asia; Air France and Brussels’s airlines West African network; and Turkish Airlines will eventually challenge US-based airlines hegemony in the Latin America-Europe-and-Asia controlled transit passengers market). Also, many of the gulf airlines (Etihad, Emirates, Qatar, particularly) have been gradually catching up by flying to cities like Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo, while continuing their expansion on US airspace (e.g. Emirates will fly into Orlando, Qatar is flying into Miami, Etihad is serving Los Angeles), which is why I am not surprised that many of the US legacy carriers’ CEOs are accusing the Gulf airlines from being heavily subsided, claiming unfair competition. Yet, I will leave that question to the legal experts.

What is the main lesson here? That airlines compete for power and influence as much as a state would.

An airline’s main geopolitical power is manifested as: 1) the power in controlling mobilities; 2) the power of transporting cargo, reducing the time, compared to shipping vessels and railway transportation; and 3) the power of being part of the propaganda and media machine of an hegemonic and/or rising power. For instance, in my country (Guatemala), which, unfortunately, due to high criminal violence and corruption, has been part of America’s illegal migration problem for a while. In spite of this migration problem, Guatemala is currently served by four US legacy airlines (Delta, American, United and Spirit), with 9 non-stop flights to United States, and with +50 frequencies of flights between America and Guatemala in a week. In turn, there are only five Latin American—and one European, Iberia—airlines legacy carriers that serve Guatemala, one of them is from Panama (Copa); three from Mexico (Aeromexico, Interjet and Volaris); and one is from Colombia (Avianca). Henceforth, and compared with the Latin American airlines, US-based carriers at least control 44% of the Guatemalan market; additionally controlling European and Asian mobility into Guatemala and the rest of Central America, except for Panama City—which is rapidly growing and served by major European legacy carriers (Iberia, KLM, Air-France, TAP, and Lufthansa this coming march 2016).

Last but not least, airline’s propaganda can dwell in our geographic imagination and induce our hearts and pockets. How? Well, they capture the essence of curiosity. The curiosity of traveling into their countries of origin. The curiosity of using them as linkages into another unknown, untraveled destination. The Curiosity of imagining what is life like in the airlines’ countries of origin. And, the curiosity of having the ‘experience’ of traveling with them. At least, from a Guatemalan standpoint, many of the US-legacy carriers advertise American hallmarks of touristic and geopolitical power, such as photos of the White House, the Statue of Liberty, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the giant Hollywood emblem in the hills of Los Angeles.

With that kind of propaganda, no wonder why many of my countrymen must imagine that as soon as you step in the US, your life will become great, suddenly change, and why not, you will be part of the American dream—and from a business and marketing standpoint, of course, that I congratulate the American airlines. They are making a fine job in serving and connecting Guatemala with the rest of the world.

Yes, airlines can provide many things for our self-esteem (the joy of looking forward to relax in a nice, sunny beach) and our egos (the joy of telling your family and friends that you will travel to a destination they are eager to go but can’t). But, the airlines are also part of the geopolitical architecture of a state’s power: connecting, uniting or burning the bridge between one space and another. The core and the periphery. The served and unserved.

So, my dear reader: are airlines agents of geopolitical power?

Continue Reading
Comments

Economy

Business disorder between Europe and U.S.

Published

on

The European Union remains cautious in the economic battle with the White House. U.S. President Donald Trump continues to pursue his protectionist policies in international trade system. This has led to raising concerns and serious discontent among the United States’ European partners.

Disputes between the United States and other countries around the world are continuing on trade and economic issues. The fact is that U.S. President Donald Trump intends to exacerbate tensions until the presidential elections of 2020. Many international experts and analysts believe that a major part of the economic approach to the world of Trump has an electoral and political goal.

Many international analysts now talk about the conflicts between the United States and Europe over imposing sweeping steel and aluminum tariffs as a transatlantic “trade war”.

Conflicts that may extend in the near future and affect the widespread relations between Washington and Europe.

On the other hand, the authorities of Germany, Britain and France have not taken a proper approach to the policies of the President of the United States.Though politicians such as Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel and Theresa May seek to manage the situation and prevent the exacerbation of tensions with Washington, but people, business owners and European opposition parties are so angry at Trump and the U.S. government that the European troika’s authorities aren’t capable to control or even hide it.

One of the most important reasons for the continuation of Trump’s economic policies in the world is the passivity of European leaders against the White House. Under such circumstances, Europe has threatened to retaliate against the U.S. if Trump imposes steel and aluminum tariffs on European exports.

After Trump made his first announcement on the tariffs, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker threatened to put tariffs on American goods in response to Trump’s decision. That could decrease demand for those products inside EU borders and consequently lead to U.S. workers losing their jobs. But practically, European countries did not do anything about this.

Although some European citizens thought that the Chancellor of Germany would have a more determined approach than other European politicians, this was also a mistake!The German Chancellor stated that European Union member states must give the EU trade commissioner a clear mandate for negotiations with the United States over a long-term exemption from U.S. metal tariffs. Markel added: “Of course, we think it’s important that there are exemptions not only for a limited period of time … So far, we have had a very united stance, namely that we view these tariff demands as unjustified and that we want a long-term exemption.”

The fact is that Merkel’s implicit threat, which she didn’t address directly and explicitly because of her conservative policy towards the United States, is the same as the “European countermeasures” against the United States.

For months now, there have been months of anti-European measures taken by the White House and customs duties on European aluminum and steel. However, European countries have preferred to keep Silent instead of confronting Washington!
Indeed, the prolonged U.S.-EU talks on steel and aluminum tariffs is going to increase the dissatisfaction and anger among the European public opinion. It will also affect the performance of American companies in Europe.

First published in our partner Tehran Times

Continue Reading

Economy

Citizen Capitalism: How a Universal Fund can provide Influence and Income to all

Published

on

In the face of growing wealth inequality worldwide, more and more people are discussing alternatives to the current laissez-faire capitalism status quo.  Tamara Belinfanti, Sergio Gramitto and the late Lynn Stout offer up their own solution in Citizen Capitalism: How a universal fund can provide influence and income to all.

Our authors have devised up a concept they call the Universal Fund.  It’s like a sovereign wealth fund, but is privately created and funded via private ordering. That means that the Universal Fund is to be created from donations of stocks by companies and philanthropists.  The government would hence be uninvolved; the Universal Fund is not a socialist venture.  Rather, it is in part modeled on the structure of NGOs like the Sierra Club and the Red Cross. The Fund would provide an annual dividend to every citizen, with no maximum income cap.  Though it may seem absurd to send welfare payments to the wealthy, it’s politically savvy framing.  A free public college bill was passed in ultraconservative Tennessee thanks to having no maximum income cap; conservative detractors weren’t able to use the “class warfare” and “welfare queen” arguments. It should be noted that charitable tax deductions, estate tax reductions and lowered tax brackets would act as a de facto government incentive for the wealthy to donate to the Universal Fund.

The goals of the Universal Fund would be to decrease wealth inequality, encourage long-term investment and increase civic engagement in corporate culture.  On the last point, the authors remind us that, “The top 10% [of wealthiest Americans] hold more than 90% of all shares.”  Even in regards to the other 10% of shares owned, most of them are passively owned.  Most small-time investors don’t have time to vote in the annual general meetings of every company in which they are invested in.  Thus, boardroom votes are dominated by two shareholder proxy advisory firms and individual investors who own a substantial percentage of shares, as well as fund portfolio & hedge fund managers.

These Wall Street elites naturally tend to vote based upon their elitist interests.  Thus, they usually make decisions that are insane in terms of employee welfare, long-term corporate growth, executive pay and the environment. For example, `the authors remind us of the recent case of Martin Shkreli, the hedge fund manager who acquired Turing Pharmaceuticals and then raised AIDS medication prices from $13.50 to $750. This is the embodiment of the Reagan-era Golden Rule of maximizing shareholder value.  Not only is this Gordon Gekko truism objectively crazy, it’s actually legally unfounded.  Contrary to what you hear on CNBC or Fox Business, there’s no legal requirement that companies only focus on maximizing shareholder value.  The book relates the following quote from Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito comments in the recent case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby:“Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so.”

CITIZEN CAPITALISM points to the ongoing successes of the sovereign wealth funds of Norway and Alaska, an ultraliberal and an ultraconservative society, respectively.  The Alaskan fund generally provides each citizen with a dividend payment of a few thousand dollars each year, via the state’s oil revenues.  The Government Pension Fund Norway is a more pertinent example, since it’s funded through a $1T stock portfolio.  Norway is not only able to fund its citizens’ pensions through the Fund, but also exert a moral influence on the market.  The Fund boycotts various egregious companies, like cigarette manufacturers, and will sell its shares in a company that gets exposed for abusive practices, like say employing child labor.  Our authors likewise want the Universal Fund to use a carrot-and-stick approach in regards to corporate ethics.

The thesis of CITIZEN CAPITALISM is, as the title suggests, rooted in optimism for capitalism.  Though they write about the success of socialist program in Alaska specifically, a conservative state in the US, the authors are convinced that a sovereign wealth fund bill could never be passed in Congress.  Recent polls and election results, however, show that Americans are starting to overwhelmingly favor ambitious government-program proposals like Medicare for All and a Green New Deal.  As I wrote before, the Universal Fund would mostly be feasible due to tax incentives; these government incentives would likely need to be greatly expanded in order to encourage enough stock donations to build the Fund to a substantial size.  Even America’s greatest philanthropists still stockpile billions of dollars in their offshore bank accounts.  Thus, one shouldn’t expect the Universal Fund or other private UBI schemes to become a replacement for state management of wealth inequality through programs like public school funding and marginal taxation.  Nonetheless, CITIZEN CAPITALISM is a stimulating little primer for rethinking the relationship between Wall St and Main St, managing the looming crises of a rapidly aging workforce and automation, plus the balancing of private and public sectors in regards to solving societal problems.

Continue Reading

Economy

Working for a brighter future

Cyril Ramaphosa

Published

on

Authors: Cyril Ramaphosa and Stefan Löfven*

We stand at a crossroads as seismic shifts take place in the world of work.

Technological advances are changing the nature of many jobs, and leading to the need for new skills. The urgently required greening of economies to meet the challenge of climate change should bring further employment possibilities. Expanding youth populations in some parts of the world, ageing populations in others, may affect labour markets and social security systems.

On one path, countless opportunities lie ahead, not only to create jobs but also to improve the quality of our working lives. This requires that we reinvigorate the social contract that gives all partners a fair stake in the global economy.

On the other path, if we fail to prepare adequately for the coming challenges, we could be heading into a world that widens inequalities and leads to greater uncertainty.

The issues are complex. As co-chairs of the Global Commission on the Future of Work  we, and our fellow members of the Commission – leading figures from business and labour, think tanks, government and non-governmental organizations – have been examining the choices we need to make if we are to meet the challenges resulting from these transformations in the world of work and achieve social justice.

We call for a new, human-centred approach that allows everyone to thrive in a carbon neutral, digital age and affords them dignity, security, and equal opportunity. It must also meet the changing needs and challenges facing businesses and secure sustainable economic growth.

The opportunities are there to improve working lives, expand choice, close the gender gap and reverse the damage that has been wreaked by global inequality.

But it will need committed action on the part of governments and social partners to turn those opportunities into reality.

So how do we achieve this? Three areas of increased investment are needed:

First, we have to invest more in people’s capabilities: This means establishing an effective lifelong learning system that enables people to skill, reskill and upskill – a system that spans early childhood and basic education through to adult learning. It also means investing in the institutions that will support people as they go through transitions in their working lives – from school leavers to older workers. Making gender equality a reality and providing social protection from birth to old age are also critical. These social investments will not only increase productivity. They will also allow for a more inclusive growth, where informal workers and business can both benefit from and contribute to a sound formal economy.

Second, we must invest more in the institutions of work – including the establishment and implementation of a Universal Labour Guarantee. This will ensure that all workers enjoy fundamental rights, an “adequate living wage”, limits on their hours of work and safe and healthy workplaces. Linked to this, people need to have more control over their working time – while meeting the needs of enterprises – so that they can fulfill the full range of their responsibilities and develop their capabilities.

Collective representation through social dialogue between workers and employers needs to be actively promoted. Workers in the informal economy have often improved their working conditions by organizing. Unions need to expand membership to informal workers, whether they work in the rural economy, on the city streets of an emerging economy or on a digital platform. This is a critical step towards formalization and a tool for inclusion.

We’re also calling for governance systems for digital labour platforms that will require these platforms and their clients to respect certain minimum standards.

Finally, we need to invest more in decent and sustainable work. This includes incentives to promote investments in key areas, such as the care economy, the green economy, and the rural economy, as well as high-quality physical and digital infrastructure. We must also reshape private sector incentive structures to encourage a long-term, human-centred approach to business. That includes fair tax policies and improved corporate accounting standards. We need to explore new measures of country progress to track important aspects of economic and social advancement.

Beyond these critical investments, there is a further opportunity: to place discussions about the future of work at the heart of the economic and social debates taking place at the high table of international policy-making. This could revitalize the multilateral system at a time when many are questioning its legitimacy and effectiveness.

Yet none of this will happen by itself. If change is the opportunity, we must seize the moment to renew the social contract and create a brighter future by delivering economic security, equal opportunity and social justice – and ultimately reinforce the fabric of our societies.

Stefan Löfven, Prime Minister of Sweden, co-chairs of the ILO Global Commission on the Future of Work

ILO

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy