Reconstrucción del Orden Monetario Internacional : la responsabilidad de Europa, Japón y Estados Unidos

Una de las principales condiciones para asegurar el desarrollo a largo plazo y el éxito del orden económico y político liberal internacional es la vuelta a un orden monetario internacional estable y regulado. Ello puede beneficiar tanto a países grandes como a pequeños, ya sean desarrollados o en vías de desarrollo. De hecho, la ausencia de un orden monetario internacional desde 1970 y el regionalismo y nacionalismo monetario han provocado la inexistencia de mecanismos de ajuste equitativos y equilibradotes de los excesos de la economía mundial. Las crisis financieras recurrentes han dañado las economías no sólo de los países más pobres, sino también de los ricos. La tarea de diseñar, negociar e implantar un nuevo orden monetario internacional es un reto que combina aspectos económicos y políticos. Un posible acercamiento a este diseño puede estar inspirado por el Sistema Monetario Europeo (SME) original. La responsabilidad de llevar a cabo un SME ampliado corresponde principalmente a las tres economías de mercado más importantes: Estados Unidos, la Unión Europea y Japón. La implantación de este SME ampliado beneficiaría a toda la economía mundial incluyendo las economías emergentes como Brasil, China e India, y otras más débiles que sufren principalmente los efectos de las crisis financieras recurrentes. A largo plazo el sistema podría ampliarse a nuevos miembros, de modo que se convirtiera en un auténtico sistema universal. Pero únicamente el compromiso y la participación de las tres principales economías Estados Unidos, la Unión Europea y Japón podría garantizar su éxito. Es más, la ausencia de cualquiera de ellas conllevaría de forma inevitable el fracaso del sistema, con las consecuencias que ello implicaría para el desarrollo de una economía mundial integrada y próspera._______________________One of the principal conditions to assure the long-term development and success of the liberal international economic and political order is the return to a stable, equitable and rule-based international monetary order. This is in the interests of large and small, rich and poor and “emerging” countries alike. In fact, the absence since the 1970s of a universal monetary order and the prevailing monetary nationalism and regionalism at a time of globalization and global finance have been responsible for a lack of equitable adjustment mechanisms and of effective checks and balances on financial and fiscal excesses in the world economy. The recurring financial crises have been hurting the economies not only of the poorer but by now also of the richest economies. The task of designing, negotiating and implementing a new international monetary order is clearly a combined political and economic and security challenge. A possible approach for a new design could be inspired by the original “European Monetary System” (EMS). The responsibility for this initiative for an “Extended EMS” belongs first and foremost to the three principal market economies: the United States, the European Union and Japan. From the start this “Extended EMS” would benefit the entire world economy – including the major new powers such as Brazil, China and India, and the weaker economies that suffer the most from the recurring financial crises. In the long run it would also be open to new members in order to become a truly universal system. But it is only the commitment and active participation of the three main pillars of the liberal international economic order, the US, Europe and Japan could be the guaranty of success: the absence of either one of the three would inevitably lead to failure with dire consequences for the outlook for an integrated and prosperous world economy

Refugee Children and their Future

Although children constitute half of the world's refugee population, the long-term future of refugee children still does not receive sufficient attention in the general debate on the refugee issue, and in particular on so-called durable solutions. The positive impact of the successful integration and assimilation in the past of millions and millions of refugees is largely discarded as irrelevant under "today's changed conditions”. Equally ignored are the lessons that should have been learned from having allowed during the last 60 years millions and millions of generations of children to be born and raised as refugees with the only future promised to them being a "return” to the past. The conclusion of the present article is that refugee children represent a tremendous potential for the good and also for future crises and suffering. Thus, one of the principal litmus tests of the quality of refugee policies should be: "What do they do for the long-term future of refugee children?