One significant point to consider, says the author of the article Bored of Peace?, is the lack of representation from key global players, notably countries like Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, and Yemen. Not surprisingly, to anyone, even Denmark is excluded. This raises eyebrows given that the Board currently lacks any representatives from sub-Saharan Africa, despite the region's substantial population and potential contributions to global dialogue.
Nangle stresses that the membership largely comprises nations categorized as emerging markets (EM) rather than those from developed markets (DM). Most acceptances have been from countries with non-investment-grade credit ratings, while investment-grade nations uniformly declined invitations. This divergence highlights a potential financial dimension—a correlation suggesting that lower-rated sovereigns may find alignment in Trump's vision, while higher-rated countries opt out.
As Nangle points out, the stark differences in credit default swaps (CDS) between invited and rejected nations, with those who accepted the invitation averaging about 170 basis points, compared to a mere 27 basis points for those declining. This distinction raises curiosity about why certain countries, despite their strong financial standing, have chosen to bypass participation. For instance, Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia are notable exceptions; they are foundational members yet maintain higher CDS values than many rejected nations.
Furthermore, the MSCI equity index classifications present a layered complication. While most constituents from developed markets were invited, only Israel has so far accepted, albeit with constraints surrounding its leadership. The absence of politically stable nations with stronger democratic credentials on the Board calls into question its long-term viability and purpose.
As Nangle highlights, analyzing various metrics—such as the credibility of elections and the effectiveness of legislatures—reveals a trend: those countries with a higher representation score tend not to engage with the Board. Surprisingly, to Nangle, members often have lower democratic scores and limited involvement in peaceful conflict resolution.
In this context, the Board of Peace appears as a loosely held coalition, potentially characterized as an "axis of non-African, externally aggressive, internally repressive, generally junky credits." While this classification may seem far-fetched, it serves as a reminder of the complex geopolitical dynamics at play.
While Trump's Board of Peace aims to forge new paths for international cooperation, its composition and foundational logic raise questions about its effectiveness and cohesion in the face of testing times ahead.
Our opinion
One could argue that, if the Board aims to foster dialogue and resolve longstanding conflicts, it could potentially benefit Gazans and others affected by regional tensions by providing a framework for peace and stability. However, the exclusion of certain key nations and the focus on non-investment-grade countries raises concerns about the sincerity and effectiveness of these efforts.
In addition, the Board may appear as an adventurous gamble, prioritizing financial interests over moral considerations. That may hurt its legitimacy and acceptance from seasoned diplomats. Any intent to sideline traditional institutions like the UN could undermine established diplomatic channels and established international processes, which are crucial for addressing humanitarian crises.
Ultimately, while there is potential for positive outcomes, the risks associated with this approach—particularly if driven by narrow self-interest—suggest it may not effectively serve the best interests of those most affected, especially the Gazans. A balanced, inclusive approach that respects human rights and international law would be essential for any lasting solution.
Credit: Toby Nangle, Financial Times
Is the Trump Board of Peace comprised of an axis of exclusive, externally aggressive, internally repressive junk nations?
No comments:
Post a Comment