So, according to the story, one of these days there will be a Wile E. Coyote moment for the dollar: the moment when the cartoon character, who has run off a cliff, looks down and realizes that he’s standing on thin air – and plunges. In this case, investors suddenly realize that Stein’s Law applies — “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop” – and they realize they need to get out of dollars, causing the currency to plunge. Maybe the dollar’s Wile E. Coyote moment has arrived – although, again, I’ve been wrong about this so far.
Krugman adds that the Saudis are rumoured to be about to diversify into euros. Certainly, if they had been buying euros instead of dollar for the last 5 years, they’d be a lot better off now, as this graph shows:
(You can get a dynamic version of this graph from Yahoo)
So it seems likely that governments, worried about the fall in value of their dollar holdings, will not buy dollars in future and will diversify their existing holdings into other currencies, particularly the euro. This reduction in the demand for dollars will in turn cause further drops in the value of the dollar, prompting those countries that haven’t already shifted their holdings out of it to do so. It seems likely that we are seeing the end of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
An appeal court in Saudi Arabia has doubled the number of lashes and added a jail sentence as punishment for a woman who was gang-raped.
The victim was initially punished for violating laws on segregation of the sexes - she was in an unrelated man’s car at the time of the attack. When she appealed, the judges said she had been attempting to use the media to influence them.
Of course this is largely the result of Wahhabism, the so-conservative-it-makes-the-dark-ages-look-enlightened form of Islam that is the state religion of Saudi Arabia.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is on a state visit to Britain at the moment, and as his limo arrived to meet the Queen, the band of the Coldstream Guards played the Imperial March theme from Star Wars, a tune associated specifically with arch-villain Darth Vader. Someone’s idea of a joke?
The Policy Exchange has uncovered the presence, in mosques, islamic schools, and other cultural organisations, of political material which flies in the face of the values which Inayat and I cherish.
Hate material was found at only 25% of British Mosques surveyed. However, those mosques were typically those generously funded by Saudi Arabia, and included many institutions regarded as both moderate and mainstream.
One of the examples he gives is this:
I believe that Jehad is obligatory against hostile, non-compromising, nonMuslim states if Muslims have enough power to carry it out, so that their force is broken and they do not obstruct the preaching of Islam. Aggressive Jehad is not advisable against those non hostile and compromising non Muslim states who allow preaching of Islam in their territories particularly these days when territorial subjugation is generally condemned in the world, contrary to the times when capture of land was common. The Aggressive Jehads of the major part of Islamic history all belong to the same period. However, Muslims must attain their martial superiority and keep expanding it so that non Muslim states remain subdued ‘for fear of Jehad’, to say nothing of actual Jehad.
– Islam and Modernism, Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani who is a prominent Deobandi cleric
Now let’s modify this paragraph somewhat:
I believe that war is morally correct against hostile, non-compromising, non-Western states that are part of the Axis of Evil if the USA and its allies have enough power to carry it out, so that their force is broken and they do not obstruct the spread of freedom and democracy. Aggressive war is not advisable against those non-hostile and compromising non-Western states particularly these days when territorial subjugation is generally condemned in the world, contrary to the times when capture of land was common. However, the USA must keep its military superiority so that non-Western states remain subdued for fear of being attacked, to say nothing of actually being attacked.
This paragraph is probably very close to the beliefs of George Bush and Tony Blair. If one is hate speech and should be banned, then on what grounds is the other not hate speech? Or does David T think statements like the 2nd should be banned too?
Vince Cable, the acting leader of the Liberal Democrats, is refusing to meet King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who is currently in Britain on a state visit:
Mr Cable says he will not attend any of the planned ceremonial events - as would be normal for the leader of one of the main opposition parties.
Mr Cable told the BBC’s Today programme that by any assessment of Saudi Arabia, “the human rights record is appalling”. He also cited the regime’s arms deal with the British firm BAE and the row over alleged corruption surrounding it.
Mr Cable added: “I think it’s quite wrong that as a country we should give the leader of Saudi Arabia this honour.” He said that although Britain has a “business-like” relationship with the country, Britain would not dream of extending the same invitation to other controversial leaders like Libya’s Colonel Gadaffi. He said he had also been critical of the Saudi regime’s treatment of Britons.
Cable is probably wrong about Gadaffi — if Gadaffi was buying 20 billion quid of British weapons, he’d likely get a state visit too. (And why not? Being nice to foreigners with dodgy human rights records is OK if Britain can make a profit out of doing so.)
Jonathan Calder of Liberal England and Rumbold of Pickled Politics both approve of Cable’s behaviour. I don’t. I think if Cable has problems with Saudi Arabia (and particularly its human rights record) he should attend the events, and tell the Saudis politely but firmly what he thinks. While talking to people you disagree with might not solve all the world’s problems, it’s likely to be more effective than I’m-not-talking-to-you gesture politics.
In particular, Cable should tell the Saudis that relations between the UK and the KSA would be improved if the Saudis didn’t torture or otherwise infringe the rights of UK nationals detained in their country. And that if Saudi Arabia improved rights for women, particularly the right to drive, they would not only get a much better image in the West, they would also be doing their country’s economy a favour — it’s ridiculous to ignore or suppress the talents of a large portion of their country’s people. Saudi Arabia’s oil isn’t going to last forever, and they should be preparing now for when it ends.
In the longer term, one’s thoughts should turn to the question of how does one improve human rights throughout the world, and in particular prevent foreign dictators from torturing Britons. It seems to me that part of the answer lies in creating a stronger, bigger, better armed, more unified European Union, which because of its size and power would have a large array of sticks and carrots with with to persuade foreign countries to do what we want. Then, if foreigners tortured civilized people EU citizens, we could credibly threaten to bomb or invade their country, to boycott their goods, to arm their enemies, etc.
