by Bill O’Grady

On November 17^th, Chileans went to the polls to vote on a new president and parliament.  Polls correctly forecasted that Michelle Bachelet, who was president from 2006-10, would win a plurality.  She won a whopping 47% of the vote, beating seven other candidates handily.  The second place finisher, Evelyn Matthei, won 25% of the vote.  These two women, who are friends from childhood, will face each other in a runoff election on December 15^th.

In this report, we offer short biographies of the two candidates, focusing mostly on Bachelet.  From there, we will provide a short history of Chile, primarily to highlight the tensions between the forces of liberalization and reaction.  An examination of the Allende-Pinochet period will detail the factors that have affected Chile’s political structure over the past five decades.  Recent student protests frame a significant demographic change that is affecting Chilean politics and moving the country beyond the issues experienced in the 1970s.  As always, we will conclude with market ramifications.

View the full report

by Bill O’Grady

Earlier this month, negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 (U.S., U.K., France, China and Russia, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany) failed to reach an agreement despite great hopes that one was near.  In fact, on expectations that a proposed nuclear deal was in the offing, U.S. Secretary of State Kerry cut short his talks with Israel and the Palestinians to join the discussions.  However, near the end of the talks, France raised objections to the proposed agreement and its concerns could not be resolved.  And so, the parties agreed to meet later this month but with lower level officials manning the discussions.

U.S. and French relations have seen many twists and turns since the end of WWII.  France refused to join NATO and opted for its own nuclear arsenal.  It tried to hew a line between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War, upsetting both sides at times.  France was a reluctant ally during the Gulf War and was strongly opposed to America’s war to oust Saddam Hussein in 2003.  However, France strongly backed the effort to protect Libyans from the wrath of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 and also pressed to use military force against the Assad regime for deploying chemical weapons.  France is one of the best examples of Lord Palmerston’s famous quote, “Nations have permanent interests but no permanent friends.”

In this report, we will examine the reasons behind French objections to a nuclear deal with Iran.  We will begin with an examination of France’s relations with the Middle East, focusing on its relations with Israel.  Using this history as a guide, we will analyze why the French scotched the potential agreement.  A short discussion will follow of the impact of France’s objection on the evolution of U.S. policy with Iran.  As always, we will conclude with market ramifications.

View the full report

by Bill O’Grady & Kaisa Stucke

A twice yearly meeting of the Chinese government officials, formally known as the third plenary session of the 18^th Communist Party of China Central Committee, started on Saturday and will end tomorrow.

Officials have indicated that this plenary session could be a springboard for major reforms.  In fact, Chinese General Secretary Xi Jinping has indicated that this session could be as consequential as the plenary session in 1978 which introduced policies that set in motion the Chinese growth engine.  The 1978 meeting was a significant turning point for both the country and the Communist Party itself.

This week, we are going to take a closer look at the changes from the plenary session 35 years ago, the circumstances leading up to the session and how China changed following the meeting.  In understanding the changes associated with the 1978 meeting, we can better assess the statement that this week’s meeting could be just as significant.

View the full report

by Bill O’Grady

On October 18^th, Saudi King Abdullah’s government announced that his kingdom would reject an invitation by the U.N. Security Council to occupy a seat on the council.  This rejection is the first in the history of the United Nations and occurred after Saudi diplomats had worked diligently to garner the invitation.  The rejection came as a surprise to the U.N. and to the U.S.

According to reports, King Abdullah decided to reject the seat due to the Security Council’s “double standards.”  He argued that the inability to resolve the Palestinian issue, prevent the proliferation of WMD and stop the Syrian regime from killing its citizens as reasons for the refusal to accept the post.  However, these factors are generally thought to be excuses.  Instead, the Saudi regime, incensed at U.S. policy decisions, rejected the seat as a way to express the kingdom’s displeasure with the American government.  We note that Turkey and Egypt, also unhappy with recent decisions by the Obama administration, supported the kingdom’s decision.

In this report, we will discuss the basic history of U.S. and Saudi relations, focusing on the historical commonality of goals between the two nations.  We will detail how the aims of the two nations have diverged since the Cold War ended and use this to examine America’s evolving plans for the Middle East.  We will discuss how the evolution of U.S. policy is affecting Saudi Arabia and the pressures these changes are bringing to the kingdom.  As always, we will conclude with market ramifications.

View the full report

by Kaisa Stucke & Bill O’Grady

India has fought numerous wars with outside forces in its history and has also had several internal conflicts.  The most notorious civil struggle has been the conflict with Kashmir insurgents, a border conflict between India and Pakistan that has claimed tens of thousands of lives.  So it generally came as a surprise when the Indian Prime Minister Manmohn Singh declared the Maoist movement in the eastern part of the country to be the single biggest internal security challenge ever faced by India.

The Indian Maoist movement can be traced back to the 1920s; however, the Naxalite group became a formal movement in 1967 after it became actively violent.  The group was inspired by the agrarian revolution ideology as a means to achieve equality.  The long-term goal of the organization is to capture political power by violently overthrowing the Indian state.  Although the central government has boosted efforts in the fight against these extremists, the group has spread to involve about a third of India’s territory.  The Naxalites are considered far-left radical communists and are declared a terrorist group under Indian law.

In this report we will look into the Maoist movement in India, starting with its history.  We will then explore how the movement has survived centralized efforts to eradicate it, paying special attention to the unique context of Indian society and politics.  We will conclude by assessing the likelihood of the group’s success and the global geopolitical consequences.

View the full report

by Bill O’Grady

At the time of this publication the budget situation has not been resolved, although it appears that both parties are backing away from the default abyss.  However, given that these crises seem to come once or twice a year, it seemed appropriate to weigh in on the geopolitical impact of the intractable problems of American government.

In this report, we will discuss the evolution of the American political system over the past century, examining how these changes have affected governance.  From there, we will move to how the uncertainty surrounding American governance affects global geopolitics, including a discussion of what we believe is the root cause of this turmoil.  As always, we will conclude with market ramifications.

View the full report

by Bill O’Grady

As is our custom, in mid-December, we publish our geopolitical outlook for the coming year.  This list is not designed to be exhaustive.  As is often the case, a myriad of potential problems in the world could become issues in the coming year.  The lineup listed below details, in our opinion, the issues most likely to have the greatest impact on the world.  However, we do recognize the potential for surprises which we will discuss throughout the year in the weekly reports.  This will be our last report for 2012; our next report will be published on January 14, 2013.  And so, we wish all our readers happy holidays and a joyous 2013.

Issue #1: The Continued Evolution of U.S. Hegemony

Issue #2: The Rearming of the Axis

Issue #3: The Arab Spring Develops Unabated

Issue #4: The Problem of China

Issue #5: The Great Game between China and Russia

View the full report