International politics

The International Monetary Fund used to be hated, blamed for the privatisation programmes it imposed across the world in exchange for loans. Then it spent a decade in relative obscurity. Now, as countries like Greece are forced to beg for loans, the Bretton Woods institution has again become a popular bogeyman. Every Greek protester thinks that all would be well if only their government had a Love, Actually moment and told the IMF where to go. But the IMF — with its hard-nosed, unsentimental policies — is often what is needed to save governments from themselves. Take Afghanistan. As The Guardian reported yesterday, the Afghan government will struggle to pay its bills "within a month," after the IMF rejected proposals for resolving the Kabul Bank scandal.

After weeks of violence, the end of the Assad regime is now inevitable. It may take weeks, months or years, but the kind of damage that President Assad has inflicted on his domestic credibility and international standing cannot be repaired. The country's two most populous cities, Aleppo and the capital Damascus have remained calm, but now protesters are defying the army. More than 300 members of the governing party have resigned and publicly condemned the crackdown. Crucially, the army's loyalty is now in doubt. It is said some military units have refused to quell the protesters in Damascus.

What does Turkey actually think? That's an issue that has been occupying many Europeans, as the vital NATO ally heads to the polls. On the one hand Turkey has in the last 10 years become more like the West: globalised, economically liberal and democratic. Turkey’s economy is now the world’s 16thlargest, the sixth largest in Europe. But, at the same time, questions arise about its recent policies: will it consolidate its democratic achievements, or is it threatened by a populist tyranny or even authoritarian rule? Certainly, many fear that Prime Minister Recyp Erdogan's behaviour is moving Turkey away from the West, both in terms of internal policy and external alignmen.

In a clear move to distract attention from his own problems, Syrian president Bashir Assad has allowed people to march from the Syrian border toward the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, in the hope it will lead to a violent reaction from the Israelis. It did. Israeli forces opened fire on the people, wounding several. There are reports of at least four people killed and 13 wounded but these have not been verified. There can be no doubt that the incursion is part of a Syrian plan. The protests coincide with the 44th anniversary of the Six-Day War, when Israel captured the Golan from Syria, as well as the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The border area is a military zone and people will have been bussed or waved through Syrian checkpoints 50 kilometres before they reached the border.

The pressure is being turned up on Colonel Gaddafi, but it may still take a while to have an effect. The Libyan dictator retains some form of power and has told the only person who has been granted access to see him, South Africa's Jacob Zuma, that he intends to stay on in Libya. He wants a ceasefire before anything else is discussed. The rebels in Benghazi, meanwhile, want him to go before anything else is discussed. And so the bombing goes on. At the UN, people talk of negotiated settlement, fearing that chaos would follow Gaddafi's killing. That may be true, but there has been little evidence so far that the colonel is willing to negotiate in anything approaching good faith.

As Ratko Mladic faces his accusers at the Hague, it’s instructive to revisit the fallout from one of the atrocities he is alleged to have committed. The Srebrenica massacre was both a horrendous tragedy and a horrendous failure of internationalism – a point the Spectator made cautiously as news of the war crime emerged. No End of a Lesson, The Spectator, 22 July 1995 The tragedy in Bosnia is so harrowing, the United Nations’ failure so all-embracing, the West’s humiliation so total that it is difficult as yet to see beyond them. But for the Bosnians themselves, the worst may now be passed. Whether the defeated international powers stage some dramatic military feat before their departure is largely irrelevant to those they were sent to protect.

I wrote back in November that as we approached the July deadline when President Obama promised to start drawing down troops from Afghanistan, the tensions between politicians and military would re-emerge, as “the military ask for more time to get it right, and Obama tries to hold them to the deal he thought he made in late 2009”. This is now coming to pass, in London as well as Washington. I also argued that having some sort of public timetable for the troop drawdown was a reasonable solution, perhaps the only solution, to the politicians’ problem of balancing conflicting messages to different audiences in Afghanistan and at home.