The Illusion of Foreign Investment Growth.

The Illusion of Foreign Investment Growth? Africa Must Break With the World Capitalist System

By Abayomi Azikiwe
Global Research, July 08, 2014

Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-illusion-of-foreign-investment-growth-africa-must-break-with-the-world-capitalist-system/5390356

How long and deep can the current character of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) penetrate the social legacy of colonialism and neo-colonialism in Africa? Proclamations of economic growth throughout the continent are being received with much skepticism and consequently prompting the desire among many to address the persistent poverty, inefficiency and growing class divisions.

In a recent report issued by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) entitled “Catalyzing Investments for Transformative Growth in Africa,” it reveals that the rate of FDI in Africa is significantly lower than what exists in other so-called developing regions. These figures indicate that the reliance on western capital to fuel growth and development absent of a program for national reconstruction, will not work.

According to Ghana Web “Africa’s investment rate is low compared to the average for developing countries and relative to what is considered necessary to achieve development goals, the 2014 Economic Development in Africa report ha established.”

Therefore based on an annual average,

“the investment rate for Africa was about 18 per cent over the period 1990–1999 as compared to an average of 24 per cent for developing economies as a whole. The report said similarly, in the period 2000–2011, the average investment rate for Africa was about 19 per cent as compared to 26 per cent for developing economies generally. “

These statistics could represent a lag in overcoming the development challenges which have been imposed by colonialism and neo-colonialism. Nonetheless, the consistently expanding oil and natural gas industry in various regions of Africa should translate into higher levels of investment as well as growth rates being discussed in the financial media.

Other factors may also include unresolved and burgeoning civil conflicts and inter-state border disputes. The Boko Haram insurgency in the northeast of Nigeria has led to the intervention of United States intelligence and military interests.

Since late 2010, the North African nations of Tunisia and Egypt have not stabilized economically since the uprisings in those states. The Horn of Africa country of Somalia and the eastern regional state of Kenya are both embroiled and inter-connected in a counter-insurgency campaign with the high level interventions of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Pentagon and the European Union (EU).

All of these factors influence whether or not Africa will achieve genuine development or merely economic growth that does not fundamentally alter the international division of economic power and labor. If Africa cannot effectively stabilize its own internal situation then no one can honestly say that actual progress is being made which is sustainable.

Events in several African states clearly make the case for re-examining the notion of western investment-led growth. From Southern Africa to the West African state of Ghana and the North African country of Egypt, socio-economic problems are escalating requiring a new approach to the organization of society and its economic structures.

NUMSA Organizes Largest Sectors Strike in South Africa

On July 1 the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) embarked upon a strike which is demanding a 15 percent across the board pay hike and a R1000 housing allowance. Representatives of the National Employers’ Association of South Africa (NEASA) said that talks with NUMSA leaders on July 4 failed to reach an agreement on their economic demands.

The industrial bosses affected by the NUMSA strike and other labor unrest in South Africa can only respond to workers’ demands through threats of mass lay-offs and capital flight. The ruling African National Congress (ANC) fresh from another majority victory in the national elections of May 7, does not have control of the major industries inside the country and therefore cannot impose a settlement that would raise wages and improve working conditions for employees.

NUMSA pointed out that the metal industry has shed 250,000 jobs in the last five years in South Africa. The bosses utilize this fact, which is a direct result of the world capitalist crisis of overproduction internationally, to rationalize the wiping out tens of millions of jobs throughout the globe.

According to CEO Gerhard Papenfus of the industrial owners’ group NEASA “The metal industry and South Africa face extremely difficult challenges. On the one hand there are workers who struggle to make ends meet and on the other hand SMMEs (small, medium and micro enterprises) simply cannot meet workers’ wage expectations.” (Citizen, July 7)

Papenfus continued saying “Unless we find ways to break the chains on this industry, as NEASA is proposing, the future of manufacturing in South Africa is bleak. We will not be party to any agreement responsible for the further destruction of the industry.” (Citizen, July 7)

Ghana: Occupy Flagstaff House

The West African state of Ghana has been championed over the last several years for its phenomenal economic growth. With the discovery oil and the country’s vast deposits of gold and other strategic minerals, foreign investment has poured into the state which was a pioneer in the African liberation movements during the post-World War II period.

Ghana’s first prime minister and president Dr. Kwame Nkrumah led the former British colony in its positive action campaign of the early 1950s creating a coalition government resulting in full-independence in 1957. In 1960 Ghana became a republic. However, the Nkrumaist program of Pan-Africanism and socialist development was overthrown at the aegis of the CIA and international finance capital in early 1966.

Although the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) under President John Mahama is considered more progressive than the main conservative opposition forces of the National Patriotic Party (NPP), both political formations remain trapped in the dominant world system of capitalism which places the interests of corporations and banks far ahead of those of workers, farmers and youth. At present there are burgeoning economic issues impacting Ghana including high unemployment, fuel shortages and a lack of confidence in the current political dispensation.

A so-called Occupy Flagstaff House (presidential headquarters) demonstration was held in conjunction with Republic Day on July 1 which brought out hundreds of disgruntled mainly middle class Ghanaians. Officially the organizing group known as the Concerned Ghanaians for Responsible Governance (CGRG) was not connected with the opposition NPP, despite the claims made by supporters of the NDC government.

In a report published in the Ghana media

“The CGRG on July 1, Republic Day organized the Occupy Flagstaff House demonstration that saw about 300 largely middle class people who defied rainfall to march in protest at what they described as the worsening economic conditions in the country. The demonstration which was almost disallowed by the police finally came off under heavy security presence. [The government] Chief of Staff who accepted a petition on behalf of the president assured the demonstrators that their request will be duly addressed.” (myjoyonline.com, July 4)

Coinciding with the CGRG demonstrations outside Flagstaff House were complaints regarding huge delays in fuel purchases for motorists. In a country which is an emerging oil-producing state such bottlenecks reveal serious issues within the infrastructural development of the country.

Other problems are surfacing in the education sector where the Ghana National Association of Teachers (GNAT) has warned the Mahama government to keep its hands off their pension fund. The group opposes the restructuring of the pension system through the appointment of a so-called “fund manager”.

These problems with the sustainability of public pensions are reminiscent of the crisis facing Western European and U.S. systems where major struggles are emerging over the purported under funding of these schemes. Nonetheless, the capitalist governments throughout the world promote the rising profitability of banks and other corporations and this is usually manifested in the worsening conditions for workers, farmers and youth.

Egypt: The Military President and the Rising Cost of Fuel

With the conclusion of a controversial election in Egypt during June, the military leader turned head-of-state Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has assumed office amid a monumental boycott by opposition forces at the polls. Immediately Al-Sisi was invited to address the recently-held African Union 23rd Summit in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea despite the deaths and imprisonment of thousands of Muslim Brotherhood supporters and other opposition forces since July 3, 2013 when the army formally retook control of the state.

Those who hailed the seizure of power by Gen. Al-Sisi last year claimed that the military intervention amid the June 30 protest actions constituted a “second revolution.” However this second revolution comes at an enormous price to the Egyptian masses.

One aspect of this new political arrangement is the announcement by Al-Sisi on July 4 that the price of fuel would be raised by 78 percent. This is the direct result of the reduction in fuel subsidies which constitutes 25 percent of the national budget.

Al-Sisi asked Egyptians to sacrifice in light of his austerity measures that are in line with the international financial system which is imposing higher prices and lower salaries on workers throughout the world. Prices for electricity usage also rose at the beginning of the month.

Africa Must Break With the World Capitalist System to Achieve Real Growth and Sustainable Development

These events in the three above-mentioned African states provide glaring examples of the ongoing economic crises taking place on the continent. With Africa firmly integrated into the international financial order of labor and mineral exploitation at the expense of the much-need improvements in the salaries and living conditions of the majority of people, there is almost no potential within the existing political arrangements for substantial advancements in the socio-economic status of the workers, farmers and youth.

The rising expectations of working people related to the FDI-led policy orientations will undoubtedly prompt social unrest through strikes, mass demonstrations and other forms of resistance. If the notions of phenomenal growth within the neo-colonial African states cannot produce hope for the people then the much coveted political stability will remain unrealized.

Considering the tremendous reservoir of oil, natural gas and strategic minerals in Africa, there is no reason for the continent to remain trapped in the cycle of economic dependency on the imperialist states. Resources which belong to Africa must be effectively utilized for the betterment of the people.

This much-needed shift in economic and political policy formulation and implementation must take place within a continental socialist framework. If there is no serious effort to foster and mandate the equitable distribution of wealth and power, then the AU member-states will surely fail in their mission to accelerate the living standards on the continent.

The reported discussions about an African Monetary Zone and military Stand by-force cannot be implemented until the extraction, trade and distribution of resources of the continent can serve to benefit the still-impoverished masses. As long as African leaders look to the West for direction and fair treatment the existing class divisions will accelerate precipitously and the unity of the continent under socialism remains a far distant objective.

Copyright © 2014 Global Research

Moment of Truth: “Fascism As It Is” in Ukraine : A film by Andrey Karaulov

Moment of Truth: “Fascism As It Is” in Ukraine

A film by Andrey Karaulov

By Andrey Karaulov

Global Research, June 29, 2014

We bring to the attention of GR readers a film by Russian TV journalist, author and host of the “Moment of Truth” Andrei Karaulov

“Ukrainian fascism.” The film is dedicated to the tragic events in Ukraine.

The film’s title refers to the classic tape Mikhail Romm’s “Ordinary Fascism.”

In an interview with IA “Tatar-Inform” Andrei Karaulov said that work on the movie began 10 days ago.

“It turns out, there is still no documentary in our country, which would gather together at least some of the crimes that occurred in the south-east of Ukraine in April, May and June this year. Here we have done the job. And the most important thing in this film, of course, no questions asked Karaulova, and the testimony of those witnesses (over 10 people), who found the courage and strength to tell the truth, having gone through hell in Mariupol, Odessa, etc. “- he said .

The film is intended for Europe, United States, United Nations.

“I talked with the Foreign Minister of the country, and asked him for help – to make it look the ambassadors of all countries in the UN. Those ambassadors who have a conscience and a genuine interest in the events that are currently taking place in the People’s Republic of Donetsk “- said the journalist.

On Monday, June 23 disc with pictures will be on the table at the UN Secretary General. Andrei Karaulov also able to contact the Chief of Staff to Barack Obama and to deliver a letter and drive to U.S. President saw the movie and voiced his opinion on it. A similar request by the picture appealed to the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko.

“All Western media accredited in Moscow, ignored not only the picture, but that came to the show specifically leader Donetsk Republic, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the DNI Dennis Pushilin. Afraid to look! “- Said Andrei Sentries.

The era of American drone supremacy is fading

June 29, 2014 4:56 pm
The era of American drone supremacy is fading
By Edward Luce FT
America would not tolerate another country operating with the same scope and secrecy
Ed Luce column©Matt Kenyon

In much of the world, the Predator drone symbolises US power. It is ubiquitous, stealthy and can strike at any moment. They patrol the skies of central Asia, north Africa, the Arabian peninsula – and now Iraq. Other countries have nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers. But nobody else can match the lethal ingenuity of America’s Hellfire missile. Little surprise that two US presidents – George W Bush, and now Barack Obama – have resorted to them so frequently. But their heyday is waning. America’s unipolar drone moment is ending.

Mr Obama’s chief problem is their speedy adoption around the world. Unlike nuclear weapons, there is no treaty governing the use of military drones. For roughly a decade, the Central Intelligence Agency has been able to strike targets pretty much with impunity – and blanket deniability. Of America’s partners, only the UK has been deemed fit for export. But others, including Iran, whose drones also patrol the same Iraqi skies as their US counterparts, have reverse engineered the unmanned aerial vehicle with relative ease. China is even exporting drones. Last month Saudi Arabia became its first big customer. Within five years, many countries, some of them highly unsavoury, will possess military drones, says the Rand Corporation.

All of which poses a quandary for Mr Obama and whoever succeeds him. Put simply, the US must emulate the hypocritical parent: do as I say, not as I do. Nobody wants other countries to act like the US. Many voices, including Mr Obama himself, have urged the US to put drone warfare on a transparent footing. At the moment, Mr Obama can order drone assassinations without having to admit it, or explain himself to anyone. Hundreds of militants have been killed in Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere. But hundreds more civilians, perhaps thousands, have also been accidentally killed.

It is inconceivable the US would tolerate another country, even an ally, operating with the same scope and secrecy. Yet it would be ill-placed to object if they did. Imagine if China decided to take out Uighur separatists in Afghanistan or further afield. Like al-Qaeda, China’s Uighur minority poses a threat to the Chinese homeland. Like al-Qaeda they resort to terrorism. On what grounds could Washington complain? As set out last week by the Stimson Centre, a security think-tank, China’s president would refuse to acknowledge the strikes on grounds of national security, just like Mr Obama. The same would apply to Vladimir Putin if he ordered drone strikes in eastern Ukraine. And so on. The threat of drone multipolarity is real – and potentially endless. Yet America’s moral suasion would be worthless.

Likewise, Washington would have scant legal grounds to object. America’s instinct is to claim a US exception for drones. Much the same argument is used for the International Criminal Court, whose strictures apply to soldiers everywhere except American ones. Because the US is democratic and universal, it alone can be trusted to operate drones responsibility.

There is much truth to the argument. Hand on heart, most people would trust Mr Obama to use drones over Xi Jinping, Mr Putin or a Gulf prince. Alas, it would hold no water with precisely the regimes that are most feared.

And thus we approach a strange crossover moment. Just as others are acquiring the technology, the US is drawing up the rules. Before Mr Obama leaves office, he will put drones on a firmer legal footing.

The frequency of US drone strikes has been dropping off but terrorist threats continue to spread
As Stimson and others recommend, control over drones is likely to shift from the CIA, which is secretive, to the Pentagon, which is less so. Mr Obama is also likely to set up an independent panel to oversee the US president’s use of drones. He may even promise to acknowledge each strike and publish details about what happened, civilian deaths included. That too, is seen as an important plank in putting drones on a legal footing. Transparency is the order of the day. Whether it will be enough to constrain others is an open question.

Mr Obama’s other problem is their declining efficacy. Between them, he and Mr Bush have ordered almost 500 lethal drone strikes. Their peak usage was during Mr Obama’s first term.But the frequency of US drone strikes has recently been dropping off. In its latest budget request, the Pentagon halved – to $2.7bn – the amount it requested for drones compared with last year.In contrast, terrorist threats continue to spread, most recently into Iraq, where the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the al-Qaeda offshoot, now threatens the nation state itself. Last week Mr Obama deployed drones over the skies of Baghdad. But he made it clear that for the time being they would be used for surveillance only.

In war, as in peace, we live in an age of robots. Some of America’s technology will be unsurpassable for years – no country would be wise to fight a conventional war with it. Some of it, such as drones, is now easy to replicate. As a weapon against terrorists, drones are no panacea. By engendering impotent fear, they breed the kind of resentment that recruits terrorists. As Mr Obama is discovering in Iraq, there is no substitute for human engagement. Just as education is the answer to the rise of robots in the labour market, so terrorism can only be defeated by intelligence and smarter diplomacy. In the skies, and on the ground, there are no easy answers. With the rest of the world droning up, the US has no choice but to wise up.
Source: FT

US flying armed drones in Iraq

US flying armed drones in Iraq
Pentagon says flights are to protect US military contingent that is assisting Iraqi forces in fight
against Isis

Associated Press in Washington
theguardian.com, Saturday 28 June 2014 05.53 BST

The US has confirmed it is flying armed drones in Iraq. Photograph: Sipa Press/Rex Features

The US has confirmed it is flying armed drones over Baghdad to protect US troops who recently
arrived to assess Iraq's deteriorating security.

The military for more than a week has been flying manned and unmanned aircraft over Iraq,
averaging a few dozen sorties daily for reconnaissance, according to the Pentagon. The decision
to arm some of the drones follows the deployment to Baghdad of troops whose publicly stated
role is to advise and assist Iraqi forces fighting Isis militants who have seized a number of cities
and key facilities.

"The reason that some of those aircraft are armed is primarily for force protection reasons now that
we have introduced into the country some military advisers whose objective will be to operate
outside the confines of the embassy," said the defence department's press secretary, Navy Rear
Admiral John Kirby.

A handful of Predators armed with Hellfire missiles were being used over the capital for the new
force protection mission, a senior defence official said. The official was not authorised to discuss
the new flights on the record and requested anonymity.

Officials stressed that Obama still had not authorised air strikes against Sunni militants who have
been overrunning territory in other parts of the country.

Sending aircraft to target the leaders of the Sunni-led insurgency was one of the options being
prepared for President Barack Obama as he considered what support to provide to Iraq, the
chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Martin Dempsey, said in a radio interview. Protection
of critical infrastructure was part of that option, he said.

"We're flying a great deal [of] manned and unmanned ... intelligence and reconnaissance assets,
and we're building a picture so that if the decision were made to support the Iraqi security forces
as they confront (Isis) we could do so," Dempsey said.

So far 180 of 300 troops promised by Obama have arrived in the country. The contingent includes
90 advisers and 90 who are setting up an operations and intelligence analysis unit.

IMF mission to arrive in Ukraine on Tuesday

Economy
11:56 24.06.2014

IMF mission to arrive in Ukraine on Tuesday
 
A mission from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) will arrive in Ukraine on Tuesday for talks as part of the first revision of the economic program of the country's authorities supported by IMF funds, the press service of the Kyiv office of the IMF has reported.

An IMF mission headed by Nikolay Gueorguiev will arrive in Ukraine on June 24 to hold a series of discussions as part of the first revision of the government's economic program supported by the IMF's resources, according to the report.

According to a press release, the mission will assess the progress in the implementation of the program and discuss with the authorities goals and objectives for the next period.

Poul Thomsen, Deputy Director of the IMF's European Department, will join the mission's work for several days. The mission plans to complete its work on July 3, reads the press release.

Ukraine and EU sign free trade zone deal.

Ukraine and EU sign free trade zone deal
Published time: June 27, 2014 08:03
Edited time: June 27, 2014 20:28

Ukraine has signed the economic part of the Association Agreement with the EU, with Georgia and Moldova also joining the pact, even though big economic risks lie ahead.

The signing of the economic part of the agreement comes after 8 months of violent unrest in Ukraine, which broke out in Kiev and spread across the country in November after then-President Viktor Yanukovich decided to reject the trade agreement in favor of trilateral talks.

The document contains 31 signatures - Ukraine, all 28 EU member states, as well as that of the President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy, and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. The agreement will only come into force when it is ratified by every national parliament in the EU. It is expected that the ratification process will be complete by this fall.

Georgia and Moldova also signed both political and economic parts of the Association Agreement. Ukraine signed a political part of the agreement in March, shortly after Crimea rejoined Russia.

"By signing the association agreement, Ukraine, like European nation, which shares the same rules of law, stresses its sovereign choice to become a member of the EU Association Agreement in the future," said Ukraine's President Poroshenko before the signing ceremony. The Ukrainian President sees the trade document as a stepping stone to eventual EU statehood.

Friday signing the Free Trade Agreement will open up trade barriers between the former Soviet states, but doesn’t guarantee them EU membership, a main goal of the three governments.

“It is their sovereign right, but the Russian Federation will have to take measures in case it negatively effects the local market,” Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s spokesperson said, commenting on the agreements signed between the EU and Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova.

Russia has warned these "measures" could include $500 billion in lost trade and possible bans on Ukrainian imports.

“There is no economic growth to be had by suddenly having western European goods dumped at low cost on your marketplace,” Patrick Young, an expert on emerging markets, told RT.

In order to fully implement the free trade zone, it could cost Ukraine’s already fragile economy an additional $104 billion, according to a previous estimate by Yanukovich. This will include adopting hundreds of new trade laws and thousands of new laws to comply with EU standards.

In 2013, EU exports to Ukraine were worth $33 billion (23.9 billion euro), dominated by industrial equipment, chemicals, and manufactured goods.

Ukraine exported 13.8 billion euro worth of goods to the EU, mostly materials like iron, steel, and minerals. Agricultural and food products are also substantial exports.

The Association Agreement and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) will replace the current Partnership and Cooperation Agreement Ukraine signed with the EU in 1998.

Eastern Ukraine, which rejects the new Ukrainian government's authority, is skeptical of Kiev’s European ambition, as is the EU itself.

“EU is not ready to integrate at this stage a country like Ukraine,” Jose Barroso, President of the European Commission said before the talks.

Brussels started the Eastern Partnership initiative to incorporate six former Soviet Republics into the EU free trade zone. Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia have followed Poland’s example, whereas Armenia, Belarus, and Azerbaijan are likely to opt for closer trade links with Russia.

Trilateral trade talks between the EU, Russia, and Ukraine will take place on July 3-4. Russia has made it very clear that by signing the trade agreement Ukraine can no longer enter the Eurasian Customs Union, which already includes Belarus and Kazakhstan.

Removing Saddam Hussein did not cause this crisis

Removing Saddam Hussein did not cause this crisis
By Tony Blair

The Middle East’s problems lie in the toxic mix of bad politics and bad religion, writes Tony Blair

For the avoidance of doubt, of course the Iraq of 2014 bears, in part, the imprint of the removal of Saddam Hussein 11 years ago. To say otherwise, as a recent editorial in this newspaper implies that I do, would be absurd.

However, there are two important points that must also be recognised.

We cannot ignore the fact that Isis, the jihadist group advancing across Iraq, rebuilt itself and organised the Iraq operation from the chaos in Syria. Isis and other al-Qaeda-type groups in Iraq were flat on their back four years ago, having been comprehensively beaten by a combination of US and UK forces and Sunni tribes. The civil war in Syria allowed them to get back on their feet.

So the first point is that non-intervention is also a decision with consequences. In the case of Syria those consequences have been dire, and as security chiefs in the UK and Europe are warning, they pose a real threat to our security.

Second, no analysis of the Middle East today makes sense unless we examine the impact of the Arab revolutions overturning the old regimes. It is odd to argue that revolution would not have come to Iraq. And surely Saddam Hussein’s response would have been more like that of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, than that of Hosni Mubarak. Whatever decision had been taken in 2003, in 2014 we would be facing a major challenge.
There is a tendency to write off the Saddam Hussein time in Iraq as if he were a force for stability and peace. Just to remind ourselves: he began the Iraq-Iran war in which there were more than 1m casualties, many dying from chemical weapons, something which then played a part in pushing Iran towards its nuclear programme; he invaded Kuwait; he used chemical weapons in a genocidal attack against the Kurds; he excluded the Shia majority; and he persecuted the Marsh Arabs. The region’s problems are the result of deep-seated issues that, with the removal of those regimes, have now come to the surface.

That is the point I am making. I am not seeking to persuade people about the decision in 2003. I am trying to convince them that the fundamental challenge is not the product of that decision or indeed the decision in Syria. It is a challenge of immense complexity that has not originated in anything we have done since this challenge burst fully on to our consciousness after the attacks of September 11 2001. Its origin lies in the toxic mix of bad politics and bad religion that is not confined to Iraq or Syria but is spread across not just the Middle East but also the world.

The reason we got into such difficulty in Iraq, as in Afghanistan, was precisely because once the dictatorship was removed, extremist Islamist forces then made progress extraordinarily difficult. That is their hideous impact the world over. The fundamental challenge today arises not from the decisions of 2003 or those of 2014. It is the challenge of Islamist extremism and it is global.

In the case of Syria the consequences of non-intervention have been dire.

It is a challenge we cannot avoid. Its outcome will dramatically affect our own security. We may be war weary and want to disengage but the people we are fighting do not share that weariness. Leave aside Iraq or Syria; look at Pakistan today. It has powerful institutions; it has a functioning democracy. Yet be in no doubt, the struggle it is waging is existential. Nigeria was two decades ago a model of religious tolerance. Today it is on the rack of extremism. Even in western societies, there are tensions that are real and dangerous.

The bad news is that this issue is not going away. That is why I am speaking about it. Since leaving office I have spent a large part of my time studying it and through my foundation trying to counter it.

Short term, we have to do what we can to rescue the situation in Iraq and Syria. In Iraq, without inclusive government this will be hard to do. The US is right in demanding political change as the price of its engagement. In Syria, an outright win for either side is no longer sensible; the majority of Syrians just want the torment to end.

Long term, we have to have the right mixture of soft and hard power responses, which fights this extremism wherever it is conducting its terror campaigns. We must deal with the root cause of the problem which lies in the formal and informal systems that educate young people in a closed-minded approach to religion and culture.

The good news is that this extremism does not represent the majority of Muslims. As the recent elections in both Iraq and Afghanistan show, where despite threats, violence and terror, people came out to vote in their millions. These people want to be free: free of dictators and free of terror. We should help them. It is in our interests that they succeed.

The writer was prime minister of Britain from 1997 to 2007

This article has now been closed to further comments. Many thanks for your contributions to the discussion.FT