OPINION

Too little, too late

Re: "Jurin sorry as assault probe widens", (BP, April 20).

In explaining his erroneous decision in appointing Pinn Panitchpakdi as a deputy leader and the Party's economic czar, the Democrat Party's leader, Jurin Laksanawisit, shakenly justified his reason not to resign as "resigning (as party leader) is irresponsible because I'd be leaving problems for others to solve".

His statement either deserves a Nobel prize award for public administration or the lowest ranking in social science for accountability.

The party's task is to ascertain and learn what went wrong and who is to be accountable not only collectively but also individually for debasing its good name.

As today's editorial points out, at the party meeting this week, it is time "not only to review his past performance but to make some form of atonement".

Indeed, one called for atonement for bad judgment and that atonement was not forthcoming from that press conference. On the contrary, the whole party appeared too clever by half because of the reasoning of this leader that day.

Drunkards all

Re: "Ex-CIA analyst recounts torture in secret Thai prison", (Online, April 20).

There was an interesting article in Wednesday's Post about ex-CIA agent Alfreda Scheuer. It's agents like her who tarnish the CIA's reputation. She's not, however, as bad as Jim Angleton, a hard-core drunkard (five-martini lunches, plus a bottle of bourbon each evening).

Angleton essentially ran the CIA from the mid 1950s to the early 70s. His right-hand man, ex-KGB Anatoly Golitsyn, was also a heavy drinker.

Working together, they discounted good intel and punished effective spies who had garnered useful intel. Concurrently they praised/promoted agents who presented faulty intel.

Being drunk was biz-as-usual during the Cold War, and KGB agents were no exception, with their vodka guzzling.

Interesting that the two top nuclear powers for the latter part of the 20th century were not only rivals, but their top echelon leaders were also stumbling drunkards; even during the Cuban missile stand-off.

Authority lacking

Re: "UN General Assembly must assert itself", (Opinion, April 20).

The piece supporting UN influence is problematic and indicative of global governance tyranny.

When there are five member countries (USA, China, France, Russia, and Great Britain) on the Security Council that possess individual "veto powers" allowing them to ignore any collective directives they choose, there is no way this governing body can be taken seriously.

The General Assembly has one mechanism to override such vetoes called the "Uniting for Peace" initiative created in the 1950s. For this to be implemented and effective, it requires a 2/3 vote from all members.

Essentially, there is little the General Assembly can do to check the veto power of the five founding members.

Until the UN Charter is adjusted to become as true egalitarian platform where all of humanity is represented equally, it should be ignored and limited in influence and propaganda. How many conflicts and deaths could be prevented if the UN had true moral authority?

The mighty dollar

Re: "Why dollar continues to dominate", (Opinion, April 20).

History shows that the dollar overtook the British sterling much earlier than commonly supposed.

Before 1944, the world reference currency was the United Kingdom's pound sterling. The transition from the pound sterling to the US dollar is closely related to the end of the British Empire, the end of WW2, and the gradual increase in globalisation of trade.

Since the inception of the internet in the 1980s, the dollar has become the default.

The US Federal Reserve has engaged in keeping the dollar as the main trading instrument. The bond market has maintained its supremacy.

The IMF, World Bank, and many other international financial institutions have embraced the dollar.

In addition, the US government and major financial institutions have actively pursued monetary policies to reward or punish countries.

The frequency and speed of sanctions have crippling effects on the trade and economies of many nations.

It is evident that the weaponisation of sanctions against Iran, N Korea, China, and Russia affects the supply chain and has debilitating effects on many countries and their economies.

The advent of cryptocurrencies and their use in world trade will eventually decrease the dollar's dominance.

Mr Krugman raises a good question: Is the dollar's dominance at risk? The dollar has become an integral part of US soft and hard power.

Yes, its fall will have the same effect as the end of the British Empire.

To say it does not matter will put the USA in the same category as Mexico, Brazil, Malaysia, India, or Thailand?