U.N. says crisis to cost 20 million jobs
Twenty million jobs will disappear by the end of next year as a result of the impact of the financial crisis on the global economy, a United Nations agency said on Monday.
Construction, real estate, financial services, and the auto sector are most likely to be hit, according to the International Labour Organisation's (ILO) estimate, which is based on International Monetary Fund projections for the world economy.
The toll on jobs could be even higher if IMF economic projections are cut, said ILO Director-General Juan Somavia.
"We have to talk about the financial crisis in terms of what happens to people and what happens to jobs and enterprises," he told reporters.
Somavia said the ILO, which brings together governments, employers and workers, wanted to steer discussions about the resolving the crisis toward job creation and other steps to promote the "real economy."
"It would be tragic to respond to a sub-prime crisis with sub-prime policies," he said.
The ILO does not yet have a regional breakdown of projected job losses, which Somavia said would take global unemployment to 210 million in late 2009 from 190 million last year, the first time it has topped 200 million.
But countries with large domestic markets that do not depend heavily on exports would be able to weather the crisis better, he said, citing as an example China, where exports make up only 11 percent of the economy.
Construction, real estate, financial services, and the auto sector are most likely to be hit, according to the International Labour Organisation's (ILO) estimate, which is based on International Monetary Fund projections for the world economy.
The toll on jobs could be even higher if IMF economic projections are cut, said ILO Director-General Juan Somavia.
"We have to talk about the financial crisis in terms of what happens to people and what happens to jobs and enterprises," he told reporters.
Somavia said the ILO, which brings together governments, employers and workers, wanted to steer discussions about the resolving the crisis toward job creation and other steps to promote the "real economy."
"It would be tragic to respond to a sub-prime crisis with sub-prime policies," he said.
The ILO does not yet have a regional breakdown of projected job losses, which Somavia said would take global unemployment to 210 million in late 2009 from 190 million last year, the first time it has topped 200 million.
But countries with large domestic markets that do not depend heavily on exports would be able to weather the crisis better, he said, citing as an example China, where exports make up only 11 percent of the economy.
Iraqis Balk at a U.S. Troop Deal, but Can They Say Goodbye?
American and Iraqi governments had been inching toward a deal that would create a legal basis for the U.S. military to remain in Iraq once its U.N. mandate expires on Dec. 31. The draft version of the agreement — leaked earlier this month by the American side — also lays out a time line for U.S. withdrawal: American forces would leave Iraqi cities and towns by the end of June 2009 and be stationed on large bases until they're withdrawn from Iraq by the end of 2011. Washington made further concession as well, allowing American soldiers to be subject to Iraqi legal jurisdiction for crimes committed while off duty and off base.
But that wasn't enough to satisfy members of al-Maliki's United Iraq Alliance coalition, who have asked that negotiations be reopened. The problem may be less any one particular provision than it is the agreement itself. Despite the security gains achieved over the past year, most Iraqis want the foreign soldiers to leave — and with provincial elections scheduled for January of 2009, Iraqi politicians don't want their fingerprints on the document. Tellingly, the only politicians at Saturday's meeting of Iraq's security council who did voice full support for the proposed agreement were from the placid Kurdish-controlled region of northern Iraq — where, unlike in the rest of the country, the U.S. army is much loved but little seen.
Supporters of al-Maliki's coalition are particularly vulnerable to the public mood. The government has made little headway on the two issues most important to Iraqis: security and public services. Residents of Baghdad are lucky if they get one hour of electricity a day off the government grid — what's laughingly called "Maliki power." And though the country has the lowest levels of violence in four years, most Iraqis credit this to the American army's surge in Baghdad and to the Awakening councils and neighborhood patrols, which the government is busy dismantling now that they have served their purpose.
Still, it remains unlikely that Iraq's politicians will force the Americans to leave. After all, the country is run by a class of leaders who have come to power thanks to U.S.-sponsored democratic elections, which created power blocs composed of ethnic and sectarian parties. Except for a few politicians with reputations or family names that predated the American invasion, these are men that most Iraqis don't recognize as their leaders, whose backgrounds are sketchy, and whose hands have been bloodied and bank accounts fattened by the past few years of civil war. Even al-Maliki's bold move in Basra against al-Sadr's Mahdi Army faltered until American soldiers came to the rescue. Iraq won't let the Yankees go home just yet.
But that wasn't enough to satisfy members of al-Maliki's United Iraq Alliance coalition, who have asked that negotiations be reopened. The problem may be less any one particular provision than it is the agreement itself. Despite the security gains achieved over the past year, most Iraqis want the foreign soldiers to leave — and with provincial elections scheduled for January of 2009, Iraqi politicians don't want their fingerprints on the document. Tellingly, the only politicians at Saturday's meeting of Iraq's security council who did voice full support for the proposed agreement were from the placid Kurdish-controlled region of northern Iraq — where, unlike in the rest of the country, the U.S. army is much loved but little seen.
Supporters of al-Maliki's coalition are particularly vulnerable to the public mood. The government has made little headway on the two issues most important to Iraqis: security and public services. Residents of Baghdad are lucky if they get one hour of electricity a day off the government grid — what's laughingly called "Maliki power." And though the country has the lowest levels of violence in four years, most Iraqis credit this to the American army's surge in Baghdad and to the Awakening councils and neighborhood patrols, which the government is busy dismantling now that they have served their purpose.
Still, it remains unlikely that Iraq's politicians will force the Americans to leave. After all, the country is run by a class of leaders who have come to power thanks to U.S.-sponsored democratic elections, which created power blocs composed of ethnic and sectarian parties. Except for a few politicians with reputations or family names that predated the American invasion, these are men that most Iraqis don't recognize as their leaders, whose backgrounds are sketchy, and whose hands have been bloodied and bank accounts fattened by the past few years of civil war. Even al-Maliki's bold move in Basra against al-Sadr's Mahdi Army faltered until American soldiers came to the rescue. Iraq won't let the Yankees go home just yet.
