Comment

When and how the war between Israel and Hamas ends, Israelis and Palestinians will have to find a way to live side by side, writes Judy Dempsey The long-running conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been one of missed opportunities. The 1995 Oslo Peace Accords were supposed to usher in a kind of co-existence. That didn’t happen. Israel did not stop withdrawing the illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. It designated areas for Jewish settlers.  The Palestinian Authority (PA), bankrolled by the European Union, didn’t use the opportunity to introduce democratic reforms. The former head of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) Yasser Arafat could not make the transition from freedom fighter to democrat.   His successor Abu Mazen has presided over a corrupt PA, refusing to hold elections due back in 2006. He has lost credibility among Palestinians. Mazen did Israel’s bidding: keeping the lid on opposition to the occupation and preventing the establishment of a vibrant civil society that could challenge his authority.   In Gaza, the Islamic Hamas movement took over the strip in 2007 after ousting the discredited PA. Hamas is the precursor to the Muslim Brotherhood encouraged by Israel in the 1980s as a means to divide and weaken the PLO. Since 2007, Hamas has run Gaza with an iron fist. It has its own agenda: to not recognise the state of Israel, even to destroy it.  Fast forward to 7 October and Israel’s devastating response to the gruesome Hamas massacre of Israeli civilians. This will make it more difficult than ever to change a mindset on both sides concerning the need to end the cycle of violence and resume peace talks.   Gaza is in ruins. Suffering people have nowhere to go. At least 20,000 have been killed. There is no systematic flow of humanitarian aid. Hamas shows no signs of negotiating over Israeli hostages.  As for Israel, its right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – who never believed in a two-state solution and who is (conveniently) beholden to his far-right-wing coalition partners – believes he can destroy Hamas.   This ignores the day after for the hapless, suffering citizens of Gaza and for Israelis who have been shocked by the failures of their military and intelligence services.    The day after is difficult to think about. The United States and the European Union still support a two-state solution but how might it be achieved? A few ideas:  Benjamin Netanyahu needs to be replaced with a moderate leader.    Abu Mazen and the PA need to be replaced by younger people who want democratic change.  A two-state solution is impossible unless Jewish settlements in the West Bank are dismantled. They prevent a viable Palestinian state.  Middle Eastern countries must play a central role. They see the wider impact of the Israeli-Hamas conflagration. The Arab countries, and even possibly Iran – a pivotal player in supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi rebels in Yemen – cannot afford a war in the Middle East.   Egypt and Jordan (which have peace agreements with Israel) and Saudi Arabia (which had considered establishing relations with Israel before 7 October), need to take the diplomatic and political lead in ending the war between Israel and Hamas.    Former US President Donald Trump missed an opportunity when he didn’t link the Abraham Accords – signed in 2020 by the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan to normalise relations with Israel – to negotiating a peace deal between Israel and Palestine.  A two-state solution is unthinkable today. Anger and radicalisation on both sides will demand time and a special mediation to make any sustainable peace possible, but what is the alternative?  Judy Dempsey is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Carnegie Europe and Editor-in-Chief of Strategic Europe.  *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the February/March 2024 issue of Accountancy Ireland are the author’s own. The views of contributors to Accountancy Ireland may differ from official Institute policies and do not reflect the views of Chartered Accountants Ireland, its Council, its committees, or the editor.

The foundations for a common polity are eroding as increasingly polarised views and influences continue to flourish, writes Cormac Lucey It looks like voters in the United States will have to decide between Joe Biden and Donald Trump in November’s presidential election. It is symptomatic of how polarised American politics have become that the strongest argument for voting for Joe Biden is that he isn’t Donald Trump and vice versa.  Why have politics in the developed world become so opposite? And what is the likely future direction of travel? In my opinion, several secular factors are eroding the political centre and promoting the rise in political extremes.  Narrowcasting has replaced broadcasting. In the past, TV and radio channels were limited in number and had to cater for a large audience. The result was broadcasting that was jointly watched or listened to by large sections of the community. Today, it is viable to create media and social media offerings that cater for very narrow and specialised audiences. Broadcasting has been replaced by narrowcasting. Sectional views are being promoted. A common, integrated view is being relegated. Social media algorithms seek to maximise their audiences even if it means promoting a one-sided view of what’s happening. Just look at the US where the difference in political perspectives offered by Fox News and MSNBC is such that, even when covering the same story, they often appear to be reporting on different events. The commercial imperative to maximise audiences means that people are increasingly being told what they want to hear resulting in an echo chamber effect where contrary views are downplayed or ignored. Division is promoted – unity is structurally disadvantaged. The growth of technology has turbo-charged the division of labour. The essence of the Industrial Revolution is that people ceased to be farmers and moved off the land to earn their living by doing increasingly specialised tasks. While specialisation has promoted greater efficiencies and higher economic growth, it has come with the cost that we now have a reduced understanding of what others do and of how the entire system hangs together.  Society has become more politically polarised around socio-economic differences. In his book The Road to Somewhere, David Goodhart explained the shock of the Brexit and Trump 2016 votes. He described a UK society that was divided between “Somewheres” and “Anywheres”.  “Somewheres” are firmly rooted in a specific community and Goodhart reckons that this group constitute about half of the UK population. “Anywheres” are typically socially liberal, well-educated and generally living in cities – they could live and work anywhere (as the pandemic illustrated).  Goodhart reckons that they comprise just 20 to 25 percent of the population but dominate politics and the media. “Inbetweeners” oscillate between these two groups. Brexit and Trump represented a shock victory for the “Somewheres” over the “Anywheres”. Recent protests in Ireland against immigration by asylum seekers are probably being carried out by “Somewheres,” angry at the immigration policies of Dublin’s “Anywhere” political establishment.   In the future, the challenge will be that each of the drivers of political fragmentation listed above seem likely to continue to grow. If the foundations for a common polity are eroding, reaching political agreement is likely to be increasingly difficult in the future.   *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the February/March 2024 issue of Accountancy Ireland are the author’s own. The views of contributors to Accountancy Ireland may differ from official Institute policies and do not reflect the views of Chartered Accountants Ireland, its Council, its committees, or the editor. Cormac Lucey is an economic commentator and lecturer at Chartered Accountants Ireland

As relations with the West continue to cool, China is facing economic challenges reminiscent of the Irish economy in 2008, writes Cormac Lucey Tensions are growing between the China and the US as the latter leads the West in a sharp reversal of a policy of openness and commercial integration, which continued despite concerns about military espionage and intellectual property theft.  Now, the US is reducing its interactions with China, and a wave of reshoring/friendshoring is underway in the West. Under current President Xi Jinping, China has been picking territorial fights with its neighbours and Xi has reportedly asked his military to complete preparations by 2027 to seize Taiwan by force.  Meanwhile, senior Chinese political and business leaders are disappearing suddenly with alarming frequency and non-Han ethnic minority groups, such as the Uyghurs and Tibetans, have been subject to terrible oppression.  The Chinese economy is not faring much better. When I look at China’s economic position, I think we may now be witnessing ‘peak China’.  First, the country’s enormous property/debt bubbles are beginning to deflate. Coming into 2024, China is in a similar position to Ireland circa 2008. Its economic underpinnings are dangerously fragile, the first tremors of deflation are being felt and the authorities are insisting that everything is okay.  Over the past 15 years, China’s total debt levels (public plus private) have doubled relative to economic output (GDP).  According to Numbeo, a website that analyses the cost of living across different countries, rent yields in Beijing range from 1.45 percent (city centre) to 1.69 percent (suburbs). These yields are way below the lowest levels witnessed in Ireland at the peak of our property bubble.  They are lower than Chinese interest rates, meaning that buy-to-let landlords using debt to fund their purchases will face interest charges that exceed their rental income (negative carry).  Thanks to its now defunct ‘one child per family’ policy, which ran from 1979 to 2015, China faces a demographic implosion over the coming decades. The UN forecasts that its population will decline from 1.4 billion this year to 1.3 billion by 2050 – and below 800 million by 2100.  Today, China faces the same demographic and debt-deflation challenges that confronted Japan three decades ago.  For all the messiness and dysfunction of the West, democracy does force a society’s problems onto the political agenda rather than allow them to be suppressed, and it facilitates innovation over stagnation.    Cormac Lucey is an economic commentator and lecturer at Chartered Accountants Ireland

The EU Commission’s new enlargement package sets out ambitious plans for expansion but the rule of law and defence must govern any future accession negotiations, writes Judy Dempsey It was reminiscent of 1 May 2004, when the countries of Central and Eastern Europe joined the European Union (EU).  For their citizens, that day almost 20 years ago was not just a euphoric occasion, it was about returning to Europe – an aspiration that must have seemed remote while they were under the communist yoke from 1945 to 1989. Now, the opportunity for Ukraine and Moldova to join the EU is very real, following Ursula von der Leyen’s decision to unveil an ambitious enlargement package last month. The President of the European Commission announced on 8 November that the EU would open accession negotiations with Ukraine, Moldova and Bosnia and Herzegovina, while also granting Georgia candidate country status.  It will take several years for these countries to join the EU. Leaving aside how the war in Ukraine might end, significant issues will need to be addressed in all four: corruption, the role of the oligarchs, human trafficking and the weak independence of the judiciary, for example.  EU leaders will have to give von der Leyen’s plan the green light during their December summit.  Some will baulk at how Bosnia and Herzegovina will be able to begin accession talks despite ongoing misrule and ethnic tensions among leaders of the Serb community. Backed by Russia and its neighbour Serbia, it has long sought to have its own autonomous region. Yet, for all these problems, this next enlargement should be a chance for the EU to tackle two big issues that undermine the union’s credibility.  The first is how several countries, led by Hungary and Poland, have blatantly flouted the rule of law. For several years, Budapest and Warsaw have run roughshod over the judiciary, the media and the appointment of chief prosecutors.  Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has misappropriated EU funds in addition to promoting his own appointees loyal to the governing Fidesz party, to universities and other educational institutions.  And this is just the tip of the iceberg. In Poland, the judiciary, media, education and private sectors have been subject to interference from the governing conservative/nationalist party.  The Law and Justice party lost the recent parliamentary elections, however, so there is a chance that the centrist Civic Coalition party may put the country back on the path of the rule of law.   This is important for countries trying to make their way into the union.  Imagine sitting in Kyiv and seeing judges intimidated or sacked in an EU member state because they don’t toe the governing party line?  Civil society activists in Ukraine and Moldova have been campaigning for many years to root out corruption and establish a transparent court and judicial system free of state interference, lobbies and oligarchs. The second issue facing the EU is how, as a bloc, it cannot defend itself.  With the current instability along Europe’s eastern borders and its southern neighbourhood, the EU lacks the capacity to defend its citizens and provide them with the security they need and which, until now, had been provided by the NATO alliance.  Soft power takes precedence over any kind of hard power despite what is happening in Ukraine. These two issues – the rule of law and defence – are about the credibility of the EU and making the bloc ready for the next round of enlargement.  Judy Dempsey is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Carnegie Europe and Editor-in-Chief of Strategic Europe

Accountancy Europe Board Member Shauna Greely tells us about the organisation and its work and priorities for the year ahead  Accountancy Europe is a representative body based in Brussels at the heart of the European Union and I am a Vice President and Board Member. Our focus is to give a unified voice to the accountancy profession in Europe, including Chartered Accountants across the island of Ireland, and to ensure that your perspectives, priorities and insights are heard by the policy makers, regulators and standard-setting bodies operating at a European level. For me, this is particularly important because Ireland is a proud member of the EU and I am proud to be able to represent members of Chartered Accountants Ireland in Europe. Accountancy Europe is heavily engaged with accounting standard setters, such as the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group, the International Accounting Standards Board and other key stakeholders involved in the interests of the accountancy profession. Accountancy Europe helps inform European policy debate in areas such as sustainability, SMEs, tax, reporting and audit – and promotes high-quality financial reporting, auditing and ethical standards.  One of our biggest priorities right now is combatting climate change and the crucial role sustainability reporting has to play in reducing carbon emissions and ensuring that companies are operating as sustainably as they can. I am concerned about climate change and the impacts this is starting to have on all our lives. I hope that Accountancy Europe and the profession as a whole can play its part in raising awareness about climate change impacts and sustainability, so that we can bring about positive change. It is vital that we get this right and that the right level of reporting is introduced for organisations, both large and small, across the EU.  Sustainability reporting brings to mind the saying, “What gets measured gets done”. It has such an enormously important role to play in combatting climate change and puts the accountancy profession front and centre in these efforts. This is all the more important because the younger generation of professionals coming into the workplace have a social conscience. They want to do good in their lives and in their work, and they want to be part of professions and organisations that are doing good and can attest to it. The accountancy profession is at the coalface of climate reporting and Accountancy Europe ensures that this pivotal role is represented as one voice to the European Parliament, the European Commission and the policy makers in Brussels who are shaping the future of the EU. Shauna Greely is a Senior Finance Business Partner with Ulster Bank and past President of Chartered Accountants Ireland  

IFAC Board Member Joan Curry tells us about the organisation and its work and priorities for the year ahead  The International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) is the global voice for the accountancy profession. I describe it as the members’ body for members’ bodies.  IFAC was established in 1977 at the 11th World Congress of Accountants in Germany. At that time, there was recognition that the profession needed a global voice and perspective. Now, IFAC represents 180 member and associate organisations in 135 jurisdictions, including Chartered Accountants Ireland. Its reach extends to millions of accountants worldwide.  At this high level, IFAC represents the public interest by advocating for, and amplifying, the relevance, reputation and value of our profession globally. We operate across three pillars: supporting the development, adoption and implementation of international standards; ensuring the highest-quality education for the profession; and looking to the future to identify and respond to emerging developments so that we can ensure the profession is future-ready. I joined the IFAC Board in November 2019 and am one of 23 Board Members from around the world. We govern and oversee the operations of IFAC, ensuring that its mission and vision are progressed through its organisational structures. Coming into 2024 and as the world becomes ever more connected and integrated, our priority is to ensure the continuation and enhancement of trust and confidence in the accountancy profession. This is our North Star, both at a global level and in every jurisdiction in which our members operate. To this end, we have introduced a set of reforms in recent years to help maintain the independence of standard setting. There is now a structure that allows standard setting to be developed and delivered in an independent arena, rather than under the banner of IFAC.  In creating this new structure, IFAC supports, monitors, promotes and advocates for the work of the standard-setting boards in developing independent standards across audit, assurance and ethics. These standards are directed towards the areas of greatest public interest and underpin trust and confidence in the profession. This is important in every sense but especially so given the global drive to develop sustainability reporting standards so that the profession can play its part in tackling climate change. IFAC represents the profession in supporting the delivery of the G20’s Sustainable Development Goals and ensures our voice is heard on issues with global impact, such as climate change. We will continue to be future-focused and to ensure that issues of importance to all accountants, including the younger generation, are at the heart of IFAC’s mission and vision.  We recognise the diversity of thought and inclusion required to maintain the relevance of the profession into the future and the importance of our role in envisioning how the profession will evolve and the impact we can make in the years ahead. Joan Curry is Head of Finance at the Department of Transport and a member of the Council of Chartered Accountants Ireland