The United States and the EU started to work on creating a new free trade zone in July 2013, and to date already six rounds of talks have been held. While both sides seek to conclude negotiations within two years, some experts have questioned these dates due to a large number of complexities in the process, disputes between the parties, and domestic opposition in the participating countries.

The idea itself of creating a single transatlantic market is not new. Back in 1995, the EU commissioner for trade voiced this idea and called for the creation of a transatlantic free trade zone. But then, with the creation and expansion of the WTO, this idea was shelved.

The global economy is experiencing the most serious test of its strength since the end of World War II. It is obvious that the old system is now gone. The bets have been placed: Russia is trying to lead the bloc of developing economies, and the goal of the U.S. is to subjugate Europe economically and politically. It is over this issue that the main struggle has now unfolded.

Twelve years have passed since Jim O’Neill, former head analyst for Goldman Sachs, suggested to the business community that several large and fast-growing economies be grouped together to make investment decisions much easier. Since that time, China, India, Russia, and Brazil have become and see themselves as nations bound by common economic interests and pursuing similar goals. Just how justified the hopes are that they’ve attached to this remains to be seen, but it is already clear today that these states, which recently expanded their ranks to include South Africa, are keeping an eye on both economic and political issues that could become their contribution to the global agenda.
This process is very, important, first and foremost, because the BRICS countries are, on the one hand, intrinsically perceived as non-western (Russia and China were antagonists to the West during the years of the Cold War, India and Brazil were European colonies at various times, and South Africa is a symbol of the struggle between the local population and their alien colonial masters), yet they also strongly depend on the West and play a complementary role to its economic system. If these countries truly intend on becoming the legislators of the world’s economic trends in 30-40 years, they will have to tackle, within that time, the topics that currently dominate global politics. And not tackle them by confrontation with the leading powers, but rather through “creative development” of existing trends.

2013 marked another record year for Spanish tourism: The problems of other Mediterranean countries and the attractive consumer prices not only attracted 5.6% more tourists than the previous year, but raised a number of vital questions for the sector.

Over the past year, 60.66 million international tourists visited Spain, which is even more than in 2007, when the Spanish coast was especially popular (58.6 million). Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy was the first to announce the joyous news, even before the statistics agencies. In doing so, he tried to support the positive disposition of the sector and the citizens. He said that tourism would soon get them out of this infamous crisis. In some ways, of course he’s right: 10% of the Spanish GDP comes from tourism and that has been on the rise since late 2012. Worried about political instability in Egypt, tourists changed their vacation plans and headed to the Spanish coast to enjoy the sun. The recovery of demand in the travel business has been a positive factor for several European countries. The tide of tourists has naturally affected the balance sheets: At the end of 2013, the Spanish tourism industry brought in more than €45.1 billion. By number of tourists, Spain overtook China, and came in third after the U.S. and France.

It is expected that the mechanism will allow for the creation of a so-called Single Resolution Fund that will total €55 billion over the next ten years, financed by contributions from banks into national divisions of the fund. This plan is supposed to provide the financing for the process of closing bankrupt banks without the need for funds from small investors. The framework of the SRM also makes the European Commission a regulator for the banking system, complete with the right to decide whether or not to close troubled banks within the EU countries.

European officials enthusiastically approved the plan at the end of last December. “This is great news. It is also in our interest that all banks in the European Union, not just in the Eurozone, were stable. In addition, this compromise finally breaks the vicious cycle between banks and the government,” said Czech Deputy Minister of Finance Radek Urban shortly after an agreement was reached. European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services Michel Barnier himself called the agreement a revolutionary decision that will “finally put an end to supporting banks at the taxpayer’s expense,” referring to the fact that, during the financial crisis, the EU provided financial assistance to troubled banks to the tune of €1.6 trillion.

A canal through Thailand’s Kra Isthmus is a project that could change the economic and political map of Southeast Asia. At a time when the center of global trade and to some extent politics is smoothly transitioning from the West to the East, it is difficult to overestimate the effects of opening a new transportation artery. But while there are many ardent supporters, the project has serious opponents as well.
The idea of constructing a canal across Thailand’s Kra Isthmus dates back to 1670, when the King of Siam asked French engineers to assess the project’s feasibility. But technological achievements in  the 17th century were not enough for the Siamese monarch to implement his idea. The second time there were thoughts of creating a canal came a hundred years later, when it became necessary for Siam to increase its military strength and quickly dispatch ships from the South China Sea to the Andaman Sea. Then in the 19th century, the British raised the issue of construction three times, but in 1897 decided to abandon those plans in favor of preserving the role of the Singapore port. Moreover, Queen Victoria’s subjects forced the Siamese government to sign an agreement prohibiting unilateral implementation of the Thai Canal project. Throughout the 20th century, the Thai government tossed around the idea of building the canal through the Kra Isthmus several times, but has yet to come up with the necessary funds.
Construction of the Thai Canal is once again being actively discussed in the 21st century, and in 2005 information surfaced that the Chinese government was ready to invest $25 billion in bringing it to fruition. But nothing happened. What is so attractive about the idea of the Thai Canal, that for centuries, politicians and businessmen can’t seem to let it be?