Your second point sir, is undoubtedly quite spot on and would be a refreshing approach as opposed to the current wave off liquidity injection.
With regards to your first point, it is equally refreshing and may be a wholly or semi solution for the currency wars light phenomena. Hence with that, it may also accommodate against the undesirable leakage of ofshore liquidity. However, with regards to this approach, I cannot help but ask in my humble curiosity, as to how such a united approach would be met by developed or significant economies whom are on the opposite side of the easing spectrum. Countries such as New Zealand, Canada and so on whom have a hawkish bias in their monetary approach pending no drastic deverlopments.
Just to clarify, I am in no way being crritical, but just curious as to how modifications depending on each country would be handled with respect to a united central bank approach.
In conclusion, your first comment in the article, with a blend of humour and modesty is definitely against the grain of most highly recognised intellectuals or corporate figures whom feel that their word should be taken on board as the gospel. Your modesty is even more to be respected when one considers your past incredibly important roles sir.
Much in line with an equally high quality analysis that was on the Financial Times earlier this week. It touched on why it is very rational for China to bee supporting North Korea and that it shouldnt be that much of a mystery as proposed by a lot of mainstream media.
The unspoken conclusion in that article, as seems to be touched on this article as well is the simple fact that a united Korea will be more influenced by the Souths way of life and accordingly its foreign policy. This inevitable truth which in essence presents US military presence on Chinas door step, will not be welcomed in any shape or form by China, even if it means a very volatile nuclear armed next door neighbour. This notion no doubt, has been further reinforced by Chinas military elite whom are ever more cautious about the growth of US presence in the Pacific. China makes this no secret either, as with the release of its recent public white paper.
No doubt that prima facie, this has been a big diplomatic success for Turkey. It was however some what inevitable, as Israel was evidently at fault, and international rhetoric towards the incident was indicative of such. Furthermore many high ranking Israelis were pushing behind closed doors for the Israeli government to take the actions it took much sooner than when it did.
The element however, not widely discussed is the US angle. No doubt the US preferred this route to normalise the relations between two Middle Eastern allies, which is the default reason for its apology push, but the other element is Iran. No doubt by doing what it did, the US has further opened the gap between the power play over Syria between Turkey plus predominantly Gulf Arabs as the Sunni bloc (although its more political and less sectarian than people realise) and the Iran shiite side.
No doubt that Turkey will never in the near future support any form of attack on Iran by the US and specially Israel, as the current power plays aside Turkey and Iran are still allies on paper. However with the new elements, no doubt the US hopes that Turkey will be more muted than otherwise to a military attack on Iran.
With regards to the comment below, perhaps Turkish soldiers wouldnt be there to begin with had Cypriot Greek militants backed by the Greek junta at the time did not commit atrocities to the Turkish civilians indiscriminately killing woman and children inclusive. Ironically, even after this incident, it was again the Greek side which voted no to a unified Cyprus. This is evidently indicative of the majority of the Greek side wishing to see a Greek dominated or nothing Cyprus which Turkey will never allow. The EU's blunder in this regard was telling the Greek side that its ok and whatever you select, you will be joining the EU regardless.
As for the articles insistence on a more diplomatic and balanced approach to the regional old time rivalries inclusive of big power players such as Israel, it is an encouraging piece of advise for all the diplomats in the regions concerned. Not only is a peaceful solution more desirable in the sense of regional stability but it also halts the relentless security costs associated with wanting to control all relative resources.
The mentioned regional powers and peripheries alike would be wise to take your advice Mr Solana.