On Wall Street and Capitol Hill there seems only one game to play these days: The blame game. If only Sony or Nintendo could have come up with that idea, their share holders would have been delighted.
Since the swing has left the swagger in a sordid heap of despair, all along Wall Street and Main Street and about every street where you live fingers are pointing and daggers are being drawn. The executives blame the traders for their fantastically bogus financial instruments. The debt-stricken home owners blame the lenders; greedy shareholders and fat cat executives. The law-makers hold their heads and blame the credit rating agencies; traders; mortgage brokers; executives and everything else within range.
But no one blames the root of the problem: The borrowers. Dubious mortgage contracts would have no effect if no one signed them. Traders would not cause havoc with wizard's instruments if there were no stack of bad debt rolled up in those instruments. Fat cat executives would not crash the financial system purely on their extravagant bonuses were it not for the bad debt foundation of their businesses.
Perhaps it is not politically profitable to put the root blame at the feet of the individual borrower. After all, it the sub-prime borrower who appears now with a sad face in every interview vaguely interested in their sad story of naivety and deceit. Yes, it is that sad face who will cast a vote in November for the top job: US President. Right, so we are to believe the soap opera of suburbia. Well not all of us, one has to say.
According to Bloomberg.com, $523.1 billion has been written down over the past year due to collapsing sub-prime mortgages. That staggering amount was borrowed by individuals who had bad debt in the first place. Each one of those borrowers went out to buy a house on a history of bad debt. It means each borrower bought more than could be paid back on what income was available. On top of that spree, the borrower felt entitled to buy a home on mortgage under the circumstances. That decision appears purely irresponsible if not downright reckless. But it also smacks of self-indulgence.
Perhaps the American Dream has gone too far. The connection with reality has been lost. Unfortunately, reality has a cruel way of reinstating itself, often with a vengeance as in the current financial crisis. So instead of spend, let us save. Instead of consume, let us conserve. Smarter, rather than bigger, is better. And let instant gratification remain behind in the cradle with the dummy and the baby's bottle.
02 October 2008
23 September 2008
We will rock you
Shaken, not stirred: That is a fair description of the mood in South Africa tonight. Barely had one managed a breath after the momentous resignation of the president on Saturday, when 11 ministers and 3 deputy ministers resigned earlier today.
The loss of leadership includes the highly proficient finance minister, Mr Trevor Manuel, arguably the most significant loss of all. He has indicated his availability to serve under a new president.
But this entire affair reeks of rotten political manoeuvring. The executive committee of the ANC has acted with bewildering levels of blunder in their hurried decision to oust the president of the country. The departure of the members of the cabinet loyal to the president only serves to amplify the deep discontent within the party.
The prospect of replacements from the populist faction of the ANC, under leadership of the party's president, Jacob Zuma, leaves little room for optimism. It reminds with chilling coincidence of the rejection by the populist Bolsheviks of a tentative democratic government formed under the Czar of Russia in the wake of public unrest during 1916.
All major political parties in SA agreed that the events of today will prove to be pivotal for South Africa in years to come.
Rock-a-bye baby, in the tree top
When the wind blows, the cradle will rock
When the bough breaks, the cradle will fall
And down will come baby, cradle and all
The loss of leadership includes the highly proficient finance minister, Mr Trevor Manuel, arguably the most significant loss of all. He has indicated his availability to serve under a new president.
But this entire affair reeks of rotten political manoeuvring. The executive committee of the ANC has acted with bewildering levels of blunder in their hurried decision to oust the president of the country. The departure of the members of the cabinet loyal to the president only serves to amplify the deep discontent within the party.
The prospect of replacements from the populist faction of the ANC, under leadership of the party's president, Jacob Zuma, leaves little room for optimism. It reminds with chilling coincidence of the rejection by the populist Bolsheviks of a tentative democratic government formed under the Czar of Russia in the wake of public unrest during 1916.
All major political parties in SA agreed that the events of today will prove to be pivotal for South Africa in years to come.
Rock-a-bye baby, in the tree top
When the wind blows, the cradle will rock
When the bough breaks, the cradle will fall
And down will come baby, cradle and all
22 September 2008
Pumpkin time
The clock has struck twelve for President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa. Yesterday, pushed by his party under the new leadership of the controversial Mr. Jacob Zuma, President Mbeki fell on his political sword with the announcement of his resignation. The wicked step mother, Mr. Zuma, and her ugly daughters, the ANC executive committee and the ANC Youth League, were clasping their hands in delight as the presidential coach turned into a pumpkin; the presidential robes, to rags. Tomorrow, Parliament will debate the resignation and most likely, accept it. A caretaker president will be appointed this Thursday.
The country is at once relieved and confused. Mr Mbeki has accrued for himself an unenviable array of discontent amongst many walks of the South African society during his two-term leadership of the ANC and the government. Even so, resigning six months before the natural end of his term in office, as stipulated by the Constitution, has left the country in unease over the choices before it.
Some would say that Mr Mbeki so much lacked any real leadership that his departure could not possibly cause any increase in the leadership vacuum that exists at the top. But be careful for what one wishes. Mr. Mbeki is a known quantity. With the likes of the volatile and recalcitrant Youth League as well as the rambunctious Mr Zuma at the spearhead of in-fights and power struggles, the country rightly stares concerned at the unfolding saga.
In fact, the resignation flows from allegations that Mr Mbeki has interfered with the judicial process surrounding an investigation of alleged graft by Mr Zuma as Minister of Defense. A court hearing found last week that the State could not proceed with its case against Mr Zuma due to evidence of political meddling in making the case. Plainly, Mr Zuma and Mr Mbeki represent two streams of political power on a collision course and the courts have become the battleground. This is a dangerous situation, but not entirely uncommon in the sleaze of politics.
Earlier today, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu expressed his deep sadness over the resignation of Mr Mbeki and called the situation entirely unnecessary and avoidable.
Tonight, a good friend from University, who works for Sappi, has mentioned that he is considering a job in Australia and will be in Melbourne for the next four days. The man lives a well-considered life. His move is sobering indeed.
There will be no prince to find Cinderella and bring her glass slipper. This political fairy tale of post-1994 South Africa has never been quite a fairy tale, no matter how it has been told in the press in the past. We all shall have to wake up to the reality of our beloved country. The dream is over.
The country is at once relieved and confused. Mr Mbeki has accrued for himself an unenviable array of discontent amongst many walks of the South African society during his two-term leadership of the ANC and the government. Even so, resigning six months before the natural end of his term in office, as stipulated by the Constitution, has left the country in unease over the choices before it.
Some would say that Mr Mbeki so much lacked any real leadership that his departure could not possibly cause any increase in the leadership vacuum that exists at the top. But be careful for what one wishes. Mr. Mbeki is a known quantity. With the likes of the volatile and recalcitrant Youth League as well as the rambunctious Mr Zuma at the spearhead of in-fights and power struggles, the country rightly stares concerned at the unfolding saga.
In fact, the resignation flows from allegations that Mr Mbeki has interfered with the judicial process surrounding an investigation of alleged graft by Mr Zuma as Minister of Defense. A court hearing found last week that the State could not proceed with its case against Mr Zuma due to evidence of political meddling in making the case. Plainly, Mr Zuma and Mr Mbeki represent two streams of political power on a collision course and the courts have become the battleground. This is a dangerous situation, but not entirely uncommon in the sleaze of politics.
Earlier today, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu expressed his deep sadness over the resignation of Mr Mbeki and called the situation entirely unnecessary and avoidable.
Tonight, a good friend from University, who works for Sappi, has mentioned that he is considering a job in Australia and will be in Melbourne for the next four days. The man lives a well-considered life. His move is sobering indeed.
There will be no prince to find Cinderella and bring her glass slipper. This political fairy tale of post-1994 South Africa has never been quite a fairy tale, no matter how it has been told in the press in the past. We all shall have to wake up to the reality of our beloved country. The dream is over.
08 September 2008
Mad, mad world
Courtesy of the South African caroonist, Zapiro, I bring you a mad, mad world.
The Matrix, Reloaded. Can somewhat shut up that DJ?
Shame on Russia for treating Georgia so rudely. "I don't wanna dance..."
Enter, a brave new world...
Bang bang! Fall down, you're dead.
On the home front, Jacob Zuma - a man of the people, for the people. Sure. Which people?
And in good old England, Little Old Lady and the gentleman...
The Matrix, Reloaded. Can somewhat shut up that DJ?
Shame on Russia for treating Georgia so rudely. "I don't wanna dance..."
Enter, a brave new world...
Bang bang! Fall down, you're dead.
On the home front, Jacob Zuma - a man of the people, for the people. Sure. Which people?
And in good old England, Little Old Lady and the gentleman...
18 August 2008
The Pot and the Kettle
Once upon a time there was a pot and a kettle. Both were paying regular visits to the old log stove, which left on each its black mark in equal measure. Yet one day, in a fit of vanity and self-righteousness, Pot launched a scathing attack on Kettle, accusing Kettle of being rather sooty - quite unbecoming amongst respectable utensils. Of course such hypocracy was utter folly, as Kettle retorted with indignation. And so a rather tense chill descended upon the kitchen for years to come.
On 7 and 8 August, Georgia attacked seperatists in Ossetia to which Russia responded by sending in the troops en force. The consequent, brief war that ensued drew the expected howls and strident rhetoric from the USA, calling the Kettle names while herself unbecomingly sooty from past and present military interference in the Middle East, Far East, Africa, and Central America. Nasty words went about, such as bully and intimidation. In fact, it seemed that the USA was picking a fight with Russia by proxy of the tiny Georgia.
If true, and recent movements [1, 2] seemed to suggest some truth in the notion, it would not be the first time the USA had picked a proxy war with some significant opponent by virtue of indirect campaigns. Usually, the front was the ever popular spread of "freedom and democracy", the holy grail of foreign, indirect interference. In the case of Georgia, it fitted the profile with excellence.
Stemming from American doctrines of the Cold War era in the sixties and seventies of the previous century, indirect involvement had become a favourite of cloak and dagger politics. Overtly in opposition to Soviet expansionism, or another dark force in more recent years, some ensnared and oppressed nation would be picked. By remarkable coincidence and without exception such a nation would also fall into the strategic importance category. The chosen nation could expect all kinds of covert and open support, viz. military; financial and economic favours from the USA and her partners. Support for and pressure on either ruling leaders or the opposition would attempt to steer social, political and ultimately, economic developments towards the strategic goals of the USA and her partners [3].
That leaves Georgia and the question where she fits into the above. The answer lies in the true consideration behind the overt goal of these covert involvements - resources.
With uncanning regularity, energy; mining and industrial interests correlated in the past with indirect involvement. Georgia hosts an important gas pipeline from Central Asia to the West. Russia sits on at least 30% of the world's oil and gas resources and it has become less generous to the West since the restoration of order in the Russian post-Soviet economy. One senses a few probable causes for instigating a proxy fight with Russia on Georgian ground. So Georgia has become a chosen one, receiving significant aid from the USA since independence from the Soviet Union.
Of course there is always enormous economic benefit in bolstering the old dragon, fear, within the public, at home and abroad, which in turn open their wallets in support of the military industrial complex - to fend off new threats in the East. Such a windfall can only be good, given the horrid economic outlook in the USA at present, as long as it can be financed still.
That was the Pot, so what about the Kettle you may ask? Well, perhaps the tale should be retold as the Joker and the Dark Knight. It is left as an exercise to the reader to pick the cast.
----------
Footnotes:
[1] The USA bolstered Georgian defences with military equipment and training over the past decade and pushed a NATO ascension program for Georgia.
[2] The USA military transported Georgian troops from Iraq to Georgia around the time of the conflict.
[3] A careful reading of the history of Afghanistan, Angola, Chile, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, Somalia and Vietnam would support the foregoing opinion. Sometimes the pot boiled over and direct war with the USA errupted as in Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam.
04 July 2008
Out of Africa
African politics is a quagmire of contradictions. Frankly, it has never been a model of consistency. Ever since the advent of the so-called modern age in Africa that followed more or less on the demise of colonialism on the continent, there has been inordinate levels of turmoil that ebbed and flowed. From all of that in the past came a potpourri of declarations and announcements. And through it all one was left wondering where exactly African nations saw themselves in the order of the world. Indeed, one still has no real clue.
The whole Mugabe affair has exposed the incongruous state of African politics on a continental level as well as on a national level. For one, the latest announcements from African leaders around the Zimbabwe debacle raise the question whether African nations somehow regard themselves as from another planet, where quite different rules and norms apply. Utterings such as "African problems must be solved in an African manner without external interference" appear at odd with reality.
Africa is not a federation where states deal with local matters as internal to the federation. It is not even a union such as the EU. In fact, it is a loose club of nations sitting on the same continent, sharing a similar history in some cases. But the divides and fault lines run very clearly and indeed sadly through that very fabric. Moreover, Africa in all its diversity of nations, finds itself in the world of today. The individual African states are each as much part of the world order as any state on another continent. And in the words of president Mugabe himself, Zimbabwe for example, is a sovereign state. That said, every other African state is a sovereign state in the global context, no more and no less. Therefore, any other nation that adheres to the principles of international law and human rights has an equal voice in expressing concern and requesting action against an unjust sovereign state, such as Zimbabwe that brutalises democracy and its very citizens.
Surely, Africans are not suddenly claiming some racist exclusivity for themselves as if nations not from the continent are somehow unqualified to comment or apply international measures to African leaders, governments and states? It is high time African states acknowledge that each African state is within the global order of this world and therefor subject to international scrutiny.
If Africans expect equal treatment with the rest of the world, then Africans should accept equal measure went it comes to their actions.
The whole Mugabe affair has exposed the incongruous state of African politics on a continental level as well as on a national level. For one, the latest announcements from African leaders around the Zimbabwe debacle raise the question whether African nations somehow regard themselves as from another planet, where quite different rules and norms apply. Utterings such as "African problems must be solved in an African manner without external interference" appear at odd with reality.
Africa is not a federation where states deal with local matters as internal to the federation. It is not even a union such as the EU. In fact, it is a loose club of nations sitting on the same continent, sharing a similar history in some cases. But the divides and fault lines run very clearly and indeed sadly through that very fabric. Moreover, Africa in all its diversity of nations, finds itself in the world of today. The individual African states are each as much part of the world order as any state on another continent. And in the words of president Mugabe himself, Zimbabwe for example, is a sovereign state. That said, every other African state is a sovereign state in the global context, no more and no less. Therefore, any other nation that adheres to the principles of international law and human rights has an equal voice in expressing concern and requesting action against an unjust sovereign state, such as Zimbabwe that brutalises democracy and its very citizens.
Surely, Africans are not suddenly claiming some racist exclusivity for themselves as if nations not from the continent are somehow unqualified to comment or apply international measures to African leaders, governments and states? It is high time African states acknowledge that each African state is within the global order of this world and therefor subject to international scrutiny.
If Africans expect equal treatment with the rest of the world, then Africans should accept equal measure went it comes to their actions.
01 July 2008
The state of the nation
This week the African Union gathered in Egypt for a summit. And a rather prickly item on the agenda was the desparate situation in Zimbabwe. Present in all his grimness was the so-called president of Zimbabwe, Mr Robert Mugage himself. So-called, because since the March elections this year, Mr Mugabe has not been president based upon a clear majority, but rather a minority leader hanging on for dear life. Such is the dawn of despots and the sunset for a once respected liberation leadership.
The cynic's take would be "there we have it - another chapter in the history of African politics". Nevertheless, the question before us all is what now, what next? Send in the troops a la Iraq or DRC? Continue quiet diplomacy, as is the tune of President Mbeki of South Africa? In the mean time lucrative mining deals are being closed by Anglo American in Zimbabwe. One may yet ponder the connection to the political turmoil in that state of such investments and potential returns.
In fact, one may ask what is the state of the nation for many countries in the world today as turmoil seems to follow the prospects of natural resources. The list makes for somber reading. Nigeria, the sixth largest oil producer, is in constant political turmoil. The DRC, rich in diamonds, copper and forestry, is emerging from a bloody civil war. In South Africa, stupendously rich in many commodities, political undercurrents and a power struggle are threatening the fledging democracy while the BEE program creates new fat cats on a gravy train surpassing the old National Party edition.
Central Asia, endowed with rich natural gas fields, is experiencing sudden surges of public and political unrest, with so-called democratic movements opposing rather authoritarian governments. It strikes one as odd that Mongolia, not usually a front page hit but sitting on a pot of resources, suddenly seems to be up in arms over so-called fraudulent elections, now that the latest run on resources is increasingly frenetic.
False correlation, one may say. Yet, when it comes to spreading and practicing democracy, all are not quite well. Special interests, lobbying, cronism, nepotism have infested the once noble structures of the Enlightenment. Subversion and intervention seem to be well and alive, even as current, disreputed leaderships have been tolerated or even condoned in the past by those instrumenting a change of guard.
One common theme appears to be a sudden upsurge in opposition parties and public disquiet, followed by an election the outcome of which only to be called into disrepute. It seems voting has become a futile interlude before a pre-designated elite of rulers take over the reigns. To be sure, many of the current governments in these troubled states do perform rather poorly. Many of these were installed with and though external meddling. The DRC, Nigeria, Sudan and Chile are examples. It strikes as odd the frequency with which election results are being questioned and especially where there is much internationally to be gained from installing specific figures into power. Russia, Gaza, Venezuela and Pakistan come to mind.
As it were, democracy worldwide today is in a rather bad shape, in need of an overhaul. The state of the nation is troubled to say the least. The eyes of the world turn to the presidential race in the USA in hope of a new beginning for democracy - of the people for the people. Or as the French would have it: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.
The cynic's take would be "there we have it - another chapter in the history of African politics". Nevertheless, the question before us all is what now, what next? Send in the troops a la Iraq or DRC? Continue quiet diplomacy, as is the tune of President Mbeki of South Africa? In the mean time lucrative mining deals are being closed by Anglo American in Zimbabwe. One may yet ponder the connection to the political turmoil in that state of such investments and potential returns.
In fact, one may ask what is the state of the nation for many countries in the world today as turmoil seems to follow the prospects of natural resources. The list makes for somber reading. Nigeria, the sixth largest oil producer, is in constant political turmoil. The DRC, rich in diamonds, copper and forestry, is emerging from a bloody civil war. In South Africa, stupendously rich in many commodities, political undercurrents and a power struggle are threatening the fledging democracy while the BEE program creates new fat cats on a gravy train surpassing the old National Party edition.
Central Asia, endowed with rich natural gas fields, is experiencing sudden surges of public and political unrest, with so-called democratic movements opposing rather authoritarian governments. It strikes one as odd that Mongolia, not usually a front page hit but sitting on a pot of resources, suddenly seems to be up in arms over so-called fraudulent elections, now that the latest run on resources is increasingly frenetic.
False correlation, one may say. Yet, when it comes to spreading and practicing democracy, all are not quite well. Special interests, lobbying, cronism, nepotism have infested the once noble structures of the Enlightenment. Subversion and intervention seem to be well and alive, even as current, disreputed leaderships have been tolerated or even condoned in the past by those instrumenting a change of guard.
One common theme appears to be a sudden upsurge in opposition parties and public disquiet, followed by an election the outcome of which only to be called into disrepute. It seems voting has become a futile interlude before a pre-designated elite of rulers take over the reigns. To be sure, many of the current governments in these troubled states do perform rather poorly. Many of these were installed with and though external meddling. The DRC, Nigeria, Sudan and Chile are examples. It strikes as odd the frequency with which election results are being questioned and especially where there is much internationally to be gained from installing specific figures into power. Russia, Gaza, Venezuela and Pakistan come to mind.
As it were, democracy worldwide today is in a rather bad shape, in need of an overhaul. The state of the nation is troubled to say the least. The eyes of the world turn to the presidential race in the USA in hope of a new beginning for democracy - of the people for the people. Or as the French would have it: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.
24 June 2008
When Darkness Falls
Darkness has descended upon southern Africa. These days there is barely a spot of peace in Zimbabwe. How terrible and sad is the descent of that once pristine and prosperous country. It is often spoken of the Breadbasket of Africa that is no more. But Zimbabwe, to all accounts from those who have long since fled to safer shores, was more than productive farmland. It was a lush and peaceful place for years before and after the troublesome revolution of the late 1970's. Yet the wheels have come off and in a very bad way too.
After years of neglect from most of the world, suddenly the UN has woken up, stepped up and made a firm declaration against the utter outrage that prevails in Zimbabwe today. Alas, it is a bit too little, too late, many would argue. Common citizens are being tortured, intimidated, brutalised by thugs and cronies of the ruling party, ZANU-PF.
The despot president himself, Mr Robert Mugabe, has degenerated into a rambling megalomaniac, foaming at the mouth on every opportunity. Heaven forbid - the man has even reached to the divine by proclaiming to all and sundry that only God can remove him from power - what desperate dribble. Right, well perhaps God has given us democracy to remove the likes of him from power and yet Mr Mugabe reckons he'll declare war if the opposition MDC would win the presidential run-off elections on Friday and thereby put him out of power.
At stone-cold stiff long last, the pussyfooting South African president, Mr Mbeki, has begun to make cautious utterances over the dire situation in Zim. Still, it is the current leader of the ruling party, Dr Zuma, who today has expressed a clear denunciation of the farce unfolding in Zimbabwe. Several other African countries have already denounced the current situation in Zim.
Meanwhile, thousands of Zimbabwean refugees stream into South Africa, raising stress levels in a local economy already overstressed. Johannesburg is degenerating faster than ever. It's inner city resembles a Nairobi or a Kinshasa, not the financial capital of South Africa, the richest and most powerful country in Africa. Nervous inhabitants hide themselves at night in gated communities on the outskirts and cautiously commute to work and home on roads fraud with hijacking.
Cry the beloved country, indeed.
After years of neglect from most of the world, suddenly the UN has woken up, stepped up and made a firm declaration against the utter outrage that prevails in Zimbabwe today. Alas, it is a bit too little, too late, many would argue. Common citizens are being tortured, intimidated, brutalised by thugs and cronies of the ruling party, ZANU-PF.
The despot president himself, Mr Robert Mugabe, has degenerated into a rambling megalomaniac, foaming at the mouth on every opportunity. Heaven forbid - the man has even reached to the divine by proclaiming to all and sundry that only God can remove him from power - what desperate dribble. Right, well perhaps God has given us democracy to remove the likes of him from power and yet Mr Mugabe reckons he'll declare war if the opposition MDC would win the presidential run-off elections on Friday and thereby put him out of power.
At stone-cold stiff long last, the pussyfooting South African president, Mr Mbeki, has begun to make cautious utterances over the dire situation in Zim. Still, it is the current leader of the ruling party, Dr Zuma, who today has expressed a clear denunciation of the farce unfolding in Zimbabwe. Several other African countries have already denounced the current situation in Zim.
Meanwhile, thousands of Zimbabwean refugees stream into South Africa, raising stress levels in a local economy already overstressed. Johannesburg is degenerating faster than ever. It's inner city resembles a Nairobi or a Kinshasa, not the financial capital of South Africa, the richest and most powerful country in Africa. Nervous inhabitants hide themselves at night in gated communities on the outskirts and cautiously commute to work and home on roads fraud with hijacking.
Cry the beloved country, indeed.
05 June 2008
A New Hope
Today there is a new hope in the American and international politics. Notwithstanding the relentless efforts of the empire of established interests in the US, headed by Sen. Clinton and her clan, Sen. Obama has made it through to become the Democratic Party nominee for president of the USA in the coming elections this November. And these efforts were fierce and foul. Nothing was spared - from cheap tears to soppy, fear mongering advertising. Every strand of possibility to tarnish the first Black candidate for president of the USA was tried. But through sheer competence and superb profesionalism, Sen. Obama has prevailed. Today the international world can take a pause and ponder tomorrow. The American presidential race has not joined the dark side.
Yet there is a disturbance in the force of change. Last night, Sen. Obama delivered an astonishing speech to AIPAC. In an obvious bid for support from an extraordinarily influential lobby group, the senator who had ridden in on the ticket of no pandering to the lobbyists, did just that: He pandered most pathetically to every cliche of the AIPAC agenda. In the most absolutist terms Sen. Obama underwrote unquestionable alliance with one of the most unjust regimes in the world: The state of Israel. In a shattering display of inconsistency and paradox, he proclaimed in the same breath a willingness for firm diplomacy with Iran and yet declared Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel,immidiately alienating millions of potentially agreeable Arabs and Palestinians in particular. Perhaps he was already repaying the one lobby group that did provide him the final push beyond the reach of Sen. Clinton, behind the scenes of course.
What credibility as a peacemaker he had built up over his campaign thus far, was thoroughly shaken by last night's unfortunate speech. It leaves one wondering how many other lobby groups may stand in line now for some acknowledgement plus some more. It will seem that the forces of the dark side are indeed powerful. Perhaps the young knight of the new hope is not quite the prince of peace for whom we have waited. But then, he still has much to learn and may yet shine.
Yet there is a disturbance in the force of change. Last night, Sen. Obama delivered an astonishing speech to AIPAC. In an obvious bid for support from an extraordinarily influential lobby group, the senator who had ridden in on the ticket of no pandering to the lobbyists, did just that: He pandered most pathetically to every cliche of the AIPAC agenda. In the most absolutist terms Sen. Obama underwrote unquestionable alliance with one of the most unjust regimes in the world: The state of Israel. In a shattering display of inconsistency and paradox, he proclaimed in the same breath a willingness for firm diplomacy with Iran and yet declared Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel,immidiately alienating millions of potentially agreeable Arabs and Palestinians in particular. Perhaps he was already repaying the one lobby group that did provide him the final push beyond the reach of Sen. Clinton, behind the scenes of course.
What credibility as a peacemaker he had built up over his campaign thus far, was thoroughly shaken by last night's unfortunate speech. It leaves one wondering how many other lobby groups may stand in line now for some acknowledgement plus some more. It will seem that the forces of the dark side are indeed powerful. Perhaps the young knight of the new hope is not quite the prince of peace for whom we have waited. But then, he still has much to learn and may yet shine.
03 March 2008
The empire strikes back
All is not well in the inner circles of the Washington establishment. Frankly, it seems there simmers a great deal of unease with the remarkable success of Sen. Obama's campaign for the Democratic Party's presidential candidacy.
Here is a man, until recently quite obscure and unknown to the broader public, who suddenly is taking the country by storm. He has a new vision of the American Dream - a vision in which the establishment of Ivy League and corporate cronies is not enshrined. He blatantly speaks out against the entrenched interests of corporate America, which until now has been very much outside the reach of the democratic vote to alter the vestibules of power. He outright condemns a foreign policy more akin of a teenage boy on steroids than a mature country at the lead. He refocusses resources on education and training and by implication away from the military industrial complex. He aims to reduce the reign of the energy sector by changing the playing field of energy use and resource.
Worst of all for the establishment - the public and especially the younger members of public buy into his message of change and a new vision. The voters and consumers of tomorrow are taking heed of his new direction. It must be most troubling to those fat cats with their bulging retirement packages made up of tonnes of their corporate shares and stock options. The private libraries and studies of the mansions of power must be black with cigar smoke and concerned whisper in equal measure. Why, the entrenched dynasties that have formed since the inception of the USA are suddenly not so sure of their unbridled rule over the free. Because none is more lethal to entrenched rule of the elite than the poison of a fresh idea. Ask the French.
So, now the empire strikes back. My word, Mrs Clinton has become all too strident with a particular bitchiness barely concealed under her makeup. Shame on the Clinton camp - once the stalwart of the Democratic Party of the USA, to endulge in the same fear smear of which they so recently accused the Republican candidates. Now, suddenly, Texans must be treated to a soppy ad in true Hollywood style with the message of who would you trust with your dear little children's security in the face of the gruesome Gollywog at the borders. Of course, the experienced Ms Clinton comes galloping to your rescue. Experience? I beg your pardon, madam. You were the wife of the president, not the president himself. You have never commanded troops or been Commander in Chief of anything more than a bloated household bursting with servants.
Now, Sen. Obama's experience with leading the country and, lest we forget, those armed forces and their Pentagon brigade, is suddenly put up for scrutiny. Rather, all of this sudden concern with experience is none other than the concerned spasms of the establishment. Experience is code for entrenched interests. And not only the corporate interest groups are squirming quite visibly, but also other interest groups - most noticeably the Jewish lobby.
For too long the state of Israel has nestled like little brat brother under the armpit of big brother. Suddenly, there is chance of a presidential candidate who will bring fairness and balance to world politics, including the Middle East. No wonder, Mrs. Clinton has suddenly found her war chest bursting with a most welcome $35 million.
But a word of caution to Sen. Obama: Sir, just as you stand firm against the corporate lobby should you stand firm against any other lobby, including the Jewish lobby. Let democracy return for once to the USA and peace to the world. Such a chance does not come around too often. Yes, you can.
Here is a man, until recently quite obscure and unknown to the broader public, who suddenly is taking the country by storm. He has a new vision of the American Dream - a vision in which the establishment of Ivy League and corporate cronies is not enshrined. He blatantly speaks out against the entrenched interests of corporate America, which until now has been very much outside the reach of the democratic vote to alter the vestibules of power. He outright condemns a foreign policy more akin of a teenage boy on steroids than a mature country at the lead. He refocusses resources on education and training and by implication away from the military industrial complex. He aims to reduce the reign of the energy sector by changing the playing field of energy use and resource.
Worst of all for the establishment - the public and especially the younger members of public buy into his message of change and a new vision. The voters and consumers of tomorrow are taking heed of his new direction. It must be most troubling to those fat cats with their bulging retirement packages made up of tonnes of their corporate shares and stock options. The private libraries and studies of the mansions of power must be black with cigar smoke and concerned whisper in equal measure. Why, the entrenched dynasties that have formed since the inception of the USA are suddenly not so sure of their unbridled rule over the free. Because none is more lethal to entrenched rule of the elite than the poison of a fresh idea. Ask the French.
So, now the empire strikes back. My word, Mrs Clinton has become all too strident with a particular bitchiness barely concealed under her makeup. Shame on the Clinton camp - once the stalwart of the Democratic Party of the USA, to endulge in the same fear smear of which they so recently accused the Republican candidates. Now, suddenly, Texans must be treated to a soppy ad in true Hollywood style with the message of who would you trust with your dear little children's security in the face of the gruesome Gollywog at the borders. Of course, the experienced Ms Clinton comes galloping to your rescue. Experience? I beg your pardon, madam. You were the wife of the president, not the president himself. You have never commanded troops or been Commander in Chief of anything more than a bloated household bursting with servants.
Now, Sen. Obama's experience with leading the country and, lest we forget, those armed forces and their Pentagon brigade, is suddenly put up for scrutiny. Rather, all of this sudden concern with experience is none other than the concerned spasms of the establishment. Experience is code for entrenched interests. And not only the corporate interest groups are squirming quite visibly, but also other interest groups - most noticeably the Jewish lobby.
For too long the state of Israel has nestled like little brat brother under the armpit of big brother. Suddenly, there is chance of a presidential candidate who will bring fairness and balance to world politics, including the Middle East. No wonder, Mrs. Clinton has suddenly found her war chest bursting with a most welcome $35 million.
But a word of caution to Sen. Obama: Sir, just as you stand firm against the corporate lobby should you stand firm against any other lobby, including the Jewish lobby. Let democracy return for once to the USA and peace to the world. Such a chance does not come around too often. Yes, you can.
17 February 2008
Yes, we can and we should too
Decision time is coming up. The presidential election will happen November 2008. It is fair to say that there is a fork in the road for the USA. More so than in a long time in US history and the history of the world, the status quo just is not sustainable, neither on a national nor an international scale.
The country faces an unprecedented debt crisis of several trillion dollars. Its national infrastructure is out of date and dilapidating at an alarming rate. Its international image is in tatters and its military is overextended through involvement in too many wars and conflicts on foreign soil. Its economy wobbles on the edge of a credit precipice. It is consuming more per capita than any other country in times when all crucial resources are under serious threat of total exhaustion. Its democracy has been taken hostage by a few powerful industrial complexes and its government is invested and infested with eager lobbyists that serve their masters and not the interests of the common voter. In short, the country behaves under the delusion of infinite resources and capacity for growth, come what may. Reality has begun to catch up with this fallacy.
The world faces an unprecedented crunch in resources as awakening nations, such as China and India, join the First World with rocketing demands on energy, commodities and natural resources. International politics are fraud with failing democracies, remaining autocracies and theocracies. Matters are worse for the constant interference and manipulation by members of the G8 for their own interests of troubled societies outside the G8. Blatant exploitation via so-called direct foreign investment of resources in these countries stands side by side with ruthless military intervention masquerading as democracy riding in on a white horse. Yet the bluff is slowly being called upon such exploits as citizens of these countries begin to question the real benefits of such foreign presence.
Against the above bleak backdrop and onto such a sombre stage enters the unlikely presidential candidate like a fresh breeze into a stale room: Sen. Barak Obama. Here is a man, who holds a degree in civil rights law from Havard, but who is not an Ivy League boy. He is a senator in the US government, but has not sold his soul to the corporate league. His message is fresh and inspiring. His sentiments appear devoid of ulterior motives and a self-serving sense of entitlement. He calls for a new chapter in US and international history to begin February 2009, when the new administration in Washington DC will commence in all earnest.
The US can save herself and the world economy from collapse if and only if a majority of citizens realises that we are living on limited resources. We cannot just borrow and spend as the whim takes us. We cannot grow indefinitely given limited resources. We cannot spend ourselves out of a financial and economic situation that stems from long-term overspending. We cannot continue to run the world by proxy of our politicians, military and corporations.
Can we get by with yesterday's iPod? Yes we can.
Can we wait until we have saved enough before we go on vacation? Yes we can.
Can we withdraw from foreign countries and begin to respect differences? Yes we can.
Can we stop the international bombast and sit down to listen? Yes we can.
Can we walk 0.5 km to the shop instead of driving? Yes we can.
Can we buy a station-wagon instead of an SUV to carry the children? Yes we can.
Can we put the corporations, such as the military industrial complex and pharmaceutical industry, out of controlling the halls of Washington? Yes we can.
It will require a major change of heart at grass-roots level and leadership at the top.
Yes we can and we should too.
The country faces an unprecedented debt crisis of several trillion dollars. Its national infrastructure is out of date and dilapidating at an alarming rate. Its international image is in tatters and its military is overextended through involvement in too many wars and conflicts on foreign soil. Its economy wobbles on the edge of a credit precipice. It is consuming more per capita than any other country in times when all crucial resources are under serious threat of total exhaustion. Its democracy has been taken hostage by a few powerful industrial complexes and its government is invested and infested with eager lobbyists that serve their masters and not the interests of the common voter. In short, the country behaves under the delusion of infinite resources and capacity for growth, come what may. Reality has begun to catch up with this fallacy.
The world faces an unprecedented crunch in resources as awakening nations, such as China and India, join the First World with rocketing demands on energy, commodities and natural resources. International politics are fraud with failing democracies, remaining autocracies and theocracies. Matters are worse for the constant interference and manipulation by members of the G8 for their own interests of troubled societies outside the G8. Blatant exploitation via so-called direct foreign investment of resources in these countries stands side by side with ruthless military intervention masquerading as democracy riding in on a white horse. Yet the bluff is slowly being called upon such exploits as citizens of these countries begin to question the real benefits of such foreign presence.
Against the above bleak backdrop and onto such a sombre stage enters the unlikely presidential candidate like a fresh breeze into a stale room: Sen. Barak Obama. Here is a man, who holds a degree in civil rights law from Havard, but who is not an Ivy League boy. He is a senator in the US government, but has not sold his soul to the corporate league. His message is fresh and inspiring. His sentiments appear devoid of ulterior motives and a self-serving sense of entitlement. He calls for a new chapter in US and international history to begin February 2009, when the new administration in Washington DC will commence in all earnest.
The US can save herself and the world economy from collapse if and only if a majority of citizens realises that we are living on limited resources. We cannot just borrow and spend as the whim takes us. We cannot grow indefinitely given limited resources. We cannot spend ourselves out of a financial and economic situation that stems from long-term overspending. We cannot continue to run the world by proxy of our politicians, military and corporations.
Can we get by with yesterday's iPod? Yes we can.
Can we wait until we have saved enough before we go on vacation? Yes we can.
Can we withdraw from foreign countries and begin to respect differences? Yes we can.
Can we stop the international bombast and sit down to listen? Yes we can.
Can we walk 0.5 km to the shop instead of driving? Yes we can.
Can we buy a station-wagon instead of an SUV to carry the children? Yes we can.
Can we put the corporations, such as the military industrial complex and pharmaceutical industry, out of controlling the halls of Washington? Yes we can.
It will require a major change of heart at grass-roots level and leadership at the top.
Yes we can and we should too.
22 January 2008
A fixer for the hangover
Alcoholics know the drill: Take a fixer for the hangover. Matt Frey of the BBC in Washington has suggested that the US is suffering from a huge financial hangover because of a 15 year financial binge. Now the President, Mr Bush, has prescribed a fixer. He should know - his turbulent youth provides ample experience of binging. The stimulate package for the US economy sounds more like a fixer than a fix. Spend your way out of your overspent situation. That must be Bush logic to take the biscuit.
The US is over its ears in debt. National debt runs into tens of trillions of dollars, depending upon who does the actuary calculus and the spin. The national deficit is at three trillion dollars. Personal debt has landed the country and the world in the current financial melt-down through reckless personal credit at the bottom of an equally perilous pyramid of financial instruments. Living too high means falling very far.
Instead of proposing an austerity package to turn the page from overindulgence and extravagance to a more moderate live style, the President thought it good last Friday to prescribe further indulgence. In fact, it is quite amusing amidst the dismay. I wonder if there is an Alcoholics Anonymous for Financial Gluttons.
The US is over its ears in debt. National debt runs into tens of trillions of dollars, depending upon who does the actuary calculus and the spin. The national deficit is at three trillion dollars. Personal debt has landed the country and the world in the current financial melt-down through reckless personal credit at the bottom of an equally perilous pyramid of financial instruments. Living too high means falling very far.
Instead of proposing an austerity package to turn the page from overindulgence and extravagance to a more moderate live style, the President thought it good last Friday to prescribe further indulgence. In fact, it is quite amusing amidst the dismay. I wonder if there is an Alcoholics Anonymous for Financial Gluttons.
10 January 2008
A Tear in Time
For Ms Clinton and her run for presidential candidacy, a tear in time saves nine it would seem. Probably only on these shores of the world would such a soppy stunt bring such bullish benefits as have been demonstrated in the New Hampshire Primaries. Elsewhere, the audience would have been either indifferent or embarrassed, either of which response would not have given Ms Clinton any advantage over her significantly more composed opponent, Mr Obama.
In fact, so far Mr Obama has been the more convincing, mostly because of his sincerity. Especially, Mr Obama is definitely not from the Establishment. He is not an Ivy League boy even though he holds a law degree from Harvard. He smiles with warm conviction at the crowds; not with the plastic grimace of his main opponent.
Mr Obama's message of change may be ringing with some rhetoric, but his focus is outwards, his aim apparently for the people, not his own entitlement. In contrast, Ms Clinton seems almost petulantly bent on getting her way on her way to her presidency. She is to her neck steeped in the Establishment - what she calls experience. Such experience leaves one wondering just how much change her presidency would bring. After all, the Establishment prefers the status quo in order to stay established.
So, in the aftermath of the Iowa win for Mr Obama over Ms Clinton at the Democratic caucus, Ms Clinton seemingly got a bit overwhelmed by matters and decidedly soppy on TV - in a calculatedly constrained manner. In a country where everyone seems to relish a tear or two on TV when given the chance and the circumstance, such display was a certain card towards gaining support from sop suckers. Call me cynical, but this is the country that has given us show biz and Hollywood.
After the narrow loss in the New Hampshire Primary, Mr Obama's concession speech was a model of confidence and gallantry. This man must pose the most serious threat to the Establishment since John F. Kennedy. If one person could break the hold of Corporate America on this heralded but undermined democracy, it would be Barack Obama.
Change has a face with an honest smile for once.
In fact, so far Mr Obama has been the more convincing, mostly because of his sincerity. Especially, Mr Obama is definitely not from the Establishment. He is not an Ivy League boy even though he holds a law degree from Harvard. He smiles with warm conviction at the crowds; not with the plastic grimace of his main opponent.
Mr Obama's message of change may be ringing with some rhetoric, but his focus is outwards, his aim apparently for the people, not his own entitlement. In contrast, Ms Clinton seems almost petulantly bent on getting her way on her way to her presidency. She is to her neck steeped in the Establishment - what she calls experience. Such experience leaves one wondering just how much change her presidency would bring. After all, the Establishment prefers the status quo in order to stay established.
So, in the aftermath of the Iowa win for Mr Obama over Ms Clinton at the Democratic caucus, Ms Clinton seemingly got a bit overwhelmed by matters and decidedly soppy on TV - in a calculatedly constrained manner. In a country where everyone seems to relish a tear or two on TV when given the chance and the circumstance, such display was a certain card towards gaining support from sop suckers. Call me cynical, but this is the country that has given us show biz and Hollywood.
After the narrow loss in the New Hampshire Primary, Mr Obama's concession speech was a model of confidence and gallantry. This man must pose the most serious threat to the Establishment since John F. Kennedy. If one person could break the hold of Corporate America on this heralded but undermined democracy, it would be Barack Obama.
Change has a face with an honest smile for once.
04 December 2007
Jacob Zuma for President: Jeltsin reincarnated?
The nominations for the leadership of the African National Congress are on. Within two weeks, the nation and the world will know who will lead the majority party in parliament. More important, this person is most likely to become the next president of the Republic of South Africa after the elections in 2008. It is fair to say that there is a lot at stake.
The scope for suspense would have been less were it not for the dubious list of nominees. For one, the current leader of the party, President Mbeki, cannot stand again for president of the country at the end of his current term. The constitution prohibits him from doing so, even if he would be re-elected as the leader of his party. And all signs are that he will be running for leader of the party, since he accepted the party's nomination earlier today. But Mr. Mbeki is at the end of both his tenure and his political yarn. His leadership of the party while not president of the country would lead to all sorts of contentious clashes.
But there is more cause for concern. The most likely candidate at this stage to become the next president of South Africa is the controversial Mr. Jacob Zuma. Now here is a man of the people - a truly populist leader. He has little formal education, comes from a poor background and appeals to the poor masses of which South Africa has many on the voters lists across the country. But he is also a man with a record.
In 2005 a case of fraud against Mr. Zuma was struck from the court roll but by then he had been dismissed already as Deputy President of South Africa. By 2006, another case against Mr. Zuma, this time of rape, was decided in his favour by the court. More damaging were the evidence brought before the court by Mr. Zuma during his defence. In particular, he came across as chauvinist; of questionable moral standards and entirely not well informed or educated.
Quite frankly, Mr. Zuma does not strike the figure of a typical, well-groomed presidential candidate in a modern, largely westernised country. Rather, Mr. Zuma comes across very much a man in the Boris Yeltsin mould. And as we know from history, under Yeltsin, Russia fell apart, was being ransacked by unscrupulous oligarchs and came to the brink of bankruptcy.
One dearly hopes that the same lot that befell Russia in the 1990's is not in stock for South Africa over the next five to ten years, which will be the maximum tenure of the next president of South Africa.
The scope for suspense would have been less were it not for the dubious list of nominees. For one, the current leader of the party, President Mbeki, cannot stand again for president of the country at the end of his current term. The constitution prohibits him from doing so, even if he would be re-elected as the leader of his party. And all signs are that he will be running for leader of the party, since he accepted the party's nomination earlier today. But Mr. Mbeki is at the end of both his tenure and his political yarn. His leadership of the party while not president of the country would lead to all sorts of contentious clashes.
But there is more cause for concern. The most likely candidate at this stage to become the next president of South Africa is the controversial Mr. Jacob Zuma. Now here is a man of the people - a truly populist leader. He has little formal education, comes from a poor background and appeals to the poor masses of which South Africa has many on the voters lists across the country. But he is also a man with a record.
In 2005 a case of fraud against Mr. Zuma was struck from the court roll but by then he had been dismissed already as Deputy President of South Africa. By 2006, another case against Mr. Zuma, this time of rape, was decided in his favour by the court. More damaging were the evidence brought before the court by Mr. Zuma during his defence. In particular, he came across as chauvinist; of questionable moral standards and entirely not well informed or educated.
Quite frankly, Mr. Zuma does not strike the figure of a typical, well-groomed presidential candidate in a modern, largely westernised country. Rather, Mr. Zuma comes across very much a man in the Boris Yeltsin mould. And as we know from history, under Yeltsin, Russia fell apart, was being ransacked by unscrupulous oligarchs and came to the brink of bankruptcy.
One dearly hopes that the same lot that befell Russia in the 1990's is not in stock for South Africa over the next five to ten years, which will be the maximum tenure of the next president of South Africa.
02 December 2007
Annapolis: Apartheid Reloaded
The mantra rang out from the stage at Annapolis all of last week: Two states, living side by side, in peace and security. It sounded as soppy as a corporate slogan. Forty hopeful nations had endorsed the conference between Israel and representatives of the Palestinian regions.
In true form, grand speeches were made too. A speech by Mr. Olmert, Prime Minister of Israel, put things into proper perspective rather well, when he said: "If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished."
It is extraordinary what capacity for double standards can befall mankind. Take the perilous dilemma of Palestine for example. Here we are sixty years on from that fateful day in 1947 when about 600000 European refugees, claiming Jewish culture and ancestry, and fleeing severe persecution in Europe before and during the War, unilaterally declared an independent state amidst the indignant natives of Palestine. Unable and unwilling to do much else, the UN clumsily acknowledged the State of Israel. In the sixty years of suffering that followed, it all seems to have come down to separating Jewish and non-Jewish in order to preserve socio-political majority for those who are Jewish. That policy has a name: Apartheid.
In 1948, the then recently elected National Party of South Africa embarked on a policy intended to create independent homelands or states for the various African ethnic groups while ensuring numeric supremacy for ethnic groups of European descent in the remainder of South Africa. It was called Apartheid. A major component of the policy was fear.
The majority of South Africans of European ancestry, many of whose ancestors fled religious persecution and economic hardship, feared that their culture and values would be overrun by the numerically overwhelming native African population, were all to be included in the same political and therefore, voting system. South Africa could not be both democratic and European in culture. As in Israel, the policy of ethnic separation was often brutal and brought immeasurable hardship to those finding themselves at the sharp end of the policy. However, the world fast began to react with increasing vehemence against the South African government, because of the unfairness of that policy.
According to Newsmax, a conservative new letter, Prime Minister Olmert, a hard-liner earlier in his career, in recent years has repeatedly warned that Israel cannot remain both Jewish and democratic if it holds on to the West Bank and Gaza. Fair enough, yet Newsmax; Mr Olmert and his Western supporters seem to miss the point that the creation of Israel was undemocratic in its entirety. Jewish people in all of Palestine, including Israel, cannot hold on to a state with Jewish numeric supremacy without contradicting democracy and human rights as understood in the civilised world of today.
So last week in Annapolis, the main protagonists gathered in an attempt to start again towards a solution that would appear fair, democratic and bring an end to seemingly endless regional strive. But all the time, the premise of the whole affair was rotten. One cannot pluck out of the blue an independent state for a gathering of European refugees in territory that has never legally belonged to them. Such a policy has a name: Colonisation. It was abandoned everywhere else by the civilised world during the 20th century. Religion, myth and legend do not constitute international law, no matter how many old men in black robes and hats wiggle to chanting in places high and holy.
What then is to be done? It would be wise not to make matters worse. Acknowledge to the Palestinian people the grotesque unfairness of 1947 and beyond; hear their plight and pain; put all hopes, wishes and fears on the table and pray for wisdom before taking even one more decision. If religion could shine any light on this dilemma it should be that love fears not. And love can turn an enemy into a brother, even a half-brother. And brothers can live side by side within the same borders: One state in peace and security.
In true form, grand speeches were made too. A speech by Mr. Olmert, Prime Minister of Israel, put things into proper perspective rather well, when he said: "If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished."
It is extraordinary what capacity for double standards can befall mankind. Take the perilous dilemma of Palestine for example. Here we are sixty years on from that fateful day in 1947 when about 600000 European refugees, claiming Jewish culture and ancestry, and fleeing severe persecution in Europe before and during the War, unilaterally declared an independent state amidst the indignant natives of Palestine. Unable and unwilling to do much else, the UN clumsily acknowledged the State of Israel. In the sixty years of suffering that followed, it all seems to have come down to separating Jewish and non-Jewish in order to preserve socio-political majority for those who are Jewish. That policy has a name: Apartheid.
In 1948, the then recently elected National Party of South Africa embarked on a policy intended to create independent homelands or states for the various African ethnic groups while ensuring numeric supremacy for ethnic groups of European descent in the remainder of South Africa. It was called Apartheid. A major component of the policy was fear.
The majority of South Africans of European ancestry, many of whose ancestors fled religious persecution and economic hardship, feared that their culture and values would be overrun by the numerically overwhelming native African population, were all to be included in the same political and therefore, voting system. South Africa could not be both democratic and European in culture. As in Israel, the policy of ethnic separation was often brutal and brought immeasurable hardship to those finding themselves at the sharp end of the policy. However, the world fast began to react with increasing vehemence against the South African government, because of the unfairness of that policy.
According to Newsmax, a conservative new letter, Prime Minister Olmert, a hard-liner earlier in his career, in recent years has repeatedly warned that Israel cannot remain both Jewish and democratic if it holds on to the West Bank and Gaza. Fair enough, yet Newsmax; Mr Olmert and his Western supporters seem to miss the point that the creation of Israel was undemocratic in its entirety. Jewish people in all of Palestine, including Israel, cannot hold on to a state with Jewish numeric supremacy without contradicting democracy and human rights as understood in the civilised world of today.
So last week in Annapolis, the main protagonists gathered in an attempt to start again towards a solution that would appear fair, democratic and bring an end to seemingly endless regional strive. But all the time, the premise of the whole affair was rotten. One cannot pluck out of the blue an independent state for a gathering of European refugees in territory that has never legally belonged to them. Such a policy has a name: Colonisation. It was abandoned everywhere else by the civilised world during the 20th century. Religion, myth and legend do not constitute international law, no matter how many old men in black robes and hats wiggle to chanting in places high and holy.
What then is to be done? It would be wise not to make matters worse. Acknowledge to the Palestinian people the grotesque unfairness of 1947 and beyond; hear their plight and pain; put all hopes, wishes and fears on the table and pray for wisdom before taking even one more decision. If religion could shine any light on this dilemma it should be that love fears not. And love can turn an enemy into a brother, even a half-brother. And brothers can live side by side within the same borders: One state in peace and security.
26 November 2007
Annapolis: Promise or poo
Let's face it: The Palestinian conflict is the most intractable political dilemma of the past 100 years - a quagmire of religious and ethnic narratives without equal. It is also the worst case of mishandled international politics of the past 100 years. Some say the conflict is as old as human history in that part of the world, but things really went off the track with the decision by the UN in 1947 to create the State of Israel - part fall-out of the brutal Second World War and part a casualty of the crumbling British Empire, of which the Mandate of Palestine had been part until 1947.
The history of Palestine is complicated and convoluted and has changed ownership many times over the centuries. Depending on who's narrative one chooses to believe, the history of Palestine can be traced back to the days of Abraham, mentioned in the Christian Bible, certain Jewish scriptures as well as the Islamic Koran. At the time, various tribes lived in what is Palestine and Israel today. Gradually, the Hebrew tribes became dominant in the region in between being pillaged by invading empires.
The early days of the Hebrew tribes were prime examples of genocide and imperialism, well recorded in substantial gore in the Christian Old Testament. The escapades of Joshua was a particularly grim example of conquered tribes being slaughtered without mercy - man, woman and child. Of course, the religious spin of the day and even of today, was that all of that horror was part of God's promise unfolding for His chosen people.
After the Assyrian and Persian conquests, respectively, Palestine came under Greek rule. Not long after, local squabbles over dynasty among Jewish inhabitants led to the Romans taking charge. But glory never lasts forever. The Byzantine Empire seated in Constantinople took over the reigns from an unravelling Roman Empire. Meanwhile, the faith of Islam was established by the man now revered by Muslims as the prophet Mohammed. It was not long before the Byzantine Empire gave way to Arab Caliphate rule. For a period Muslim and Jew lived together on one piece of land. But such peace as there was could not last. Trust religion to throw a spanner into the works. It was time for the Christian Crusades - in ninefold during the 11th to 13th centuries.
Eventually, support for the Crusades dwindled and their rule over Palestine (mostly Jerusalem) came to an end. For a brief period the Mamluk ruled Palestine. It was not long before the Ottoman Empire filled the void and became the next empire to run Palestine until Britain finally gained a mandate over the region in a settlement with the Ottomans at the end of the First World War. By now a firm promise was on the table from the British government for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, without prejudice against natives of other ethnicity in the region.
What followed was a steady influx to Palestine of mostly Europeans, claiming Jewish descent by virtue of their cultural disposition. From the foregoing history, it is clearly a long shot for any 20th century European immigrant to Palestine to claim direct lineage to Hebrews of Biblical days. Natives of Palestine of the time had much stronger claim to the land by virtue of their immediate forefathers in the region.
Yet, after the horrors of the Second World War, in which millions of Europeans died in the Jewish genocide, there were strong emotional and moral arguments for the creation of a Jewish state outside Europe. Palestine seemed the ideal candidate. Britain was in a financial fix after the war and her empire was fast eroding. As soon as ethnic conflict in Palestine erupted between the new European immigrants and natives, the Palestine mandate became a hot potato for the Brits. At the first opportunity Britain dropped it and allowed a half-baked division of Palestine to become a unilateral declaration of independence by the Jewish Europeans. The State of Israel was born as if by caesarian. The world was suddenly perched on the verge of an abyss. What followed has been decades of war, strive, oppression and separation.
This week, the world turns its weary eyes on Annapolis in Maryland, USA. Some see promise of a turning point in the ongoing dilemma that is Palestine. But the odds are stacked against such promise. The opposing narratives have bred fear, anger and unyielding demands. For many the situation is up to the nose in political poo. But has not been the history of Palestine just that since the dawn of time: Plenty of promise ending in a pool of political poo?
The history of Palestine is complicated and convoluted and has changed ownership many times over the centuries. Depending on who's narrative one chooses to believe, the history of Palestine can be traced back to the days of Abraham, mentioned in the Christian Bible, certain Jewish scriptures as well as the Islamic Koran. At the time, various tribes lived in what is Palestine and Israel today. Gradually, the Hebrew tribes became dominant in the region in between being pillaged by invading empires.
The early days of the Hebrew tribes were prime examples of genocide and imperialism, well recorded in substantial gore in the Christian Old Testament. The escapades of Joshua was a particularly grim example of conquered tribes being slaughtered without mercy - man, woman and child. Of course, the religious spin of the day and even of today, was that all of that horror was part of God's promise unfolding for His chosen people.
After the Assyrian and Persian conquests, respectively, Palestine came under Greek rule. Not long after, local squabbles over dynasty among Jewish inhabitants led to the Romans taking charge. But glory never lasts forever. The Byzantine Empire seated in Constantinople took over the reigns from an unravelling Roman Empire. Meanwhile, the faith of Islam was established by the man now revered by Muslims as the prophet Mohammed. It was not long before the Byzantine Empire gave way to Arab Caliphate rule. For a period Muslim and Jew lived together on one piece of land. But such peace as there was could not last. Trust religion to throw a spanner into the works. It was time for the Christian Crusades - in ninefold during the 11th to 13th centuries.
Eventually, support for the Crusades dwindled and their rule over Palestine (mostly Jerusalem) came to an end. For a brief period the Mamluk ruled Palestine. It was not long before the Ottoman Empire filled the void and became the next empire to run Palestine until Britain finally gained a mandate over the region in a settlement with the Ottomans at the end of the First World War. By now a firm promise was on the table from the British government for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, without prejudice against natives of other ethnicity in the region.
What followed was a steady influx to Palestine of mostly Europeans, claiming Jewish descent by virtue of their cultural disposition. From the foregoing history, it is clearly a long shot for any 20th century European immigrant to Palestine to claim direct lineage to Hebrews of Biblical days. Natives of Palestine of the time had much stronger claim to the land by virtue of their immediate forefathers in the region.
Yet, after the horrors of the Second World War, in which millions of Europeans died in the Jewish genocide, there were strong emotional and moral arguments for the creation of a Jewish state outside Europe. Palestine seemed the ideal candidate. Britain was in a financial fix after the war and her empire was fast eroding. As soon as ethnic conflict in Palestine erupted between the new European immigrants and natives, the Palestine mandate became a hot potato for the Brits. At the first opportunity Britain dropped it and allowed a half-baked division of Palestine to become a unilateral declaration of independence by the Jewish Europeans. The State of Israel was born as if by caesarian. The world was suddenly perched on the verge of an abyss. What followed has been decades of war, strive, oppression and separation.
This week, the world turns its weary eyes on Annapolis in Maryland, USA. Some see promise of a turning point in the ongoing dilemma that is Palestine. But the odds are stacked against such promise. The opposing narratives have bred fear, anger and unyielding demands. For many the situation is up to the nose in political poo. But has not been the history of Palestine just that since the dawn of time: Plenty of promise ending in a pool of political poo?
22 November 2007
Under friendly fire
Oh dear, it seems the US Administration and their intelligence services have an urgent position for a translator. Yet again the story line is changing after months of feeding the public fodder on where the real source of insurgency and mayhem in Iraq actually lies.
Without ever producing concrete evidence, the public was repeatedly to the point of hysteria fed rumours on how Iran was at the root of the deadly insurgency that was reigning terror in that already devastated country. Of course, such gossip and innuendo suited certain interest groups in the US and its allies in the Middle East.
However, now, according to the latest report in the NY Times, 60% of the past year's insurgents came from Saudi Arabia and Libya, with 41% of the total of insurgents from Saudi Arabia alone. And this latest turn of tune comes from the proverbial horse's mouth: US military officials in Iraq who have uncovered documentation to that effect. So far, no Iranian combatants have been captured or otherwise found by the US forces in Iraq.
Besides the footwork over the statistics, the more pressing concern is over the simple detail that Saudi Arabia is supposedly an US ally in all of this. One wonders how Washington's spin machine is going to spin this one to suit their foreign policy and strategic interests in the region. Perhaps the recent change in tone from Riyadh has something to do with these bits of information making their way to the press at this point in time.
All we know is that all of the above take on the form of yet another casualty of friendly fire.
Without ever producing concrete evidence, the public was repeatedly to the point of hysteria fed rumours on how Iran was at the root of the deadly insurgency that was reigning terror in that already devastated country. Of course, such gossip and innuendo suited certain interest groups in the US and its allies in the Middle East.
However, now, according to the latest report in the NY Times, 60% of the past year's insurgents came from Saudi Arabia and Libya, with 41% of the total of insurgents from Saudi Arabia alone. And this latest turn of tune comes from the proverbial horse's mouth: US military officials in Iraq who have uncovered documentation to that effect. So far, no Iranian combatants have been captured or otherwise found by the US forces in Iraq.
Besides the footwork over the statistics, the more pressing concern is over the simple detail that Saudi Arabia is supposedly an US ally in all of this. One wonders how Washington's spin machine is going to spin this one to suit their foreign policy and strategic interests in the region. Perhaps the recent change in tone from Riyadh has something to do with these bits of information making their way to the press at this point in time.
All we know is that all of the above take on the form of yet another casualty of friendly fire.
09 November 2007
Tin soldier on maneouvers
It appears that Washington's tin soldier is on maneouvers in Islamabad. After two weeks of tumultuous rumblings all across Pakistan, Gen. Musharaf is looking increasingly like a cat on a hot tin roof. Pakistan is under martial law; normal activity, including political action, is under severe restrictions. Droves of political and social opponents of his military regime have been arrested; brutalised by state forces and generally oppressed. And now Washington seems to be preparing for a possible successor to the general. The plot seems to be souring.
Well, does not that scene ring a bell. Was it not Saddam Hussein who once was the useful dictator who served US regional interests in the Persian region until he became a little too big for his boots and started calling the shots? What a terrible slide was in store for Mr Hussein. The maneouvers went horribly wrong and so the US took most of their military over there to sort things out. Not quite - they have since got stuck there; the country is ransacked and things have taken a turn for the worse.
On the other side of the world there was once upon a time a certain Gen. Pinochet, a rather brutal chap as it turned out, who was most useful to US interests over there in containing the spread of communism in South America. But he reached shelf life soon enough and Chile has spent two decades since recovering from his exploits.
One wonders if the latest bad boy turned choir boy, the Colonel of Libya, will become the latest tin soldier in US International Enterprises Incorporated. For one, Col. Gaddafi is a rather enigmatic and mercurial character, more so than the rather straight-forward thug that was Hussein. Libya sits on quite a bit of oil - an increasingly rare commodity. Gaddafi will certainly play his hand carefully as well as play the harp of counter-terrorism, certain to strike the right cord with Washington.
Africa saw them ebb and flow: Gen. Mobuto Sese Seko, Jonas Savimbi, to name but two. All started out with lots of promise and noble goals. And the each time the maneouvers went south and dragged down the local population into pits of despair, war and tragedy. Each time the halls of Washington rang with chants of democracy and freedom to the foreign oppressed. But each time it was US regional interest that spelled the real intent.
In the Congo, it was ostentatiously about opposing Soviet expansion and, more sinister, about controlling the local diamond trade. In Angola, it went superficially over the big bad Soviet wolf, but under the covers, off-shore oil interests as well as the diamond trade - yet again - with both Washington and Pretoria in on the deal.
Oh, how sweet is the sound of freedom talk amidst the glitter of hundreds of carats in the vaults of New York; Amsterdam and Johannesburg, while the dull thuds of land mines abruptly tore off limbs of children in the far away bushes of Angola.
Well, does not that scene ring a bell. Was it not Saddam Hussein who once was the useful dictator who served US regional interests in the Persian region until he became a little too big for his boots and started calling the shots? What a terrible slide was in store for Mr Hussein. The maneouvers went horribly wrong and so the US took most of their military over there to sort things out. Not quite - they have since got stuck there; the country is ransacked and things have taken a turn for the worse.
On the other side of the world there was once upon a time a certain Gen. Pinochet, a rather brutal chap as it turned out, who was most useful to US interests over there in containing the spread of communism in South America. But he reached shelf life soon enough and Chile has spent two decades since recovering from his exploits.
One wonders if the latest bad boy turned choir boy, the Colonel of Libya, will become the latest tin soldier in US International Enterprises Incorporated. For one, Col. Gaddafi is a rather enigmatic and mercurial character, more so than the rather straight-forward thug that was Hussein. Libya sits on quite a bit of oil - an increasingly rare commodity. Gaddafi will certainly play his hand carefully as well as play the harp of counter-terrorism, certain to strike the right cord with Washington.
Africa saw them ebb and flow: Gen. Mobuto Sese Seko, Jonas Savimbi, to name but two. All started out with lots of promise and noble goals. And the each time the maneouvers went south and dragged down the local population into pits of despair, war and tragedy. Each time the halls of Washington rang with chants of democracy and freedom to the foreign oppressed. But each time it was US regional interest that spelled the real intent.
In the Congo, it was ostentatiously about opposing Soviet expansion and, more sinister, about controlling the local diamond trade. In Angola, it went superficially over the big bad Soviet wolf, but under the covers, off-shore oil interests as well as the diamond trade - yet again - with both Washington and Pretoria in on the deal.
Oh, how sweet is the sound of freedom talk amidst the glitter of hundreds of carats in the vaults of New York; Amsterdam and Johannesburg, while the dull thuds of land mines abruptly tore off limbs of children in the far away bushes of Angola.
25 October 2007
Space and the matter in between
Space. The final frontier...
Quite.
The edge of this universe is also the edge of space. Frankly, without the matter in between, there can be no space at all. Space is defined by matter. Actually, space is defined by energy. The notion that space, or space-time for that matter, is somehow a fabric in which mass is dispersed is a little far-fetched. Since space is expanding, it must have been a singularity once - with no space at all, no fabric either. Rather, the fabric of space is being woven by the expanding energy.
The matter in between space is quite something.
It was the year 1989. I was stationed in Pretoria at the South African Air Force Chief of Staff Logistics, doing my national military service. Since I had some time on hand serving God and country under duress of the law, I became fascinated with Schroedinger's wave equation. Well, Schroedinger's equation, as well as statistical thermodynamics that was taught at Master's level in Mechanical Engineering at the Stellenbosch University during my run up that ladder, made an intriguing pair. Threw in Einstein's E=mc^2 and one was tempted into wild thoughts over how all things were composed of the superposition of energy vibrations, a bit like a violin playing a note consisting of a base tone and harmonics.
What really poked my fancy was the perpetual discovery of new subatomic particles, all depending upon how an experiment was set up. It seemed that all these "particles" were hiding in E=mc^2, and realised as superimposed energy wave spectra, a bit like a set of Schroedinger waves superimposed on each other.
And then we had to content with Heisenberg and his frustratingly taunting uncertainty principle. Perhaps, this principle was only valid in the projection of a high-dimensional space onto the 3-D + t with which we had to make do. Perhaps, the universe was build up of ever higher dimensions like the complex plane on one axis and another dimension on the other of a Cartesian plane, recursively for several iterations.
I ran out of physics knowledge and mathematical steam long before my wild thoughts ran out. So, I tried to convince a physicist at the CSIR in Pretoria where I did my national service as an engineer. But she had little stomach for my silly ideas.
Shortly after, the father of a university friend of mine handed me a popular article on a possible fifth dimension to the universe, having heard my ideas on dimensionality of matter. It was interesting but a bit odd, not quite what I was contemplating. So, I buried my thoughts and only dusted them off at the odd gathering in a pub over several beers, but not too often lest I would never be joined in a pub ever again.
And then came the outburst of string theory - at least, it crossed into my awareness. A brother-in-arms during my Ph.D onslaught first mentioned the theory to me after one of my rambles. Interesting, I thought. Sounded familiar and infinitely more exact and elaborate than my musings of yesteryear.
Verily it is said in science: He who wins the race to the publisher, wins the prize.
Quite.
The edge of this universe is also the edge of space. Frankly, without the matter in between, there can be no space at all. Space is defined by matter. Actually, space is defined by energy. The notion that space, or space-time for that matter, is somehow a fabric in which mass is dispersed is a little far-fetched. Since space is expanding, it must have been a singularity once - with no space at all, no fabric either. Rather, the fabric of space is being woven by the expanding energy.
The matter in between space is quite something.
It was the year 1989. I was stationed in Pretoria at the South African Air Force Chief of Staff Logistics, doing my national military service. Since I had some time on hand serving God and country under duress of the law, I became fascinated with Schroedinger's wave equation. Well, Schroedinger's equation, as well as statistical thermodynamics that was taught at Master's level in Mechanical Engineering at the Stellenbosch University during my run up that ladder, made an intriguing pair. Threw in Einstein's E=mc^2 and one was tempted into wild thoughts over how all things were composed of the superposition of energy vibrations, a bit like a violin playing a note consisting of a base tone and harmonics.
What really poked my fancy was the perpetual discovery of new subatomic particles, all depending upon how an experiment was set up. It seemed that all these "particles" were hiding in E=mc^2, and realised as superimposed energy wave spectra, a bit like a set of Schroedinger waves superimposed on each other.
And then we had to content with Heisenberg and his frustratingly taunting uncertainty principle. Perhaps, this principle was only valid in the projection of a high-dimensional space onto the 3-D + t with which we had to make do. Perhaps, the universe was build up of ever higher dimensions like the complex plane on one axis and another dimension on the other of a Cartesian plane, recursively for several iterations.
I ran out of physics knowledge and mathematical steam long before my wild thoughts ran out. So, I tried to convince a physicist at the CSIR in Pretoria where I did my national service as an engineer. But she had little stomach for my silly ideas.
Shortly after, the father of a university friend of mine handed me a popular article on a possible fifth dimension to the universe, having heard my ideas on dimensionality of matter. It was interesting but a bit odd, not quite what I was contemplating. So, I buried my thoughts and only dusted them off at the odd gathering in a pub over several beers, but not too often lest I would never be joined in a pub ever again.
And then came the outburst of string theory - at least, it crossed into my awareness. A brother-in-arms during my Ph.D onslaught first mentioned the theory to me after one of my rambles. Interesting, I thought. Sounded familiar and infinitely more exact and elaborate than my musings of yesteryear.
Verily it is said in science: He who wins the race to the publisher, wins the prize.
12 October 2007
The tale of two tragedies
Life can be brutal. And human life is no different. Despite what the romantics and the poets may conjure about the beauty and lofty values of human life, history paints a grim picture. Indeed, in the past 100 years, recent human history recollects one massive genocide upon the next: Seven in all, according to UHRC. Yet, this posting is the tale of two tragedies amongst these seven, viz. the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire and the Jewish genocide in Germany.
Every human life is supposedly precious, yet it too often appears in practice that some are less equal than others. It should not matter whether 1000 or 100000 or even 1000000 died in brutal extermination - each such course of events is a tragedy, a ridicule of the very morals of humanity. Why then, does one group's genocide receive more prominence and awe than the others? Why is one genocide, the Jewish genocide of 1941 until 1945, a pivotal period and the other, the Armenian genocide only recently and barely acknowledged as genocide? What can explain the relentless roar that ensured the blatant land grab in Palestine by 500000 Europeans that became the State of Israel in 1948 in response to the Jewish genocide, whereas the Armenians lost to the Turkish nationalists all they had negotiated over the dead and broken bodies of their people with the Treaty of Sevres, signed on 10 August 1920 by the Allied Powers. The world stood by while more than a million Armenians were brutalised in all manners.
On Thursday, the US Congress passed at last a resolution, non-binding, yet formally acknowledging the Armenian massacre as genocide - almost a century after the fact. And yet, the vote has since proven controversial. Turkey, a current ally of convenience for US expansionism in the Middle East, is expectedly outraged and metering out all sorts of threats against the US for taking such a noble if dismally belated stand.
On the other hand, besides the likes of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, most of the world appear either prudently quiet or, more often, ostentatiously eager to chip in their bit in support of the perpetual invocation of the Jewish genocide for various aims and purposes. A relentless barrage of reparation claims of ever growing sums has been bolstering the coffers of the propped-up State of Israel since 1951.
Now, with the genocide resolution passed in Congress, will Armenians begin to see some reparations coming their way from Turkey? Will the UN take on the matter? Who will champion the course of the slaughtered Armenians? Will we see a Conference on Armenian Material Claims Against Turkey? Will Turkey oblige in humility as Germany has done since 1945 until this day?
Will we see epitaphs and mausoleums and yearly commemorations in Washington DC and Istanbul? Will it become immoral to deny the Armenian Genocide? Will a special term, such as Holocaust be coined for the Armenian Genocide? Will Hollywood turn out countless films in full gore over the details of the atrocities that tormented the Armenians from 1915 until 1918? Will we see archetypal Turkish caricatures as we have of Nazis whenever there is need of a quick laugh?
Or is the Armenian genocide an inconvenient truth and the Armenians simply not well enough connected in US society, business and government to ensure even fair justice for themselves?
Every human life is supposedly precious, yet it too often appears in practice that some are less equal than others. It should not matter whether 1000 or 100000 or even 1000000 died in brutal extermination - each such course of events is a tragedy, a ridicule of the very morals of humanity. Why then, does one group's genocide receive more prominence and awe than the others? Why is one genocide, the Jewish genocide of 1941 until 1945, a pivotal period and the other, the Armenian genocide only recently and barely acknowledged as genocide? What can explain the relentless roar that ensured the blatant land grab in Palestine by 500000 Europeans that became the State of Israel in 1948 in response to the Jewish genocide, whereas the Armenians lost to the Turkish nationalists all they had negotiated over the dead and broken bodies of their people with the Treaty of Sevres, signed on 10 August 1920 by the Allied Powers. The world stood by while more than a million Armenians were brutalised in all manners.
On Thursday, the US Congress passed at last a resolution, non-binding, yet formally acknowledging the Armenian massacre as genocide - almost a century after the fact. And yet, the vote has since proven controversial. Turkey, a current ally of convenience for US expansionism in the Middle East, is expectedly outraged and metering out all sorts of threats against the US for taking such a noble if dismally belated stand.
On the other hand, besides the likes of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, most of the world appear either prudently quiet or, more often, ostentatiously eager to chip in their bit in support of the perpetual invocation of the Jewish genocide for various aims and purposes. A relentless barrage of reparation claims of ever growing sums has been bolstering the coffers of the propped-up State of Israel since 1951.
Now, with the genocide resolution passed in Congress, will Armenians begin to see some reparations coming their way from Turkey? Will the UN take on the matter? Who will champion the course of the slaughtered Armenians? Will we see a Conference on Armenian Material Claims Against Turkey? Will Turkey oblige in humility as Germany has done since 1945 until this day?
Will we see epitaphs and mausoleums and yearly commemorations in Washington DC and Istanbul? Will it become immoral to deny the Armenian Genocide? Will a special term, such as Holocaust be coined for the Armenian Genocide? Will Hollywood turn out countless films in full gore over the details of the atrocities that tormented the Armenians from 1915 until 1918? Will we see archetypal Turkish caricatures as we have of Nazis whenever there is need of a quick laugh?
Or is the Armenian genocide an inconvenient truth and the Armenians simply not well enough connected in US society, business and government to ensure even fair justice for themselves?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)