Last week, Britain has decided to cut all financial relations with Iran over some concerns pertaining to Iran’s nuclear program. Because of this, all British credit and financial institutions were told to end their business ties and transactions with all Iranian banks, their branches and subsidiaries by Monday the 28th. The International Atomic Energy Agency or the IAEA reported concerns about the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program which led Britain to cut all financial ties with Iran. Iran resisted allegations from the IAEA and declared that their nuclear program was peaceful and alleged that the U.N. watchdog’s report was so-called “unbalanced” and “politically motivated.”

The disruption of the financial tie between Britain and Iran outraged some college students who gathered near the British embassy and led a protest which was peaceful at first but became outrageous as people replaced the British flag with an Iranian flag. Some people also stoned the windows of the embassy as others reached the Gholhak Garden, which was the diplomatic compound of the British embassy. In other words, the Gholhak Garden is basically the area in northern Tehran where British diplomats and their families, and Iranian families who work for the British embassy live.

Britain condemned Iran for allowing these Iranian students or rioters to be able to storm the British embassy. David Cameron, Prime Minister of Britain said that Iranian security forces are responsible for guarding the British embassy under international law and that the failure of the Iranian government to be able to defend the staff and the property was a disgrace. He also demanded that Iran must immediately insure the safety of all British personnel and also warning the Iranian government that they must be aware that there will be serious consequences for failing to protect the staff of the embassy.

Do you think that Britain was right to cut all financial ties with Iran even though Iran clearly defied the fact that their nuclear program was not harmful in any way?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/29/world/meast/iran-demonstrations/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Egypt Starts to Create Its New Future

Egyptian man is casting his ballot in the 2011 parliamentary elections.

           Today marks a great day for the Egyptian people as they have just finished their first parliamentary elections since the fall of President Hosni Mubarak. There were concerns that there were going major protests from people who believe that the elections were a fraud. These concerns became more realistic with the riots against the army rule, which resulted in forty-two people being killed. 

However, those protest were much smaller than expected. Instead, there was a much higher turnout for the elections than expected as seventy percent of the population decided to cast their vote. Because of the high turnout, the polls had to be extended for two hours in order for everyone to cast his vote. One of the other concerns was that the vote might be compromised due to vote buying but this election seems to have been fair. Dr. Magdy Abdel Hamid, head of the Egyptian Association for Community Development, says in an interview with Aljazeera, “For the first time, and in these elections, we have not seen a general will from the government to forge and rig the election…".

That is not to say that there were no setbacks. The elections were somewhat unorganized causing a delay at some of the polling stations because there was no ballot paper for the people or judges to preside over the elections. There were also sporadic reports of violence at the polling stations. Overall, this election process has been a success and military rulers are taking credit for it.

           Now that the elections are over, the focus will turn to military rule as they have not formally stepped down for the eventual parliamentary government that will more than likely be led in part by the Muslim Brotherhood. Once a banned party in Egypt, they have formed a new political arm called the Freedom and Justice Party, whose member where outside some strategic places telling people where they could vote, despite rules banning them from doing so. This is one step that Egypt is taking toward a brighter future. 

“Warning issued for Americans in Nigeria”

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/06/world/africa/nigeria-violence/index.html?hpt=wo_c2

The CNN article covering the backlash the US Mission in Nigeria is facing from the nation shocks me because it reflects the hate people have for the West on one hand. On the other hand, I can understand that the hubris Western nations, particularly the US, exude when dealing with the foreign affairs of non-Western nations. I believe it is an example of the US playing the part of world police. Whether that should be a title we embrace or not is up for debate.
Ethically, I believe we have a responsibility to care for nations that need assistance from national disasters and genocide. But, many times reasons for Western aid fall into a grey area when dealing with dictators and how to solve the problem of failing economies and politics of a third world nation such as Nigeria.
In this particular situation with the Nigerian government as it develops as a, what appears to be, radical Islamic militant groups, the grey area on US involvement is getting darker and darker. I can conceive the reasons for the Nigerians hostile response to the West—their history with us begins with being ruthlessly seized from their homeland, sold into the slave trade, and the inhumanity of that entire era. But the leading political party of Nigeria is literally named “Western education is sinful.” It’s clear they downright hate the West and thus makes the task of occupying Nigeria a dangerous and in some ways fruitless effort. I think of the phrase, you can help someone who doesn’t want to be helped.
How will involvement of the West help end the violence brought on by the Boko Haram groups if its presence is one of the sparks that set the powder keg off in the first place? Other than offering sanctuary to current government leaders and those who do no participate in the Islamic fundamentalist movement, what role does or should the West play in solving this crisis in Nigeria? The job of “world police” should not be the responsibility of any one place or entity—the days of divide and conquer helped initiate resentment toward the West in the first place. Perhaps a better approach would include stepping back from Nigeria and focusing on places and ways to offer sanctuary to those who require it and keeping the Islamic movements from too much contact with the US, for the increasing contact and control we take only increases the hate in their hearts.

Two-speed Europe, or two Europes?

Two-speed Europe, or two Europes?

Nov 8th 2011

NICOLAS Sarkozy is causing a big stir after calling on November 8th for a two-speed Europe: a “federal” core of the 17 members of the euro zone, with a looser “confederal” outer band of the ten non-euro members. He made the comments during a debate with students at the University of Strasbourg. The key passage is below (video here, starting near the 63-minute mark)

See the full article
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2011/11/future-eu

Italy's Technocratic Government

As the economic crisis continues to affect most of the European Union, the Italian government has come under new leadership after the resign of Silvio Berlusconi on November 12, 2011. An unelected new government, whose main goal is to prevent Italy from falling due to the debt crisis, was announced on Wednesday, November 16, headed by “Super” Mario Monti, an Italian economist who served as a European Commissioner from 1995 to 2004.

Described as a “good mix of specialties” by economist Annalisa Piazza, Premier Monti’s new government would be that of a technocracy, a form of government where technical experts are in charge of policy-making. He announced those who will serve in his cabinet on Wednesday, November 16. None of Monti’s appointees were elected by the Italian people but most come from the academic world. His decision to appoint non-politicians to the cabinet was made because "the absence of political personalities in the government will help rather than hinder a solid base of support for the government in parliament and in the political parties because it will remove one ground for disagreement."

Premier Monti’s selected each cabinet member of his new government is based on their expertise in each respected field. Elsa Fornero, an expert on welfare and pensions and professor of microeconomics, was appointed to Minister of Labour. Criminal Law professor Paola Severino will head the Ministry of Justice. Enzo Moavero Malinesi, an antitrust law specialist, will head the Ministry of European Affairs. Anna Maria Cancellieri, who has worked in the Ministry of the Interior since 1972, has been appointed to head the Ministry. Political Science Professor Lorenzo Ornaghi now leads the Ministry of Arts and Culture. The Minister of Development, Infrastructure, and Transport, Corrado Passera, left his position as CEO of Intesa Sanpaolo, Italy’s largest retail bank. Premier Monti appointed himself as Minister of Economy because he wants to accept the responsibility getting Italy’s economy back on track.

The decisions to have a prime minister with little legislative experience and a cabinet complete with non elected technocrats could prove to back fire on Italy if Monti’s cabinet doesn’t fix the economic problems. Monti intents for his government to last until the 2013 Elections but as of now, the new government has not yet been officially approved by Parliament and a vote of confidence is scheduled to take place on Thursday, November 17th, in the Senate and by the lower house the following day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/world/europe/monti-forms-new-italian-government.html?ref=mariomonti

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15751179

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/16/mario-monti-technocratic-cabinet-italy

Euro crisis 'opportunity for UK' to reclaim powers

While many British conservatives favor a UK withdrawal from the European Union, the conservative Prime Minister David Cameron has stated that he does not believe that it would be in the country’s best interests to leave the organization. Although Cameron has sided with the liberals on this issue, his reasoning is consistent with common conservative principals. Cameron views the current crisis in the Eurozone as an opportunity for EU members to change their perception of the role of the EU. Rather than seeing the EU as a bloc of nations with the aim of enforcing collective action through restrictive policies, Cameron suggests that Europeans see the EU as a “network.” This would involve loosening restrictions, granting more sovereignty to individual countries, and adopting policies that would free up markets within and beyond the EU.

Although a departure from the EU would grant the British parliament complete control over its own policies, it could also place new, and arguably worse, limitations on the country. Roughly fifty percent of the UK’s trade occurs with fellow EU members. Should the UK leave the EU, a likely raise in tariffs could cripple domestic industries. The move would also arguably put the UK at the mercy of the EU, because it would prevent it from having any say in EU economic policy debates. Rather than having the ability to argue for its own interests in the EU, the UK would have no choice but to accept the EU’s decisions, favorable or not.

I think the UK already possesses a favorable position in the EU compared to other member countries simply because it has it’s own currency. Should the Euro collapse, the UK would suffer a decrease its currency value, but nobody would argue that they would still be better of than Germany or France.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15730084

Hallelujah

Hallelujah

Nov 11th 2011

NOT since Silvio Berlusconi's erstwhile political sponsor, Bettino
Craxi, fled to Tunisia to avoid being jailed for corruption, has an Italian
prime minister left office in such humiliated fashion.Last night,
after finally resigning, Mr Berlusconi slipped out of a side door of the
president's palace to dodge a raucous mob. The media and property
magnate ended his fourth government, and very probably his career in
politics, to cries of “buffoon”, “Mafioso” and “face trial”.The
crowd, over a thousand strong, that gathered outside the old residence of the
popes on the Quirinal hill was largely good-humoured. Every so often, as it
waited for Mr Berlusconi's arrival, a choir would burst into a rendition
of the Hallelujah chorus from Handel's "Messiah". But
when his limousine eventually turned up, Mr Berlusconi was left in no doubt
about the anger and loathing that many Italians feel towards him. And when
the news that he had finally stepped down filtered out of his meeting with
President Giorgio Napolitano, there was an explosive roar of delight.Mr
Berlusconi should not be surprised. According to a poll conducted on November
4th and 5th for Sky Italia television, 71% of Italians favoured his early
resignation. His personal approval rating in a poll at the end of last month
for the daily La Repubblica was just 22%. He is seen by many as the man who
partied and exposed Italy to international ridicule while the country slipped
towards the abyss.This morning Mario Monti, the former European commissioner
who many expect to succeed Mr Berlusconi, emerged from his hotel to find a
group of reporters waiting for him. “Have you seen what a splendid day it
is?” he asked them.

See the full article
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2011/11/end-berlusconi

The Nuclear Taboo

“U.N. Agency Says Iran Data Points to A-Bomb Work”

Since the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a crisis emerged due to the mass casualties, amount human suffrage in the aftermath and the irreparable destruction caused. These two bombing struck fear in the global community and lead to what many call the “nuclear taboo.” The two atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima destroyed most infrastructure within half a mile, which seems minor compared to the hydrogen bombs the US possesses today which have a blast radius of eighteen miles. It is understandable why the global community would be concerned about which states have nuclear weapons or which states are making progress towards possessing them. According to the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1970 only five countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons, those five countries are: United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom and France. These are not the only countries is the international community that have nuclear weapons and it is speculated that North Korea may even have a nuclear bomb. Scholars have long been reporting their concern on the purpose behind Iran’s nuclear program and so it may not come to a surprise to them that the NY Times would report the  “United Nations weapons inspectors have amassed a trove of new evidence that they say makes a ‘credible’ case that ‘Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device,’ and that the project may still be under way.” The question remains what, if any, role should the United States or the international community have in disarming Iran? To what extent does the US have a obligation or duty to police the international community? And has the United States learned a lesson from Iraq that will affect their foreign policy towards states that may have nuclear weapons?  

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/world/un-details-case-that-iran-is-at-work-on-nuclear-device.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=iran&st=cse

China takes a Foothold in Africa

Angola was originally a colony of Portugal until it achieved independence in 1975. In the years that followed Angola would be entrenched in a terrible civil war that ravaged the land and destroyed the infrastructure of the country. This war also served as an extension of the cold war as the Soviet Union and the United States allied themselves with the competing factions in Angola. The Soviet Union supported the People's Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) and the United States supported the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA). The result of this twenty-seven year civil war which ended in 2002 was a massive humanitarian and economic crisis which engulfed the entire country. Before the war began, Angola was a very rich agricultural country with a strong tradition of family-based farming; Angola was self-sufficient in all crops except for wheat. That would all change as the civil war ravaged the country. After the war, the continued presence of millions of landmines impeded agricultural settlement in the countryside and lead to urbanized impoverishment throughout the country. But Angola did still have massive oil and diamond reserves throughout the country just waiting to be exploited by different countries. And just at this point, as the civil war ended, China would fill the void.
At this time, China was just launching a new initiative known as its “Going Out” strategy which aimed at securing new investment markets along with resources. Angola was the perfect target. During the past seven years, China has given over ten billion dollars in credit to Angola in exchange for oil. Trade between the two countries had reached over twenty-five billion by 2009 and Angola is China’s leading source of foreign oil imports. And not only is it just oil, China is now the second main consumer of diamonds in the world (the U.S. of course being #1) and most of those diamonds come presumably from Angola.
China has also imported thousands of workers from China to work on building projects for the country. Apparently, it is hard to walk through the streets of Luanda (the capital of Angola) without seeing a Chinese construction site. Chinese companies are involved in all levels of building and repairing the infrastructure of Angola. Everything from streets, railroads, hospitals, schools, residential buildings and airports are being built by Chinese workers who make about three times more working in Angola compared to China. This has led to much discrimination by the Angolan people who feel that the Chinese workers are taking the only jobs available in Angola away from them and into the hands of the Chinese. Additionally, many Chinese building projects have been proved half hazard and inadequate to the needs of the people who are not even considered when they are being built. Residential housing projects are being built on the basis of Chinese models with no consideration for what the people of Angola want. The first public hospital in Angola that was built by the Chinese began to literally fall apart directly after its opening (repairs have still not been made) and there are reports that Chinese built roads have been literally swept away by heavy rainfall all over the country.
For many Angolans, the involvement of China in Angola has led to an optimistic view of their country’s future on the world stage but to many other Angolans it is seen as an occupation bent on money that takes jobs away from natives and produces shady constructs.
http://theglobalrealm.com/2011/02/03/questions-about-china%E2%80%99s-win-win-relationship-with-angola/
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/new-imperialism-china-angola
http://oilprice.com/Geo-Politics/Africa/Chinas-Waning-Influence-in-Angola.html
http://www.macauhub.com.mo/en/2011/07/11/angola-reaps-%E2%80%9Cimmense-rewards%E2%80%9D-from-cooperation-with-china/

Military Dictatorship or Clerical Regime?

For as long as I have been alive, the Unites States and Iran have been at odds with each other. Now, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seems to think that Iran is turning from a clerical regime to a military dictatorship. Many people already seem to be at the conclusion that Iran is already a military dictatorship. Most people know that Iran has a head religious figure called the Ayatollah, but most people do not realize that Iran also has a president.

I believe that most countries that have clerical regimes will eventually become a military dictatorship. The religious figure will eventually become enamored with the power, and the religious power may try to depose of the president or prime minister. The religious figure will almost definitely try to make himself more powerful than the president or prime minister. It seems as if Ayatollah Khamenei is already doing this. He is already more powerful than the president since he can appoint people to influential posts in the military and government. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force (IRGC-QF) seems to be the tool that the Ayatollah is using to control the people of Iran which makes Iran seem to be even more of a military dictatorship.

What makes the situation in Iran even harder to deal with is the fact that we really do not know who the decision maker is now. What we do know is that the Ayatollah is more powerful than the president, and that many Iranian clergy feel as if he is lacking in some religious education. In other words, some Iranian clergy feels like he is not up to the job. He was also just a midlevel cleric when he became the Ayatollah which to me makes him a prime candidate to turn his country into a military dictatorship. He probably feels like the only way to maintain power over his population is to back the army and make them more powerful. Roman history has shown us that armies can put leaders in power and take them out of power just as easily.

Since the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force (IRGC-QF) is so powerful in Iran, I would say that they are trending to more of a military dictatorship than a clerical regime. Although it is still important for the Ayatollah to have some religious support behind him, he does not need as much religious backing with the military behind him. I think that only the future will really be able to show what will happen in Iran.

Article: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/07/irans-growing-military-dictatorship/?hpt=wo_bn1

Fighting freedom with fire

Fighting freedom with fire

Nov 1st 2011

WHEN the French satirical weekly, Charlie Hebdo, reprinted controversial
Danish cartoons of the Prophet, Muhammad, five years ago, French political
leaders were ambivalent. Jacques Chirac, then the president, called it a
“manifest provocation”. “Anything that can wound the convictions of
others should be avoided,” he declared. Today’s political reactions to a
fresh controversy surrounding Charlie Hebdo and Islam have been far more
robust.

See the full article
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2011/11/france-and-islam

The Arab world

The Arab world
Crescent moon, waning West
The decline of Western power in the Arab world is no bad thing
Oct 27th 2011

See the full article
http://www.economist.com/node/21534782