Peaceful Indebtedness

A truly inspiring bit of news came across the wire a few days ago and its political significance should not go unnoticed. Muhammad Yunus, recent winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, wants to help the people of North Korea. He wants to take his winning economic strategy known as the microcredit program and introduce it to the poor. [According to Reuters, his Grameen Bank says it has loaned nearly $6 billion to 6.6 million people and has a recovery rate of nearly 99 percent.]

Now considering all the rhetoric about North Korea’s nuclear test and the so-called threat to the world, how radical is it when one man points the finger at the real problem and proposes a simple solution?

Yunus has outdone himself and offered a beautiful idea.

Said Yunus, "If they would like to have a microcredit program, I would like to have a banking program. The leadership is the not the whole of a nation.” Ain’t it the truth. North Korea, like so many nations in the world, doesn’t have the leadership its people deserve. Yunus continues, "If Beijing can take it as a political decision and adopt it as an official policy of the Communist Party of China, I don't see North Koreans would have any problem". Well, comparing modern China, a country with an interest in North Korea’s natural resources, with North Korea’s ruling elite seems a bit naive but at least he’s on the right path.

Yunus’s most interesting comment was "poverty is a very important aspect of peace". He’s correct: the elite class still believes that might is right; that the strong will always rise to the top. Which reminds me of what Jesus said “the weak shall inherit the earth”.

It’s nice to know that at least one prize winner is thinking outside the political box.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Hey Be Us Corp Us

LeonT asked his old friend Vlad for a conversation over coffee. Here's the unedited transcript.

LeonT: Tell me Vlad, in the great democracy known as the United States, the President has signed a bill allowing for faster prosecutions and quicker sentences. Why would he do such a thing that seems to violate the spirit of the constitution?

Vlad: Ah, my friend you have stumbled upon the great unspoken and unreported contradiction in the American Government. As they become more desperate in this losing war on terror, they tighten civil liberties at home and guard against all opposition, be it at home or abroad.

LeonT: But why are they so reflexive in their actions instead of being the great liberators Vice President Cheney thinks they are in Iraq?

Vlad: Well, you have to go back to the early years of the American independence movement. At that time, the rich, white intellectuals led by Thomas Jefferson et al, set out to provide what was best for them as property owners. They wanted to liberate themselves from England and drew up the constitution as a template for the elite. This was done as a reflexive action to protect and preserve their status in the country. [and to avoid taxes] Bush and the Congress are doing the same thing but are twisting the laws of the land to favour the current elite.

LeonT: But why change a fundamental right to a fair trial and for busted individuals to know what they are charged with?

Vlad: Fear. It's the Bush gang's motivation for everything they have done since 9/11. And it's a straight forward formula. First, you scare the public into thinking there is an imagined threat against them. This is characterized by Al Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden. The collapse of the World Trade Center was the new Pearl Harbor. Second, you take the fight oversees to an unknown region and spend billions of dollars to control a so-called war on terror. When this starts to go badly, as it has done for 3 years, you enter a state of panic because the people aren't buying the first two arguments. For the Bush gang, the only way to be seen as successful is to limit civil liberties on prisoners and begin prosecuting them at home. This would make it “appear” that you’re winning. Besides it scares the shit out of anyone who questions authority.

LeonT: So, in other words, they are trying to change the game by changing the rules so that they, the elite, can come out on top.

Vlad: Exactly, just like they did in 1776 and every other change in the President's powers since 9/11.

LeonT: One last question for you, Vlad.

Vlad: Sure, I'll do my best to answer.

LeonT: When does it all end?

Vlad: When the Bush gang suspends the Constitution. Then the totalitarian state they want to avoid becomes their own.

LeonT: Are you sure?

Vlad: That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

LeonT: I think I need another coffee.

Vlad: No; let's blow this pop stand and get something stronger.

The Nuke Club

" I would never join a club that would have me as a member" - Groucho Marx

The International Nuclear Club has a new member, and as we all know membership has its privileges. The news that North Korea had tested its first nuclear bomb sent more shock waves around the world than the explosion itself. And naturally, the current club members are pissed off, because North Korea didn't go through the screening process necessary to become a member of the Nuke Club. Neither did India or Pakistan or China, but who's counting.

Ironically, it takes a certain amount of force to become a member of the Nuke Club. All you have to do is test a weapon, either above ground like the United States did in Nevada or underground like North Korea did last week. You also need to strike a tough political pose with your chin in the air and act defiant. You need to play it tough because the Nuke Club is made up of tough guys. Membership is exclusive to those countries willing to bully nonmembers into getting what they want. That's why North Korea wants in. [It’s also known as blackmail.]

But for North Korea, their bark is louder than their bite. The United States is exaggerating the risk, because they hate to be bullied. China has been loud in its opposition about the test, but soft on the need for economic sanctions. Why? Because China is very interested in North Korea's ore and in fact, are working on a deal to mine it.

Has anyone noticed the conflict of interest between members of the UN Security Council and members of the Nuke Club? North Korea is in bad shape economically speaking and the only way they think they can get aid is by blackmail and use of the nuclear threat. So economic sanctions aren’t the answer because it can get worse for the people of North Korea and Kim Jung il knows it.

And thus goes the hardball game played by the Nuke Club. It’s too bad they can’t sit down for a civilized game of Bridge.

That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

The Mystery of Musharraf

This week marks the seventh anniversary of Pervez Musharraf's rise to the leadership of Pakistan. He didn’t actually rise but take over and what is unusual about his coup d'etat, is the fact that he's still in power. Pakistani politics is rife with military coups over its history and Musharaff's military takeover of the country didn't really startle anyone in 1999.
 
But times have changed and with it, Pakistan's location became very important to the United States. This was particularly true after 9/11 and there lies the mystery.
 
When he first took power, Musharraf was often seen in full military uniform or khakis and rarely in a suit. It was an image he wanted to project to the people and the world as someone in charge; someone in control after all the fuss with India in what was commonly known as the Kargil Conflict of 1999. At the time, Musharraf was in charge of the Army and anyone who knows anything about takeovers knows that the army is a very effective tool in any coup d'etats. You need the tanks and soldiers and rifles to takeover and if necessary, "take out" the leader of the country. For Musharraf, this action came easily and bloodless, so nobody raised an eyebrow.
 
So now, Musharraf wears a suit, goes on American talk shows, writes a dubious memoir and tries to present himself as a diplomat and rational leader. How quaint.
 
But no matter how you slice it, he's still a thug and he owes a lot of favours to the men who helped him get power in the first place. Some of those men work for the government of the United States who have consistently given Pakistan billions in military and nonmilitary aid. The Bush Gang sees Pakistan as an important partner on the so-called war on terror but only because of its location. The US State Department was simply playing hardball for their own mistakes when they covertly backed the Taliban.
 
Is Musharraf actively suppressing the Taliban? Recent reports suggest he's failing to do anything about them. Is the secret service of Pakistan, the ISI, doing its share of covert fighting? Probably not. The warlords are still running parts of the Khyber, the Kurram and Waziristans.
 
What's forgotten in all of this is the role of the CIA and its relationship with the ISI. The two organizations are very close and very secretive and my guess is that they are holding Musharraf as a patsy for the US. In other words, he's cut a deal with Bush: back me up and I'll make sure you get your cut of the Afghan opium harvest every spring. Meanwhile, Musharraf has admitted that the Pakistani Air Force wants him out. So Musharraf is trying to serve two masters.
 
No wonder his book is titled, "In The Line of Fire".
 
That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

The Bane of Blair

The rather bizarre world of British politics came to a head this week as Prime Minister Tony Blair gave, what the press called, his last speech as PM. Yet, the change of leadership may not happen until 2007 long before an election is held. Which brings us to today's topic: why doesn't the British electorate have a say in this change of leadership? Alas, this is how British politics often works.
 
It's the classic internal struggle of ambition being played out in the Labour Party. [For more see Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare]
 
Gordon Brown the man who oversees the money, is now the favourite to succeed Blair and it looks like he's going to have his way. Clearly, he's rallied a few Labour Party insiders to pressure the current Prime Minister into quitting. This is how many corporations work too. It's a scenario that's often been played out: a worker or manager gets into a position that displeases the boss and a few others. The boss can't dismiss him, so he makes it difficult for the worker to do his job and over a period of time, that worker quits out of frustration.  This is the saga of Tony Blair regardless of his success in the past.
 
Gordon Brown lacks charm and wit but he makes up for it with a strong sense of ambition and in politics that's all you need, especially if the public isn't involved. The British electorate doesn't seem too upset about Blair's long term departure and perhaps Brown knows it. Blair's popularity at home has been fading for several years. His commitment to George W. Bush seems stronger than his commitment to Britain and Brown knows that, too. That's one approach.
 
Or maybe it's Machiavellian in nature: [from Wikipedia]
 
Machiavelli's best known work is The Prince, in which he describes the arts by which a Prince can retain control of his kingdom. He focuses primarily on what he calls the principe nuovo or "new prince," under the assumption that a hereditary prince [in this case Tony Blair] has an easier task since the people are accustomed to him. All a hereditary prince [Blair] need do is carefully maintain the institutions that the people are used to; a new prince [in this case Gordon Brown] has a much more difficult task since he must stabilize his newfound power and build a structure that will endure. This task requires the Prince [Blair] to be publicly above reproach but privately may require him to do things that are evil in order to achieve the greater good.
 
Clearly, Tony Blair is too nice for that.
 
That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.