The fight to end human trafficking
If you thought slavery is a term that belonged to the old ages you are sadly mistaking. Slavery is happening all around us and this social disease is spreading like brush-fire. Only by taking a stand and putting the spotlight on human trafficking can we force governments around the world to make policies that eradicates this social ill.
Why branding from a customer centric point of view is important
Last night I gave a talk at the Superbrands awards ceremony held at the Intercontinental hotel in Dubai. My position was that Brands do not list to customers enough and as a result have failed in their ability to create customer centric conversations as opposed to the old way of communication which is talking in company jargon. Below is the video.
It’s A New Cold War
Early this month a leading member of the Saudi royal family declared that Riyadh could 
seek to replace Iran’s oil exports if the country doesn’t constrain its nuclear program, a move that could cripple Tehran financially as the country generates over half of its revenue through the sale of oil.
This announcement comes in light of a clear division of interest witnessed during the recent OPEC meeting that clearly put Iran and Saudi at a standoff over production and pricing of oil.
In closed-door remarks, Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal strongly implied that Riyadh would be forced to follow suit if Tehran pushed ahead to develop nuclear weapons and said Saudi Arabia is preparing to employ all of its economic, diplomatic and security means to confront Tehran’s regional ambitions.
“Iran is very vulnerable in the oil sector, and it is there that more could be done to squeeze the current government,” Prince Turki, a former Saudi ambassador to the U.S. told a private gathering of American and British servicemen at RAF Molesworth airbase outside London.
“To put this into perspective, Saudi Arabia has so much [spare] production capacity—nearly 4 million barrels [per] day—that we could almost instantly replace all of Iran’s oil production,” the prince said.
It is also no secret that senior Obama administration officials have lobbied Riyadh over the past two years to explore ways to pressure Iran through the energy markets. The White House has specifically asked Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. to guarantee China greater energy supplies in exchange for Beijing cutting off its energy investments in Iran.
It’s a new regional Cold War, fueled by oil and ideology, between Shiite Islamists who rule Iran and the Sunni Saudi royal family, each of whom consider themselves leaders of the world’s Muslim populations
Iran’s “meddling and destabilizing efforts in countries with Shiite majorities, such as Iraq and Bahrain, as well as those countries with significant Shiite communities…must come to an end,” said Prince Turki “Saudi Arabia will oppose any and all of Iran’s actions in other countries because it is Saudi Arabia’s position that Iran has no right to meddle in other nations’ internal affairs.”
Saudi officials were quick to reply that the 66-year-old royal was speaking only in his private capacity.
German – US relations on the rocks?
Minutes ago President Obama and Chancellor Merkel held a press conference at the Whitehouse. While it was greatly anticipated that the two leaders would talk about strategic differences in approach with regards to Europe’s financial crisis and on Middle East affairs, the two leaders opened their remarks with high praise and admiration for one another.
The President, while calling the Chancellor by her first name on a number of occasions during his talk, made reference to the two countries strong trade ties and collaboration in industry while at the same time calling on Germany’s need to show greater leadership in European matters during these challenging times.
Likewise, the Chancellor reciprocated the high praise by giving credit to the United States for its support of Germany after the Cold war stating that, “I would not be here today had it not been for US leadership”.
While on the surface the two leaders choreographed the press conference well, behind closed doors it is no secret that the Chancellor has a very different approach to both the financial crisis in Europe and on matters of German – Middle East relations.
On matters of EU financial control,
The Chancellor firmly believes that many of the European countries in a state of crisis are fiscally undisciplined and lack the labor and tax laws that would make them productive and not to mention competitive in today’s global market place. As such in her view, any form of handout “stimulus” would be a disincentive to the political establishment of such countries to chance course by taking corrective measures. This is clearly in contrast to the American position that is more interventionist.
On matters of German – Middle East relationship
It is no secret that for decades Germany has enjoyed a special relationship with countries in the Middle East, namely Iran, going as far back as the days of Reza Shah (1930s) who used the Germans as a leverage against Russian and British influence in Iran. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Reza Shahs son, continued the relationship from 1945 to 1979, paving the way for many German companies such as Linde, BASF, Lurgi, Krupp, Siemens, ZF Friedrichshafen, Mercedes, Volkswagen and MAN to enter the lucrative Iranian market.
But what made this relationship even more exclusive was what happened after the 1979 Islamic revolution and the overthrow of the Shah, who was considered a US ally.
From 1979 to this day most Western countries who were considered US allies, including the US, were shutout of the Iranian market except for Germany and in the absence of any serious rival this bilateral relationship developed into a multibillion dollar one way German export to Iran business relationship.
Knowing full well what endorsing sanctions on Iran would do to Germany and German companies who rely on this trade to keep their businesses profitable and their staff employed, the Chancellor’s position is difficult. On the one hand she does not want to lose the relationship her country has with the United States while on the other hand the Iran market is a vital German economic interest.
On matters of the Palestinians right to statehood Germany has made it clear that it support a two state solution but it has also grown weary of Israel’s continued violations and unauthorized land grab of Palestinian territories. Furthermore, in light of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech a few weeks ago in Congress denouncing any resumption of talks based on the 1967 boards the Germans have voiced concern over Israel’s genuine intentions.
In my view, and in light of Germany’s strategic interests in Iran, Germany will use its Palestinian card to appease the US and Israel at the United Nations should the Palestinians unilaterally declare statehood and in doing so convince the Americans to back off from calling for further sanctions on Iran.
The fact of the matter is that 40% of Iran’s trade balance comes from its relationship with Europe of which 29% is with Germany.
In February of 2006, the President of the German-Iranian Chamber of Commerce in Tehran, Michael Tockuss said “some two thirds of Iranian industry relies on German engineering products and spare parts” and not to mention that the value of trade between Tehran and Berlin has increased to nearly 4.7 billion Euros in 2010. This translates into 50,000 German jobs who rely on strong German – Iran relations and the Chancellor know this.
The Arab Spring
The Arab youth revolutions that led to the fall of Hosni Mubarak have not just been a challenge to one man of power, but also to an ideology and a kind of rule that has defined the modern Middle East: centralised systems of government maintained through military and tribal religious welfare frameworks.
However, this is not the first wave of revolutions to hit the region; the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s all witnessed revolutionary movements, against colonialism in North Africa and against monarchies in Egypt and Iran. It is sobering to view systems that emerged in those countries following those upheavals. Revolutions should not be romanticised. They do not necessarily bring the type of change or type of life people imagined.
It may be too early to judge the long-term outcomes of the Arab youth revolutions, but they are undoubtedly different from those that preceded them. Notably, these revolutions were propelled by acts of civil disobedience free from nationalism, socialism or religion. And they were for the most part peaceful.
These youth revolts have ushered in an era beyond militant dissent. That’s not to say that those who espouse the use of violence and terrorism will disappear, but an alternative in the shape of civil disobedience has been added to the Arab spectrum.
The youth revolts are also significant as the first real political milestone in the lives of Arab youth who represent the majority demographic in the Arab world. It is in a sense their moment of self-realization.
The second significant feature of the youth uprisings is the message they transmit: if you don’t like your governments you can change them by taking to the streets and getting online. We saw this idea spread like wildfire first in Tunisia then in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria. This message has created legitimate concern for regional regimes and superpowers alike.
Revolutions bring great uncertainty, and in a region where seasoned and legitimate opposition movements are not allowed to exist, revolutions create power vacuums. Should these vacuums be filled by extremists, this could lead to additional layers of challenges for the region. To assume that these revolutions are strictly internal to those respective countries and that external factors play no role would mean ignoring centuries of Middle Eastern history.
One must acknowledge that there are extremist governments that seek to extend their influence and export their ideology. Neo-colonialism, energy/petroleum politics, the economics of the military-industrial complex, geopolitical power struggles and proxy wars are all parts of this “new Cold War” which is shaping the Middle East. Now Arab youths have added themselves as a component to be reckoned with.
Violent or sudden change is clearly not the desirable solution, but it is happening in some societies around us, and will not be avoided so long as the sociopolitical structures contain inherent flaws that lead to social discontent.
Amid the changes that we are witnessing, the greatest long-term safeguard for a nation is empowered citizens. People must be empowered through progressive education, progressive interpretations of Islam, an end of the welfare and rote mentalities that have plagued the region and the encouragement of an active civil society via business and social entrepreneurship.
In addition, we require empowered, independent parliaments that ensure harmony between the will of the people and the will of the ruling establishments. This allows a country to function like a family, capable of constructive debate and of withstanding current and future challenges.
We should not fear change and sociopolitical evolution as much as we should fear stagnation and circumstances in which citizens are not able to engage fully, through legitimate platforms such as parliaments and progressive media and social media. When engagement is prevented, then extremist elements will exploit the frustrations that may exist among citizens, encouraging the growth of extremism in society.
We must not underestimate or discount the nature of each society, nor the history and traditions upon which its sociopolitical structure has been created. Trying to impose foreign systems or ideologies will only backfire. We also must not underestimate or discount the fact that human beings – whatever their religion, ethnicity or history – ultimately hunger for self-determination.
History will not remember us because we were called monarchies, democracies or republics. Our commitment to good governance – in the shape of an enlightened educated populace, effective progressive institutions, empowered independent parliaments, sound socioeconomic policies, independent judiciaries, the rule of progressive law, quality health care and above all the preservation of human dignity – will be the measures defining our place in history. The time will never be “just right” for bold reforms, so the Arab region must take the initiative to do what is necessary.
Netanyahu makes the case why under his leadership Israel will never agree to PEACE
Hours ago Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave what could only be described as a chummy speech to a United States congress that looked more like a pro-Israel fraternity of men and women oblivious to the realities of a 60 year old conflict in the Middle East.
Rather than outlining Israel’s position of compromise and expressing his interest for a lasting peace and rapprochement with the Palestine leadership and with the greater Palestinian people, the Arab world, and in essence with the greater Middle East, Netanyahu added flames to an already volatile fire that could ultimately engulf the entire Middle East region into war.
His forward leaning demeanor at the podium, condescending and at times patronizing tone of voice, and heavy-handed speech said it loud and clear, Israel under his watch will never accept peace with the Palestinians. Sadly, congress ate it up by giving him 26 standing ovations each time he laid out a demand that incorporated the following points:
A) Israel will not go back to the, newly defined, “indefensible” 1967 board,
B) All disputed land claims must be negotiated, meaning Israel will have to agree to it,
C) Settlements will not be dismantled on occupied Palestinian territory,
D) Palestinian refugees will not have a right of return to their homeland but in return will be settled in the “new” generously offered Palestinian land given to them by the Israeli’s,
E) Israel will require more land as it prepares for future growth and development,
F) Jerusalem will be the undivided capital of Israel,
G) Fatah must break ties with Hamas for any talks to resume,
H) In the interest of security, Palestine must become a demilitarized zone while Israel can arm itself with the latest military technology provided by the United States. And
I) Any attempt by the Palestinians to unilaterally declare a state of Palestine should be vetoed by the United States at the United Nations. Meaning Israel will not accept any international covenant that gives legitimacy to the Palestinian people.
It was clear that Prime Minister Netanyahu had come to the United States to play hardball, to stand his ground and in some sense to take Barak Obama to school on matters of Middle East real politik.
His provocative speech while hitting a nerve around the world served a strategic purpose and that was to forewarn the American center of power that they should expect rocky roads ahead, even a war that could pull Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and other Arab countries that have recently gone through an Arab awakening into the mix.
When all was said and done, Prime Minister Netanyahu thanked congress for their continuous support of Israel and for their one-sided and generous support.
Minutes after his speech reaction from the Palestinian authority made it clear that they had no intention of furthering talks with Netanyahu and his administration under the current circumstances and see Netanyahu for what he really is, an impediment to peace not only between Israel and the Palestinians but an impediment to peace and security in the greater Middle East.
President Obama does a U turn on his Middle East policy at AIPAC
Minutes ago at AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), President Obama gave a warm and fuzzy speech to a crowd that was impatiently waiting to get clarification on what the President meant when he said that Israel had to draw its lines based on the 1967 boarders with Palestine.
The President didn’t disappoint by doing a U turn on his Middle East policy speech that was delivered only two days prior where he advocated for the resumption of Middle East peace talks and for the creation of a two state solution based on the 1967 boarders.
Addressing the Washington based pro Israeli lobby the president outlined America’s unwavering support for Israel by outlining the nations ongoing and steadfast military and diplomatic support for Israel thus making it clear that Israel remains a strategic interest of the United States in the Middle East and that the relationship between the two countries was “Ironclad”.
While reaffirming his commitment to Israel he also gently reminding the audience that the world had indeed changed and that through technological advancements of the 21st century protecting Israel and guaranteeing its security from a far had become a more challenging proposition, not to mention a costly one to the American tax payer.
Nevertheless to clear any ambiguity on what he meant during his Middle East policy speech two days prior, President Obama elaborated on “the 1967 boarders and mutually agreed land swap” as the basis for the resumption of peace talks between the Israeli’s and the Palestinians. The President made reference that any land deal to be made will have to be done between the parties, meaning between hard right Netanyahu on the Israeli side and a joint Hamas and Fatah on the Palestinian side.
Is this the American position for brokering a Middle East deal based on the “new realities” on the ground, seriously?
In my view we are back to square on the Israeli / Palestinian conflict and while on the surface the Presidents talk sounded rosy, beneath the surface rough waters are ahead but with one difference, today the people of the Middle East are of a new generation that are not only pushing for stability in the region but more importantly are demanding a more balanced leadership on the part of the United States. Todays generation of young Arabs expect the United States, this beacon of freedom and democracy and symbol of tolerance and advocate of universal human rights to be a genuine peace maker.
Furthermore, it must be said that with the sweeping changes taking place in the Middle East, America can no longer afford to support dictatorships in the region as a means to guarantee security for Israel. With the fall of the Mubarak regime in Egypt, the geo-politics of the region has significantly changed making Israel’s position even harder to sustain if it is unwilling to make peace.
Therefore, to bring about long-lasting peace and stability in the region, America must play a balanced role between the two sides and before the international community. The alternative to this position will be a Middle East backlash against America and its ally, Israel with global implications and America can not afford to lose face in these challenging times ahead.
