2013-06-19T03:16:47-04:00 Amin Elmubarak http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=amin-elmubarak Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Amin Elmubarak Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1792795 2012-08-16T19:18:39-04:00 2012-10-16T05:12:28-04:00

Amin Elmubarak http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amin-elmubarak/
Unless you have been away on a sabbatical in the middle of the Amazon forest, you will know that after a 30 second protest performance in Moscow's Christ the Saviour Cathedral, Maria Alekhina, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Yekaterina Samutsevich were arrested on March of this year and charged with hooliganism and inciting religious hatred. Their song contained the lyrics "Virgin Mary, chase Putin Out".

Rightfully, the 6 month long pre-trial detention of the three and the alleged disregard for trial procedure has angered the international community and galvenised many causes to rally in their support; across the globe, many protests have been organised for to coincide with the day the verdict is due.

In New York, from 9am - 2pm, there is an entire day of action - jointly organised by Fair Vote For Russia - NYC, Permanent Wave NYC, Occupy Wall Street-Music Working Group/Occupy Guitarmy, a coalition of feminist musicians/activists/culture workers, In Our Hearts, and many others.

I had the pleasure of speaking to Xenia Grubstein, a seasoned Russian Journalist living in New York and part of the Fair Vote For Russia-NYC chapter. I asked her about the day and its purpose:

"Though I may not agree with their aesthetic, the way the three have been treated has been unjustifiably harsh. A disturbance like this shouldn't even be met with 15 day's jail or community service but the fact that Putin's name was mentioned made a political issue. Anyone who respects freedom of speech or justice will not allow such a thing to stand."

Though the trial has drummed up support from the likes of Madonna and Sir Paul McCartney to name but a few, it's important not to forget the reason why this demonstration occurred in the first place. After winning the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, Vladimir Putin was ineligible to run for a third consecutive term and so he stepped down to allow Dmitry Medvedev to run and win the 2008 elections; leaving Putin to become Prime minister (a role he previously held from 1999-2000). Although Medvedev's Presidency led to period in Russia of a tandemocracy, where the President and Putin were seen to have equal political power, people were still hopeful that they were witnessing political change.

All this was dashed dramatically in September 2011 when Putin and Medvedev announced that the former presidential incumbent was to run for a third, though not consecutive, term. This sparked demonstration by the people of Russia, angered by the insulting political maneuver that amounted to nothing more than a seat-warming exercise to sidestep the literal letter of the Russian Constitution. Indeed, this was known in Russia as "rokirovka" or castling - after the chess move, where the king and the castle merely swap places.

Fair Vote for Russia and its many chapters have been staging synchronised monthly protests, since December 2011, across the globe in order to bring attention to this appalling disregard for free and fair representation in government. Protests have also been quite fervent within Russia from that date, though Putin's administration have been cracking down on demonstrations. "From February until now, there has been a decline in the frequency of protests because of Putin's rushed legislations". Indeed, since his return, Putin has passed many laws that seem to halt Russia's progression. Anti-corruption crusader Alexei Navalny and ultra-leftist Sergei Udaltsov were among the many arrested in protests on the eve of Putin's inauguration - 16 others still remain in detention. Since then, Navalny and Udaltsov have been arrested and have had their homes raided in order to disrupt protests.

Putin and Russia are all holding their breath. On the one hand, the three could be released and the 6 months detention could be seen as a time served; at least, as Xenia Grubstein put it, "this will give the people of Russia hope in the legal process; that they're legal demonstrations can yield something. It will encourage the people of Russia to demonstrate against the injustices that they are facing." However, many are pretty sure that the three will not only be found guilty but may face another 1-3 years in prison purely to make an example of anti-Putin demonstrators. Though the only example this may show is the lack of justice in Putin's Russia.

What's important to remember is that this is a government that has strong political, military and economic weight and so we the people can only hope for pleasant platitudes from international political leaders such as Obama and Cameron that will allow them to show their displeasure without undermining their political relationship with Moscow. But if we have learned anything from the Libyans and Tunisians is that no matter how strong a regime is, it is our duty as citizens to bring leaders into account when they slowly turn into tyrants. And if we shout loud enough and long enough, we will be heard.

If you are in the NYC area and you would like to show your support, details can be found at allriot.com]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1147872 2011-12-14T07:39:26-05:00 2012-02-13T05:12:01-05:00

Amin Elmubarak http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amin-elmubarak/
Due to the constructs of laws, it is neigh on impossible for a peaceful popular revolution to be successful without any external pressure. What dictates the application of these pressures, which can range from subtle private meetings to economic sanctions and military action, depends on a delicate assessment of how useful the current leader can be on the international stage and how much would it cost for said leader to change.

Egypt, Libya, Bahrain and Syria - to name but a few - do not have a democratic existence. There are no regular elections and they do not have the best human rights record in the world. But all three have had differing results when it came to their Arab Springs.

Libya's Gaddafi was not a friend to the west. He was not someone that the west preferred to be in power due to his almost comical inability to negotiate.

In 1972, Gaddafi formed the Islamic Legion to bring about his Arabic-Islamic supremacist vision. This paramilitary group was tasked with driving out Christian elements in Africa. Gaddafi has supported many militant groups that held anti-western sentiments, including the New People's Army of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front; not to mention the Lockerbie bombing and the killing of PC Yvone Fletcher in the UK.

So when it appeared that Gaddafi's iron grip on his people was about to loosen, the tone was very different. Allies sent special forces in "consultancy capacity" and later missions to aid the revolt. The fact that one of the first events under the Libyan Interim Council was the murder of its predecessor, make it difficult to claim the revolt was for the sake of justice and democracy and freedom. Though now his son Saif has been captured, there might be a second attempt at concepts such as "due process" and "fair trial".

In contrast, countries and leaders that have managed to make the right pro-western policy decisions managed to reap better results.

Mubarak was been a good diplomat, concentrating on a foreign policy that has allowed him to sit comfortably in the Arab League of Nations as well as by the side of numerous Presidents of the United States, from Carter to Obama. By upholding the unpopular peace treaty with Israel Egypt became an important Western ally; Mubarak's crackdown on Islamic fundamentalism and the outlawing of the Muslim Brotherhood, made him a Good ally regardless of his domestic record.

So, when Mubarak's troops and tanks failed to adequately quell the protesters, the reaction from foreign ministers was cautious. They did not directly denounce Egypt's president but still urged for Mubarak to find a solution. Though the UK and its allies were willing to allow Mubarak to try to get away the ministerial re shuffling strategies employed by Oman, Kuwait, Egypt is a geographically strategic country and no minister was willing be in a position where it would be impossible to court the new government.

Meanwhile, Bahrain's protesters occupied and set up camp in the Pearl Square in Manama, refusing to leave until their demands had been met. But there was barely a report on the security forces responding by surrounding the square and firing on protesters; or of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates military entering Bahrain to help Bahraini security forces respond to the unrest on14 March 2011 as by 16 March 2011 Bahrain's spring was done. There were also reports that Bahraini security forces had taken control of hospitals in Manama and actively denied medical care to protesters.

However, neither the UK or any of its allies were going to help urge a change in government in Bahrain regardless of the less than democratic and humane conduct. And, this is not surprising at when realises that the current leadership is the home of the US Navy's Fifth Fleet and has a Defence Cooperation Agreement in October 1991. It does not make any strategic sense to encourage a change of regime that may be more democratic if it may also decide to exile the US Navy's Fifth Fleet from its strategic home.

So where does that leave Syria's Bashar?

Some were hopeful that Bashar, a UK Ophthalmologist, would be a potential ally to the west removing himself from his father's way of rule. But, even if Bashar personally held moderate views, he doesn't have the power to wield the Ba'ath party and rhetoric seems to have changed little. To him, the threat from within the party is far greater than any economic or political pressure from other leaders.

What makes this situation slightly difficult is, unlike the outdated military machine of Libya that ran on zealous fervour, Syria has been acquiring Russian weapons as recently as 2008. Including MiGs; Pantsir S1E air defence system; Iskander tactical missile systems; and submarines. So, regardless of Syria's atrocities, any actual intervention would lead to an ugly war that will stretch an already struggling western allied military that is stuck in two wars.

The sad truth is it would be naïve to try to paint a picture of this being purely about our governments helping civilians succeed in their fight for freedom and democracy - Egypt is still shrouded in tear gas in Tahrir Square as we speak. Internationally, countries will aid the promotion of democracy in other countries if it coincides with the economic and political interests of their country.

If we take a look at Dubai - a country with no elections but a booming economy, we can see that domestically as long as our families are fed and our children can go to school, we will ALL put up with whatever government is power.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1125098 2011-12-02T07:03:29-05:00 2012-02-01T05:12:01-05:00

Amin Elmubarak http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amin-elmubarak/
For years, politicians would chose their political party based on their political beliefs. Margret Thatcher and Winston Churchill were undoubtedly Tories through and through in terms of their beliefs and so they sought to lead the Conservative Party. A party that is on the right of the spectrum of the political arena, traditionally appealing to the ideology of the state should model very little in the lives of people - less reliance on benefits and less taxes from the citizens.

The Labour Party on the hand was a party the represented labourers and workers. That's why they traditionally have had politicians such as John Prescott and Alan Johnson whose paths into politics started from the trade unions. No matter what the annals of history may say, looking at the policies and the re-branding of Labour as "New Labour", Tony Blair was a Tory in all but name. His stance was to shift the party's objectives as close to the right as possible without changing its colour, to appeal to the majority.

Blair introduced the Foundation Hospitals scheme to allow for more financial autonomy but the NHS is now in an estimated deficit of over £500m; it was also under Blair that tuition fees were first introduced and the student maintenance grant was replaced with a low-interest loan. These are changes that would befit a Tory government but the Blair brand of Labour moved the party's orientation to fit with the voters as oppose to convincing the voters that the party's orientation is the best direction for the country.


This notion of the middle being good is now the political norm. So much so that Mr. Cameron decided to sandwich "left-wing" between "weak" and "irresponsible", in true Orwell 1984 style, in describing Ed Miliband's decision to support public-sector workers who went on strike on Tuesday 29th November. Cameron speaks as though the strikes are designed to purely "disrupt services and the country" when the whole point of the strikes is to try to desperately save the pensions of thousands of public sector workers. Workers whose pensions don't even come close to the pensions of the bankers behind the financial crisis or the money that was sunk into the Millennium Dome or even the money that government bailed the banks out with.


If the Labour party did not support public sector workers, then we will end up with a monolithic political system where the only difference between the political debates of the coming elections would be the colour of the speakers' ties. When you get Blairite MPs concerned about the Leader's stance and pretty much agreeing with Mr. Cameron, you begin to question if Labour even knows what it stands for anymore.

Like people, a party cannot be all things to all people and in the pursuit of falling on the right side of public opinion, Labour may be losing its identity - turning into a mutated political entity that is neither Labour nor Conservative.

Though the disciples of Blair have feared "Ed the Red" and his tough stance on certain issues, it may be about time that Labour have a leader that would steer it back from the pursuit of public approval and towards the direction of supporting the workers; the families that live from paycheck to paycheck; and to convince the public tat this is the direction that they should follow too.

Though some may still think that Ed is not the leader that Labour may have wanted, he is definitely the Leader that they - and our politics- need.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1122723 2011-12-01T07:39:01-05:00 2012-01-31T05:12:02-05:00

Amin Elmubarak http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amin-elmubarak/ private company.

Though there is and has been a massive uproar in the direction that the government is taking the NHS, there seems to be little to slow down the process of turning our NHS into a mutated form of that of our transatlantic cousins.

"Keep our NHS free" is the general battle cry; However, in truth, there may be little difference in patients' experience after the privatisation of the NHS. When one goes to the hospital, they go through an intricate triage system of clerical staff, porters, nurses, junior doctors and other healthcare professional before they even reach the consultant. IF the reach the consultant. Like most professions, the higher up one goes up the medical profession, the role starts to take on a more organisation and leadership. Many consultants have private practices and are able to take on both their NHS as well as private work commitments.

However, what may come at a premium is the lack of knowledge that patients may have when it comes to specialised choices that physicians and surgeons make when it comes to their specific treatments. Let us look at breast surgery for example - presently the French justice system is to investigate a breast implant manufacture after the death of a 53-year-old woman in Marseille from lymphatic cancer. Now, just like when you go to buy glasses, there are many different manufacturers; types of lenses; and frames; breast implants have many different type of manufacturers and materials used in them. Unlike the outcome of having a frame that may not suite your face, the wrong type of implant may be fatal. According to radio france internationale, "This is not the first time implants produced by Poly Implants Prothèses, PIP, have raised concerns. The company uses non-medical silicone for its products which is believed to seep through the implant into surrounding tissue causing the formation of small cysts."

With the age 24 hour media coverage and celebrity obsessed news, it is hard for the general public to equate breast implants with anything other than glamour models and "insecure women". These pre-conceptions cause people to have little sympathy for people who undergo such surgeries given the above risks. In truth, there is more to breast implant operations than the purely aesthetic side, such surgeries are an integral part of the healing process for maestectomies that occur due to breast cancer. Also, according to the World Health Organisation's definition of health: "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity". So by this definition, even a purely aesthetic operation that would allow the patient "mental and social well-being" will be considered as an operation that would improve their health.

However, if the dangers of that type of implant are so well known, why would this lady have chosen such an implant? Unfortunately, the type of prosthesis used is usually up to the doctor's personal preference. Whether or not your doctor talks to you about the type of implant use would largely depend on whether or not it is a private doctor or not. So this is not a conversation about the validity of breast implants but about providing a complete picture of information for patients to allow them to make an informed decision. In the private sector, there is a plethora of extensive information that spells out all the risks and different options that are not present in the NHS. If one tries to find out information about breast implant replacement or breast implant removal, one would find more extensive information from private clinics than from the NHS.

There could be many different reasons but the main ones that stand out are:

'Financially viable' is a phrase that you would hear at least once a week if you work in the NHS. What it means is that if there are 2 products that one could use in a surgery and one is more expensive but is only a certain percentage more safe, then the cheaper one will be used as the money lost is not deemed worth for the relatively low increase in safety. What this threshold is is usually set by the management. This is not a problem in the private sector as the costs are taken by patients who generally wouldn't mind.

Secondly, in the private sector, the doctor-patient relationship is altered from the patient following the doctor to the doctor working directly for the patient, within the confines of his professional medical opinion. What that would mean is that doctors will be more inclined to divulge more information to patients and involve them more in the decision making process.

Everyone who can afford to go private does so anyway, the only thing privatisation may do is take the ever increasing NHS bill from the taxpayer. As long as we have the same doctors that treat us today, their drive to take on such a job will mean that their genuine care for their patients, no matter how it may mature with age will not allow them to put profit before care.

If you ask any patient about their opinion on a doctor, the first thing they would mention is how much and how well the doctor explained what was going on. In a country where we have some of the best medical care in the world, the provision of clear information my be the competitive playing field; and as long as doctors don't abuse this, patients can only benefit. ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1102667 2011-11-19T05:29:56-05:00 2012-01-19T05:12:02-05:00

Amin Elmubarak http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amin-elmubarak/
It seems like a long time coming for Sir Richard Branson, as three years ago he failed to secure the bank in the midst of the original financial crisis as there was no guarantee that the taxpayer's money could not be repaid, leaving the government with no option but to bail the bank out and subsequently splitting it up in order to facilitate its selling to the private sector in the hope to recoup the taxpayer's money.

One could say that the government did have the option of just letting the bank fail; Lehman Brothers, a juggernaut in comparison to Northern Rock was allowed to fail. But the truth, letting the bank fail would have wiped out billions of pounds from the bank accounts of its hard working customers. So that would mean millions of customers would not have enough disposable income to spend; meaning less items are being sold by shops; less orders are made to factories; less items being needed to be manufactured; less staff needed; redundancies made; resulting in even more people with less disposable income. Our capitalist system is a little bit like running on a pool of custard, as soon as it stops, it will sink.

But Sir Branson's acquisition of the Rock still leaves the taxpayers short four hundred million pounds sterling! Equal to a loss of £13 per taxpayer.

The simple answer is: Tough.

Talking about what's just and what's fair when it comes to this deal is like using the rules of football to complain about a rugby try. The rules of business and capitalism are all about buying low, selling high; reducing cost and increasing sales and profit margins. It's a system that has perfected nature and Darwin's survival of the fittest. What kind of businessman would Sir Branson be if willingly took on parts of Northern Rock that would make him a loss?

As he told the Evening Standard:"We paid twice what a normal bank is worth, that's because it's worth more to us and what we can do with it under the Virgin name. We think we can get it into profit quickly. Hopefully the year after next."

To borrow a colloquial adage from Hip Hop: "Don't hate the player, hate the game"

We have been suckling at the teat of capitalism for decades. It has allowed many of us to live life-styles above our pay packet and it is not built on the foundations of charity and good will to others; but capitalising on any given situation, finding a niche and working out how to make the most money out of it.

This is the game of capitalism that we are all playing and Sir Richard Branson has been playing it very well; this deal surely not being the last. If we ever find ourselves angry at Virgin or Sir Branson, maybe we just need to start thinking of a new game to play.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1087046 2011-11-10T18:02:27-05:00 2012-01-10T05:12:01-05:00

Amin Elmubarak http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amin-elmubarak/
"Oh my GOD!! Don't you ever scare mummy like that again okay?"

Imagine, turning to your left and then your right and all you can see is the mass of crowds of people as shocked and scared and exhausted as you, marching away from the plumes of smoke that used to be your village.

Your children cannot be seen, your husband, your wife, mother and father all lost in the crowd. Screaming will not do anything as everyone is screaming and if they're not it's because exhaustion has robbed their body from being able to do anything but take just one more step, one more step, until they reach safety.

As the sun begins to set and the herd that you are reduced to settles for some rest, shock will not allow you brain to access where you last saw your family. Fear and memories merge into one, to the point where you have no idea whether your child is alive or dead; if your father was still in the village or in that massive group ahead of you.

We always talk about War in terms of regime change and soldiers and oil and political posturing but no matter the end result, in every war zone- be it Iraq, Afghanistan or the Congo or Libya, there are those who have never lifted or weapon but these tend to be the forgotten refugees.

The displaced. Those that end up at best alone and traumatised, forever wondering if they're loved ones are even alive.

Brothers David and Christopher Mikkelsen have chosen to help those countless forgotten refugees. Their organisation, Refugees United, uses mobile phones and the internet in a very simple yet innovative way to bring families back in touch with one another. "There's only one thing that keeps you rooted in this world, and that's family" - The words of co-founder Christopher Mikkelsen show that this organisation is built on a deep-rooted ethos. After helping a young Afghan refugee in Mansoor find his brother in 2005, the brothers found their calling.

At the moment, Refugees United is using its know how and technical ability to work with UNHCR Uganda in order to work with the nameless and massive refugee populations in the country. Video

People create a profile and enter the details that they feel comfortable with: initials, date of birth, place of birth and a common piece of knowledge you share with your loved ones; as well as contact information. Anyone who has ever been in a refugee camp will tell you that there is a lot of waiting around and frustration. This whole process empowers refugees with a means to play an active role in finding their families.

Refugees United, as David Mikkelsen puts it, are "aiming to marry the structure and strategy of private sector companies and marry it with the passion of NGOs" in order to create a tool that was firstly for refugee but also a valuable tool for organisations that work with.

The Second World War, though atrocious gave birth to the mass production of penicillin. Maybe, in this awful age of African civil wars; endless campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq; and Arab Springs; Refugees United will be the penicillin of the 21st Century.

If Refugees United can achieve it's simple yet massive goal of "re-connecting thousands of families" then there may truly be refuge from war and a hope for a better world.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1081699 2011-11-08T09:58:04-05:00 2012-01-08T05:12:01-05:00

Amin Elmubarak http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amin-elmubarak/ spoke out about how the tabloid's page 3 is not "the right thing for women in the 21st century" I found myself wondering if women's rights have progressed very much since the suffragettes and the mid-nineteenth century.

For many years the ability to vote was restricted to wealthy property owners within Britain, therefore specifically excluding women, as property law and marriage law gave males ownership rights at marriage or inheritance until the 19th century. As difficult as it may be for some to believe, by the 7th century reforms under Islam gave women rights in inheritance, marriage and divorce - the likes of which are yet to be seen in some cultures and were yet to be seen in the civilized west for many centuries.

Now, the laws and legislations of the west seem to have overtaken the early attempts of Islamic reform. Though there are many laws and bills that "guarantee" equality in terms of employment,
pay and treatment in the work force; women are still paid, on average, less than men and there are fewer women than men who hold the top jobs in any sector.

SO?

Why could this still be an issue after all of these campaigns and laws? It could be that by the time women get to the point where a "top-level" job is within their grasp, they decide to have children or the new job could mean less time spent with the children that they already managed to have.

But the real question is why do we always end up coming back to jobs, flexible hours and childcare every time we talk about women's rights; when originally the issue was equal rights of voting and weight within the law ie. giving evidence.

The point of any human rights movements is not to carve a way out for 'their people to live' but to provide an alternative option; to give them the right to chose how they wish to live their life - be it a careers climbing the corporate ladder, flying through chambers or looking after 3 little children and an even more difficult to please adult one too.

However, the choices people make are hinged on the perceived value of their path - be it by them or their peers. And, the value something is given depends very heavily on the criteria you chose to value it by - a diamond would fail in its evaluation if you used the criteria for grading apples.

The problem we have is that we use money as our national and international grading system. It may fit when deciding what job we take or what car to buy; but we lose the true essence of people if we use this to appreciate them.

If we value women monetarily, then Page 3 is a very clever and viable option as models tend to make more money than junior doctors or barristers in their pupillage. The whole point of women's rights is to value them as people, as contributors not as objects, and how much they make; in this respect, Page 3 is regressing the place of women in society.

Though Harman may have a political agenda, the issue is important: How can we expect our young generation of women to respect themselves and encourage their presence in industry and government if we can justify a woman posing in her knickers by quoting how much money she makes?

Even female politicians get can't escape the senseless analysis about what clothes they're wearing how much weight they have put on, or what their hair looks like. Can you imagine what our history and politics would have looked like if Dick Cheney, Gordon Brown or even Churchill were judged on their grooming?

Let us start by allowing our women to be judged by the same criteria as their male counterparts, by their achievements and their efforts; not on how disposable their wardrobe is or whether they dress to their shape. Then maybe we can avoid the paradox of objectifying a woman on page 3 and complaining about the glass ceiling on page 7. It will allow this new generation of women to accurately reflect the year on year success of girls in the classroom in the real working world - from politics and economics to science and literature. But still respect themselves enough to feel it is far less "degrading" to be a hard working stay at home mother than being paied to be photographed topless.

If we can instill a true and genuine sense of value and respect for women that is expressed in conduct and not purely title and a paycheck, then we can find a happy medium for true emancipation of women.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1076018 2011-11-05T10:31:42-04:00 2012-01-05T05:12:02-05:00

Amin Elmubarak http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amin-elmubarak/
The G20 summit is an opportunity for the leaders to rub shoulders and strike deals both officially or otherwise; but in true Cannes fashion, one issue is dominating the collective consciousness of delegates and observers alike - Greece.

After already being bailed out once, Greece was offered a second international package to the tune of €109 billion in July of this year. If Greece is unable to stabilise it's finances or meet the demands of other European leaders, there is talk of "financial firewalls to safe guard the Euro"

France's Nicolas Sarkozy publicly commended Silvio Berlusconi's decision to allow the IMF to monitor it's economic target in order to restore confidence in Europe's third largest economy; a feat not to be snuffed at, given the Italian Prime Minister's domestic struggle to remain in power. But as Sarkozy did not fail to mention, this "is something that Greece did not do". Hindsight is a wonderful thing but practically, Greece does not have an easy road to navigate.

Facing domestic upheaval, Mr. Papandreou has back tracked from a referendum on the bailout package and his resignation is seen by many as a condition to safeguarding the unity of the Greek government. As the political and economic situation appears more tenuous, Sarkozy has repeated many times that "We have to defend the currency". His battle cry has been backed by his announcement that France will publish a list of 29 Banks, whose dealings "need more transparency" and that 11 countries, known to be tax havens must be willing to aid the retrieval of lost revenue. Urging countries like Switzerland and Liechtenstein to honour their commitments or risk exclusion from the international community.

Does this mean Greece will be kicked out of the EU to save the currency?

Due to the EU treaty, no matter what Sarkozy or Osborne may feel, there is no legal vehicle that can be implemented to force Greece to leave the EU. Greece cannot leave the currency and start to print it's own again as it has delegated it's write to print currency to the European Union via Article 128 of the treaty. The only way for Greece to be able to avoid the terms of the bailout and print it's own currency would be for it to utilise Article 50 of the treaty in order to leave the EU in the hope that it can later apply to join at a later date - via Article 49.

However, this would put Greece in the same boat as Turkey is right now. Trying to court every single nation that is currently in the EU in order to be approved to join again.

So now Papandreou is stuck between accepting the crippling demands of the EU and IMF in order to guarantee the bailout - losing his political career in the process; or refuse the demands and risk economic pressure that would force Greece to utilise Article 50.

This whole affair is questioning the very essence of the capitalist model as the only model. as long the economically stronger countries continue to capitalise on it's weaker members and not chose to contribute more purely because they can, then Greece will fall. And, if this occurs, then Italy and Spain may soon follow. This would cause the Euro to slowly crumble and for the EU to reach the destination it was fearing on the path it has taken to avoid it. Maybe to save the Euro, we need to reassess our current interpretation of our model of Capitalism.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1030285 2011-10-25T09:40:13-04:00 2011-12-25T05:12:01-05:00

Amin Elmubarak http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amin-elmubarak/
The battle grounds that politicians chose to fight their campaigns usually dictate the outcome and unless one has an insanely talented team, these battlegrounds are usually dictated by current events as oppose to the wishes of the political candidates. The War on Terror, Healthcare Reform and Guantanamo Bay's Camp X-ray are all things that Obama made big promises on but the biggest issue in the collective conciousness of the world and the US given recent events is the economy; with occupations in financial centres across the world, from Wall Street and Tokyo to London and many others.

The OWS movement made such a profound effect that David Plouffe, senior advisor in the White House, already started to manoeuvre the Obama camp to ride the wave of momentum generated by the world wide protests. He told the Washington Post that "One of the main elements of the contrast will be that the president passed Wall Street reform and our opponent and the other party want to repeal it". However, as Joe Klein so succinctly put it in TIME magazine, Obama avoided "imposing any real regulatory reforms - like the Glass-Steagall Act, which prohibited traditional banks from engaging in most of the fancy Wall Street derivatives gambling." Instead of bringing in real reformers into the fold like former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and the consumer-credit reformer Elizabeth Warren, he chose Timothy Geither as Treasury Secretary, whose achievements included impeding Obama's desire to break up Citibank.

At first glance, it may seem that Obama couldn't walk the walk that was set out by his tough rhetoric; he chose the path of least resistance purely because he did not have any fight in him to go against the big banks. However, this does not make sense if you look at how the President has dealt with the political minefield since his election. There are two points to make:

Firstly, Obama's likelihood to Abraham Lincoln may not have been solely geographical or biometrical but may also be in his demeanour; to quote Honest Abe "The best way to destroy an enemy is to make him a friend". This was certainly how he dealt with Hillary Clinton, his presidential candidate rival by making her his foreign secretary; it can be seen that he chose to bring in Lawrence Summers and Geithner to the fold of his economic reforms not as an easy route but as a means to contain and neutralise two incredibly pro-Wall Street political heavy hitters.

Secondly, no matter how idealistic a President may be, his first term is as much about making headway in his promises as it is about positioning yourself to win the all important second term. Had Obama bought in Volcker and Warren, his reforms may have been, at best passed and the banks would have poured all their money into Romney to bring in a new age or at worst completely thwarted by the likes of Summers and the US would not even have these watered down reforms.

This is a man who fought to get rid of the unconstitutional camp X-ray; tried to pass the closest thing to a decent healthcare system in the US in years and managed to neutralise the world's most wanted terrorist. He isn't afraid of a fight but he does not go searching for one. Obama is a measured individual who managed to deal with the fall out of BP, whose deregulation started in the Bush Administration and is now dealing with financial problem, whose deregulation started in Bill Clinton's Administration in a calm manner that people mistake for apathy or cowardice. Change takes time and it would be a shame to give "Dubbya" a second term and not give the same time to a man who has made gutsier decisions than the last three presidents put together.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.988427 2011-09-30T06:03:37-04:00 2011-11-30T05:12:03-05:00

Amin Elmubarak http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amin-elmubarak/
In order to reach the correct conclusion, one must look at the outcome that you're trying to achieve. One is retribution: Muammar Gaddafi ruled Libya with draconian malice ever since his usurpation of power in 1969 and consequent abolition of the country's constitution that was formed after it's independence from Anglo-French rule in 1951. Since then, Gaddafi looked to his own political ideology as guidance: shutting down foreign embassies and threatening to expel foreign companies from Libyan oil fields unless his government's revenue was increased from 50% to 79%.; he took upon himself to eradicate the Berber language and culture, making it illegal for parent to give their children Berber names.

In 1972, Gaddafi formed the Islamic Legion to bring about his Arabic-Islamic supremacist vision. This paramilitary group was tasked with driving out Christian elements in Africa. As we all know, this was not where Gaddafi's venture in State-funded terrorism stopped. Gaddafi has supported many militant groups that held anti-western sentiments, including the New People's Army of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front; not to mention the Lockerbie bombing and the killing of PC Yvone Fletcher in the UK.

One can go on by the misery inflicted is vast and equally atrocious. The risk of a trial is that it is not an exercise in exacting justice. It's a common misconception, but the point of a trial is to take the laws that are present and apply them to the facts. These laws do not only apply to the acts committed by the defendant but also to the process in which the trial is carried out: removal of bias; the right to be represented; the right to hear the case against you and the right of reply; in short, a fair trial.

Though this may seem straight forward, in reality, this is a huge risk and cannot be practical given the situation in Libya during Gaddafi's rule. Any lawyer could argue that Gaddafi's actions were not illegal as they were in accordance with the laws of Libya at the time. The fact that Gaddafi himself changed the laws would play no part in the matter. Given that his actions were immoral is not the issue because legal systems deal with what is or is not against the law nothing more and nothing less. So, given this premise, Gaddafi could be tried and found innocent. An insult to all that have suffered and a false vindication of his actions when he can be allowed to waltz around Benghazi like any other citizen, protected by its laws.

One may argue that Gaddafi could be tried using the new Libyan Government's laws but that would mean that the laws would have to be retrospective which, in itself is a ludicrous idea - Imagine getting a parking ticket from three months ago because the council just decided to make the area you parked in then a no parking zone! One would end up with a situation similar to that of Saddam Hussein's trial. Where the outcome was pre-determined. There was not a shadow of a doubt what the verdict will be as the basic legal concepts indicated above were flouted. Such a trial where all were just going through the motions really took away from the gravity of his actions.

This brings one to the second option - Kill On Site. And, if I were to hazard a guess at the thinking of President of the United States, is that he did not want to go anywhere near that PR bomb in the matter of Bin Laden. So a kill order achieved retribution without angering anyone with regards to affording such a cold and calculated murderer the same rights as a US robber; or indeed risking the removal of most of the evidence against him through the many defenses available - such as bias for example.

However, this is not an option that the Libyan Interim Council could afford to entertain. It is difficult to claim justice and democracy and freedom, when your first act is to murder your predecessor. And this is a rebel movement that has already been accused of war-crimes against pro-Gaddafi forces they cannot allow themselves to be written in history as an equally malevolent force with a flag that has had a little more effort put into it.

One can only wish that this situation does not turn into a second Egypt, where the initial jubilation in Mubarak's exit has now turned into disappointment.

Libya is most certainly at a cross-roads, whatever happens next after the last bullet is shot will certainly set the tone for the future of this state and for the rest of the Arab nations.
]]>