Tuesday, 23 October 2012


                                                   Barack Obama in the oval office

Obama practices the concept of putting pressure and sanctions on perceived erring state of the world which has been a norm existing and acceptable to the United States foreign policy makers since it became the world leader after the Second World War (1939-1945). The right wing political groupings in the Western world and that of the Republican Party in the US have been seriously courting the Netanyahu administration in Israel to put pressure on the Obama administration since they both hold similar position when it comes to foreign policy and the control of resources in the Middle East. On many occasions one would understand that the Obama administration do not play along in keeping with the existing structures built by the Neo conservatives of the Bush administration that have supported Israeli policy makers influence in the United states political landscape. The partnership between the Israeli government headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Right wing Republicans and American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has affected the American governance psychic over the years with its influence.President Obama has developed liberal response over the years even before he got to the presidency in January 20, 2009,  His programmes and strategies severs as a necessary response to the AIPAC and Netanyahu’s influence in the American politics, especially their strong influence on those who occupy the White House and the Congress.

The aim of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in collaboration with some powerful US citizens that control the activities of AIPAC in the USis to make the Obama administration forcefully draw a red line on the Iranian nuclear program at the peak of the presidential debate. But the administration remained adamant and exhibited the fact that it was not willing to do such since it has no credible intelligence reports stating that the Iranian regime was building nuclear bombs in any of its nuclear facilities.Netanyahu knew placing the US military strategic advantage at the doors of the Iranians in the Middle East would be seen as a threat to its existence by the Iranians and will serve as a crucial advantage for Netanyahu to stop Iran’s nuclear technological advancement. That alone can establish the “myth“ or “fact” that Israel is the only geo-political regional power in the region and it would explains to its Arab neighbors and Americans that the Israeli government has a key to unlocking  the men who occupy the White House and the Congress, but it failed woefully during the US 2012 Presidential campaign.

While the Obama administration was looking for a better approach to satisfy the Israeli regime and the AIPAC, it went on its Democratic Convention to announce to the world that Jerusalem was the undivided capital of Israel and that the party recognized Israel as Jewish state by a voice vote which was strange to many and other Arab American delegates at the convention. That was not a satisfying response from what Israeli prime minister desired. Netanyahu response to the Obama administration was disastrous at home which nearly derailed the focus of the administration during the campaign which gave Mitt Romney a better lead in opinion polls but the Obama administration quickly developed a damage control formula, it was either Netanyahu gets what he wants from Obama or destroy political support which the Obama administration has for his re- election bid through the information industrial complex that it is at the Israeli regimes disposal which is situated in the United states. 

Within days, sponsored attack ads from the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, dominated the mainstream media and polls began to favor the Republican candidate while the media cash in profits at the expense of the people in the ensuing drama. But the Obama administration was quick to counter the movement by releasing a video shot in the Republican donor’s conference where Mitt Romney was seen saying 48% of American voters who rely on government handouts will not vote for him and simply referred to them as lazy Americans. This was able to nip in the bud the negative ads that were against the re- election of Barack Obama. That being successful by the Obama campaign office, a quick strategy to maintain the pressure on the administration was adopted by PM Netanyahu which had a greater ramification on US Global security strategy and foreign policy.

It was the release of a 14 minutes low grade anti-Islam movies which was made in the US by an unknown Coptic Egyptian that was on parole not seen by many around the world on You Tube but “advertised” on major media outlets around the world which led to demonstration at various US embassies in many Arab and Muslim nations around the world. The chaos that followed the demonstration led to death of protesters in few Muslim countries and consequently the death of the US ambassador to Libya in Benghazi, when a group of terrorist fired several mortal rounds into the embassy building killing four Americans. 

The Obama administration could not find an adequate response to the low grade film which created the anti- American sentiment all over the Arab and Muslim world, but it definitely condemned the actions of the film makers consistently in its press reports. Explaining to the world at the 52nd UN general assembly, President Obama said there was no way he could stop free speech since it was enshrined in the US constitution but again, repeatedly condemned the action of the film makers for dishonoring other people’s faith.
At the UN, for the Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, it was a platform to express his opinion about the Iranian regime and simply the lackluster attitude of the Obama administration to take aggressive and decisive steps towards the advancement of the Iranian nuclear program. When he took over the podium at the UN general assembly, while he was addressing the delegates of different nations, Netanyahu was able to give a detailed lecture on the Iranian nuclear programme advancement to the United Nations representatives and to cap it all,he decided to do what Obama was not ready to do practically on his behalf in theory by using a red pen to draw a line on the board which depicts the size of the Iranian nuclear bomb he claimed that Iranians are producing.

 Since the early days of the Obama administrations Nathan Yahu has not been comfortable with the psychological impact and the influence of Obama in both the Middle East and the US, and the US 2012 presidential campaign was a solid ground for Netanyahu to test-run his popularity and influence against Obama within the American polity. It is wildly believed that Obama’s speech in Cairo Egypt addressing the Arab world was an instigator or considered as a trigger to the Arab revolution which took away some dictators that are loyal to the Israeli regime thereby opening a wider political front for the Arabs to rediscover their potential in the Middle East. And for the Israeli regime, it was an aberration to have such a balance of power in the Middle East even though the intention of Obama was not to make the Arabs go on rampage against their sit tight leaders that dance to the tune of the West. In order to counter the free flow of the Arab revolution not to consume Western Allies completely, and for it to favour the Israeli government, the status quo had to be restored quickly and remain for the benefit of the Israeli and the AIPAC. 

The nature of the revolution had to be hi jacked and thrown quickly to the gates of the “enemies” in the Middle East which was the erring Libyan and Syrian governments that supports Hezbollah in Lebanon. And that went down well with those in the Obama administration and the AIPAC. To avoid much friction, strategist in the Obama administration sought for another soil to satisfy Netanyahu by supplying “Non-lethal” support to rebels in order to avoid the ragging disparities between Netanyahu and Obama personally. Yet Netanyahu desired a more decisive approach to tackle the source “Iran” which challenges its authority in the region.

A scenario exhibited by the U.S diplomats at the 52nd UN general assembly shows that the Obama administration has complete control of the White House and not ready to give an inch to the Isreali administration in determining how its foreign policy works. The US diplomats decided to listen attentively for the first time in many years to the president of Iran Mahmoud Ahamadinejad while he was addressing the UN general assembly. It is a fact that Obama is becoming a game changer in American political psychic and its administration, its consistency would be determined when reelected by November 6, 2012. The strategic steps and policy actions of the administration since he took office in 2009 proves that he is systematically reclaiming the pride and dignity that was previously lost by former White House occupants. The dignity that has been stripped away due to the influence of AIPAC and several Israeli regimes over the years is being gradually restored in a modest way, even though the US allegiance to Israel remains intact, the administration will not allow that preferential treatment to affect its reasoning and strategies in its foreign policy dictates. Until Obama and Biden are reelected, that is when absolute control of the oval office in America can be said to be in control of the American sovereign but that is not a guaranty for future administration.

Related topics:

Saturday, 13 October 2012


It will be interesting to note that as I write this article to post on my web page, I depended on a generating set fueled by petrol to get it posted on the Internet, while it would have cost me next to noting if I had constant electricity supply from the national gird to power my home. Well for your information, it cost me 10 U.S dollars using premium motor spirit (PMS) imported into the country even when Nigeria is blessed with the natural resources at no cost.

                                                  Cars queue at a fuel station in Cairo Egypt
A vibrant economy that has some control over inflationary trends depends on the consistent supply of energy to both the household and the industries alike. And without energy supply to the two sectors; development and advancement of the society will be at a comatose. The society will be dependents on factors outside its control and its territory to survive which will lead to a total collapse of the entire economy. The circular flow of all modern economy with its relation to economic development and increase in per-capital income of its people is based and dependent on the increase and demand of the energy needs and supply of the nation. Economic development and its currency stability to other world currencies are tied to the amount of energy generated and distributed to the industries and household. This makes it simple to understand why increase or decrease in the cost production by industries has a relation to the price of goods and services in the economy and the stability of its currency.
Increase in the price of crude oil in the world markets, increases the production cost of industries in many developing nations due to their dependency on factors outside their control and this in effect affects the growth of the economy negatively cascade in relation to the profit margin of the industrialist and the purchasing power of the household. Governments in developing nations have so much relied on oil imports to generate energy for their local industries and household and they have neglect other energy sources to power their economy which would have reduced their dependency on international factors that determine the price of oil through demand and supply which is not within their control. Even when some among them are blessed with the oil and gas resources it has been difficult for them to take a good advantage of it.

Cost of using petroleum powered generating plants in a country like Nigeria has increased tremendously over the years and it seems there is no stop to it. Generators that power industries in order to produce its desired output play a significant role as a source of inflation in the local markets which in turn is a determinant of the purchasing power and the saving capability of the population. Fuel consumption by the Nigerian household is at its highest level since the year 2009 due to epileptic power supply from the national grid which is controlled by the Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN). Nearly every household has a generating set to power their homes at night when they return from work and even at work the same fuel powered generating sets are used as source of power to operate their businesses. The increase in the price of petroleum products by the government of Goodluck Jonathan in the early days of January 2012 which led to a nation wide strike by the nation's labor unions and other civil societies has increased the cost of living and diminished the standard of living which has thrown many back into poverty which the middle class technically escaped during the Olusegun Obasanjo administration.

A good example is the neglect to Invest in various power sectors by previous governments in Nigeria and that is now having a serious catastrophic effect on its population and the growth of the economy. The billions of dollars invested in the energy sector  by the democratic administration from 1999 till date has been shrouded in massive corruption and has drawn the nation backward due to wastage of the country's financial resources which was in the hands of corrupt officials. The nation has not been able to attain the 4000 megawatts of electricity which the last military regime left in 1999; instead it has led to more reduction in the number of megawatts. The ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) that has been in power since May 29, 1999 has not been able to achieve a substantial result in the energy sector after 13 years in power which should have reduced the nations dependency on the high price of imported fuel consumption and bring about a change in industrial development and its operations from the sluggish nature which has led to the shutting down of many industries across the nation.

The increase and fluctuation in the price of crude oil in the world markets affects many developing economy and in return increases the price of goods and services which has led o inflation in many local economies around the world. Many never knew Inflation played a role to trigger the Arab revolution and was not only all about political change but economics. Developing economies should know that foreign direct investors look into the prospects of a country's energy sector and the alternatives in diversifying to determine its investment portfolio in the country. FDI’s can not venture into economies that the cost of production is high and where there is no stable power supply, it would rather prefer to direct its investment to nations where power supply is stable at its lowest cost. This is the reason why countries like Ghana, South Africa and Egypt have greater advantage and chances of attracting more foreign investors among developing nations than Nigeria. Even though, Nigeria has the market and the population when it comes to investment destination, it is more expensive to do business in Nigeria due to its epileptic power supply and inadequate infrastructure which increases the cost of production.

Developing nations must invest much of their political will in various energy sources if they want to develop quickly and reduce inflation that are imported from other countries, dependency on imported petroleum fuels must be drastically reduced for solar, hydro, nuclear wind, thermal and gas powered turbines for rapid development and economic growth. Investment on these alternatives source of energy will increase the national income of these poor nations of the world which has geometric population increase. It must prepare diverse energy sources for its coming generation to avoid being trapped with the oil economy that causes inflation. But for now more hand has to be on deck for developing nations in the 21st century to industrialize its economy which will reduce sky rocketing inflationary trends based on importation of goods and services.

Thursday, 11 October 2012


The political dimension and strategic policy implementation of President Hussein Barack Obama administration is at a narrow variance from that which the former United States president George W. Bush adopted and delivered to the American people at home economically and the world in its foreign polices. The Neo- conservative right wing politicians in the republican party that believed in the American nationalist strategic vision for the world, had an absolute control of the Bush administration and their presence was felt in the annals of the American public weeks before the exit of the administration  The Neo- con and their Israeli Jewish Neo- conservative partners whom are also building a strong strategic vision for the state of Israel in the Middle East held sway in all the Bush administration policy implementation and agenda. And in all aspects both were determined to work together in order to achieve the greater part of their plans within the stipulated time frame of the Bush administration. After the Bush administration, the challenges they were faced with was that their vision was incomplete due to the dynamics of the international political environment.

                             Bush and the Neo-conservatives at the department of defense

At home the Neo-cons in the republican party had no problems pushing forward  their agenda which they technically achieved in different shades, leaving some little but necessary items on the table to be done later before the 2008 presidential election which brought the Obama administration into power in the U.S. Many influential and wealthy Neo-con personalities under the eight year George W. Bush administration were highly favored through stock markets manipulations, tax evasion, insurance on health care, housing  programs and the oil and arms contracts that were signed during the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a free for all frenzy for the men in the Neo-conservative group within the economic and social fabric of the American polity. Regulators became regulated by them and agencies of government were at the peril of the people who pulled the shots in the Bush administration which was at the expense of the American public. Lobbying state officials and politicians became a professional and lucrative job within the system, new lobbyist offices sprang up for clients, mostly organisations that wanted to get a piece of the government largess and different lobby groups took over Congress and the White House. It was at the last days of the Bush administration that the economic problems which was known to the regulators only was revealed to the American public and the people began to pay the price of incompetency and mal-administration which gave rise to the social inequality movement known as the 99% during the Obama administration which inherited the problem.

                                          American biggest gun lobbying group

  Within the first term of the Obama administration the Neo-cons made sure that those jobs completed were not tempered with in Iraq which was most crucial due to its oil resources deposit which experts believed to be the source for the Iraqi invasion. After the war and the change of government the the oil companies owned or managed by the Neo-cons had complete monopoly and  perfect control over the flow of the oil which was a strategic part of its agenda in the strategic vision for America in the 21st century. The control of the world oil output and the manipulation of the price of crude oil in the world market was a strategic reason to curb the growth and influence of many fast developing economies like China and India around the oil producing nations. Since oil is known as a determinant factor for the growth of any industrial economy the Neo-cons felt it has to be under their control.

In the case for Afghanistan, the Neo-cons members that run and operate much of the military industrial complex kept the status quo intact and even advocated for more expenditure and men to counter the insurgency in the country which the Obama administration had no option but to obey since his skills were not sharpened in foreign policy issues, he played along. With the case of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners of war that were transported from Afghanistan to Cuba, which President Obama promised the Americans public during his campaign in 2008 that he would close down the facility and provide a justice system that would oversee the case which has damage the United States reputation on human rights records as the only nation on earth that still holds prisoners of war in captive, that has not seen the light of the day. It is generally believed in many political quarters that the Obama administration inherited at least 7500 government officials that are loyal to the Neo-cons and for this purpose many of his policies would face stumbling blocks to actualize them.

                                                          An attack add against Obama
Its more evident that Obama came into government understanding the precarious challenges facing the nation internally, and has developed a quantitative program even before he was elected to office to resuscitate the battered economical situation that has bedeviled the American society and the international  political damage its suffering from. It was a task which he felt was vested upon him by the American public through their support and he decided to walk the walk as expected. It took Obama time to comprehend the damage done to the economy immediately he go to office let alone the United States reputation abroad and for that reason he decided to give it a push based on his promises. The Neo-con fought back immediately not wanting the Commander in Chief to take any steps by circumventing and destroying the strategic advantage they have won over the years. They created scenarios and mapped out  strategies to block all attempts to change the strategic advantage they had in Afghanistan and Iraq which was to make the American troops to withdraw early. While Obama got the advantage of withdrawing from Iraq later, more troops were deployed to Afghanistan to promote the war on terror. The race to paint the image of the U.S. as a human rights and values championing nation which gives justice to all, by the Obama administration was to close the Guantanamo Bay prisons, But president Obama failed to live to his promise due to the fact that Guantanamo Bay prison become an incorporated institution within the U.S administration.

 A higher percentage of the American people are more interested in their personal welfare which the state must protect and the growth of the economy which will create jobs that would provide food on their tables. It is perceived by the majority of American voters which Mitt Romney referred to as the 47% in the secret  video recording, that those who belong to the one percent have the control of the economy in their hand and would always wants major policies and programs to be to their advantage. President Obama stands as a lone ranger with his ideas of taxing the rich that have taken much from the poor and the American public during the 8 years of the Bush administration among the supporters of the wealthy personalities that own these corporations. He could justify his case with the tax which his rival Mitt Romney did not want the wealthy to pay.  He is a person who is ready to fight for what he believes in and would not be interested in anyone dictating to him the way he should go since the bucks stops on his table. He will not be willing to succumb to pressure or actions by others that would derail his plan and make the American public perceive him to be just like any other American president that are easily moved by the Neo-cons. I think president Obama recognizes and made it clear to the public that some decisions he had taken while in office are in tune with the policies that were part of the Bush administration for long which can not be changed spontaneously. These were dome of the attempts to satisfy the Neo-cons.

                                    Dick Cheney a Republican Neo-conservative

The nature of the Obama's administration should at least be attributed to his background and the fact that he understood the political make up of the United States within and trying by all means wanting to avoid getting trapped by the Neo-cons in the republican party. The neglect of the essence of democratic institutions for greedy capitalist adventure and its impact on the American population is a source for concern. Foreign war adventures that has drained the resources at home which has led to the death of many young American marines is to acceptable to the public and that was why the administration ended the war in Iraq after 8 years. The Obama administration came into government when the situation was terrible, with two wars in motion abroad and the economy in shambles, he is having a dangerous terrain to navigate in the political realms of the Neo-Cons that held sway in this presidential campaign. Systemic political moves as practiced by the incumbent president of the United States has been slightly different in the sense that it does not give effective and controlling  privilege to the power that controlled the last regime in the United States.

Related topics:
Like to read....

Monday, 8 October 2012


Modern democracy has a lower capacity to allow an aspirant who contested and won a political position, the ability to use his personal initiative as found in his manifesto during the electioneering process to change and improve the social and economic challenges which the majority in a particular society are facing. Philanthropy, political or administrative knowledge and goodwill of a personality which is known to be consistent is no certificate to being elected into government due to the polarization of modern democracy. Political personalities and those who control major media organisations do not support a political aspirant anymore based on his ideas or ability to perform in governance, but only when its known that he has the support of the majority and has been proven to them that he would support their interest and never do anything to derail their grip on power and the economy which they have permanent control upon, and that leads to giving such a candidate their support.

 Such  a candidate in power will not be able to deliver the desired results which the majority wanted due to the influence of the mega political contributors.  The 21st century democracy political programmers with their influence makes it difficult and would  not allow such  a candidate to contribute to the development of the society in general based on the will of the majority. The role of money and influence from these wealthy individuals or organisations, always leads to an unintelligent persons taking over the leadership of the country in the minds of the majority. The personal interest of these influential people is put ahead before the general public's interest when its comes to any democratic political development in many societies that this electoral process of hijacking the person representing will of the majority takes place.

                                          Million of voters out for a political campaign rally

Common democratic knowledge have failed the majority on several occasions, and the public in many democratic societies kept on wondering why and what has really happened to their beloved democratic institutions that was formerly efficient and running. Policy failure, strangulation of the political system and neglect over the years by the wealthy and influential people, which has not been to the benefit of the majority, has made many to start predicting that the 21st century and its political challenges will dig the grave for democratic institutions to rest in peace, this can be adduced to its consistent failure in many societies around the world.

                                            Ukrainian parliament in a brawl over public policy

The reality is that, its not the democratic institution that is possessed by the evil that has befallen modern democracy. Its the activities of the "Operators" and the "Pollutants" working in these democratic institutions that are riddled with corrupt tendencies, all in an attempt to protect their personal and co-operate interest at all cost. The "Pollutants" would be willing to do anything to stop anyone who wants to oppose them or bring a positive change to the advantage of the majority at their expense. The "operators" whom are the elected officials and the "pollutants" are those who select, sponsor or donate to finance aspirants electioneering expenses. These two categories of people consider their personal interest above the interest of the majority which brings the elected officials "operators" into power. And as soon as the ''operators" get in to office they join the band wagon of the sponsors.  The majority harnessing their votes believing in the manifesto presented publicly to them by the candidate and whom is viewed as the person that will operate the political system to their advantage that will usher in a positive change in their social and economic lives are never aware about the inside dealing and lobbies that would have taken place between the "pollutants" and the newly elected "operator" .

 These two groups have hijacked and manipulated the institutions of democracy in many societies, and their control has made it difficult for those with positive intention to bring about a change in several unreliable democracies around the world. These groups have stagnated the democratic principles for the majority and has made the system not to efficiently perform its duty to the majority. The ability to control state officials in government through their influence and by their wealth has been the reason for the failure of many democratic institutions around the world. The elected officials have no or little say in the affairs of the institutions which they occupy, this is because many of their campaigns and sponsorship came form the "Pollutants" and the"Operators" of the political system. They are the ones who determine when,where and how the public policy programs are to be implemented. And in any situation where the office holder feels uncomfortable with their decision and willing to go ahead with the program as stated in his manifesto to the people. The "pollutants" would be willing to damage his reputation or prop up charges against such a person to discredit his administration.

 Political aspirants of different political parties rely on these influential and mega billionaires to donate money for their political campaigns and from these monies, advert placement for or against a particular candidate is made and these adverts serves as a determinant factor in modern democracy for who gets the political seat. Since campaigns play major role in elections, it cost huge sums of money that many aspirants can not solely provide for themselves alone because of the nature of the challenges of campaign tours in modern elections. Political campaigns and the nature of adverts presented by a candidate that appeals to the poor are not too entirely different from that which appeals to the people in the middle-class, there are no wide margin between the two,it always promote social democratic ideas. This is because, out of the educated and innovative lower class, there the middle-class rises from. While those electoral campaigns and adverts which speaks about a particular candidate intention that appeal to the wealthy class are in sharp contrast to those of the two other class. Campaigns that appeal to the wealthy are capitalist driven ideas of democratic institutions where safety is not guaranteed for the weak in the society. This is one of the most significant reason why democratic institutions and their officials elected by the will of the majority fail to promote what their manifesto is about after they get into office.

                                                  Barack Obama adverts for re-election

One should not dispute the facts that there are no democratic states where the leadership has no control of the state.Many socialist democracies like Venezuela and Brazil have shown that its possible for the will of the majority to be ad-heard to, based on the manifesto which the candidate presented to the majority. What the "operators" and "pollutant" of modern democracies do is to program modern democratic systems in their societies to their favor. And these always happen where the have a good hold of the political landscape. They make sure that they hijack, promote and fund two major political  parties, leaving the masses with no option but to choose between the two leaders that come from their own funded parties.

                                                     Supporters at Chavez campaign rally

 Modern democracy can be said to be a football club, its owners suffers no monetary loss but rather makes profit when the club losses a match point to another competing club. The club owner might suffers the same emotional pain, which the fans experienced over the lost point, but the difference is that, the club owner goes back to his office happy expecting to receive the check from his bank manager minutes after the game in his office. The case with the fans is entirely different, they loss the money which they pay to watch the game, they are not entertained and at the same time suffer emotional loss because of the love they have for the team. Its sub-optimal in all aspects and that might lead to high blood pressure. At the end, when the club gets relegated or trying to limp above relegation, the fans have no say in the transfer window and can not determine which player should be bought by the club to change its fortune and at what cost. Or the player that needs to leave the club and the management will never be willing to reduce the price of the ticket due to their loyalty to the club. It is not in the fans power to determine if the coach is to stay or get of the training pitch for a better coach to take over. All decision are made by the club owners without the fans knowledge and the fans have no option but to accept it.

This simply explains the reason why majority in modern democracy are not shareholders in the democratic societies they have found themselves but are meant to show allegiance to a system that is not in their control. The majority only have an option which is given to them by the "Operators" and the  "Pollutants" every electioneering year to choose between the two that will work for their interest.

Related topics:

Like to read: