Bin Laden: Assassination or Mercy Killing

For the last ten years Osama bin Laden has been public enemy number one, the face of the enemy in the war on terror, Islamic extremism and a man responsible for thousands of innocent deaths, then you wake up one morning and he is dead.

Was it right an American special forces Navy Seal shot him dead in his compound in Pakistan, or should more effort have been made to take this man and publicly put him on trial for his atrocities?

President George W Bush said in the aftermath of 9/11 he wanted this man dead or alive. At the time the media made more than a few jokes about yet another cowboy metaphor from the Texan president. In fact this clichéd sentiment was closer to the trust than anybody believed.

It is fair to say all those who stand against Islamic extremism and international terrorism are pleased to see bin Laden out of the picture, but there have been more than a few raised eyebrows about the fact he was shot, killed and buried with no chance of a trail taking place.

As citizens of developed nations we are taught to believe in our fair and balanced legal system, innocence until guilt is proven, the right to a fair trial and the concept of due process.

Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milošević and Radovan Karadžić have all faced war crimes tribunals in the Netherlands following the atrocities they carried out in Iraq, Yugoslavia and Bosnia, so why not bin Laden.

The total number of people bin Laden has killed, directly or indirectly, will probably never truly be known, but then again the same can be said for all the aforementioned war criminals.

Under normal circumstances the perfect outcome for this would have been the capture of bin Laden, a public trial and sentencing for his crimes. Unfortunately, this just raises further questions.

Where would this trial be carried out, what real evidence is there, what kind of jury could be empanelled and how can he be sentenced?

Are those complaining about the killing of bin Laden really claiming he should have been put out in front of a twelve person jury in New York City, and would he have received a life sentence or faced the death penalty?

A public jury in New York could never have reached an impartial verdict on this man, a life sentence would have been a waste of money and he has already faced his death sentence.

It is also important to remember this man was an independent citizen, not a recognised head of state. The rest of the world may not have like Hussein, but he was the leader of Iraq.
War crimes trials in The Hague are reserved for heads of state, and their colleges, who have oppressed, tortured and killed innocent members of their population. Under no circumstances does bin Laden fit any of these criteria and so the only way it would work would be for him to face a normal criminal trial under a terrorism act.

A major problem arising here is his trial would not have been an acceptable piece of justice and would more than likely have served as a target or monument in itself for jihadist Muslims around the world. The fact the Americans did not want him to be martyred was the primary reason for burying him at sea instead of in a land-based grave.

The fact which goes against the grain the most in this situation is the fact he was unarmed at the time of his killing. He made no effort to surrender (hardly a surprise) and apparently there were weapons near at hand (again not shocking).

As the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams said the killing of an unarmed man leaves “a very uncomfortable feeling”. It is hardwired in to every decent persons mind to not kill an unarmed person purely because it is morally and ethically wrong.

This argument has been used by those questioning the tactics used by the Americans during this raid, but strangely this has never been raised about any other terrorist killing, although admittedly none have ever been this high profile.

The public would never shed a tear (admittedly nobody cried over the death of bin Laden) over the killing of an unarmed drug lord in Columbia, a renegade general in Africa or a murderer in any other country. So why is this issue so high on the public agenda now?

Is it simply because of the high profile nature of the target, or is it because this man has been top of the FBI most wanted list for more than a decade now?

It is important in this situation to remember the situation and the man we are dealing with. This was not a crazed leader oppressing his people or a dictator throwing opposition leaders in slave labour camps. He was a terrorist at the head of a small group of disillusioned Muslims and a target of war.

Many things during the war on terror have disgusted people including the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the indefinite detention of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay.

These things are unacceptable and avoidable, a night raid of a compound in Pakistan and the subsequent killing of a terrorist leader is not.

Could this situation have been handled better, maybe, and would it have been better for him to stand trial for what he has done in accordance with developed legal systems, certainly, but nobody opposed to the killing has been able to explain how it could have been achieved.

The world is a better place without this man and although his death will probably do nothing to quell the resolve of his followers it may just be one of the final coffin nails.

On a personal note I was pleased to see his body was buried in accordance with Islamic customs. It was vital for the world to see the Americans treat an Islamic body with the respect it deserves in accordance with the customs of the religion.

Riots in Paradise – Overnight Democracy

Many, if not all, of us have been surprised by the protests now seemingly sweeping across North Africa and the Middle East with the people calling for freedom of speech and democracy, but how effective will this be and what does it mean for the world?

Surely nothing bad can come out of pro-democracy rallies in countries where the leaders are de facto dictators? Many rulers in these countries have been in power for over 20 years, imprison political opponents and oppress their own people.

Calls for free elections, freedom of speech, association and press are all issues the West has been keen to promote in Islamic nations as part of the war on terror. Democracy is good, personal freedom is good and the people standing up to dictators is good, but what will be the eventual result of these protests?

In Egypt the major complaint has been President Mubarak sacking his cabinet, but refusing to stand down himself. In Tunisia the new government, formed after President Ben Ali fled the country, includes many politicians closely associated with the ousted administration.

It is true democracy takes time. Elections in other parts of the world, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, have taken months to resolve, been subject to voter fraud and have produced questionable results. These problems are something the people of Tunisia and Egypt will be keen to avoid.

These are not war torn countries. For years they have been led by acceptable dictators. Any voting problems will undermine what the protests were about and not bring the changes desired.

This means it may take months, or possibly years, before free and fair elections are held in these countries to ensure they are indeed free and fair.

In the mean time the people will have to remain strong to ensure their ideology is not drowned out by anther de facto dictator simply taking over, but there are major problems in these countries.

Mass unemployment was the catalyst for Tunisia. This is not an issue likely to disappear overnight. A strong government and foreign investment will be required to solve this problem and it would be all too easy for Tunisians to fall back into the usual rotation only to realise down the line they have achieved nothing.

Hypothetical time. The protests are successful across Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt and other parts of the arab world. In the near future political parties are formed and there is a general election is held which is externally moderated and appears to go off without a hitch. Who is likely to win?

This is where we run into a problem. The West was never keen on some of these leaders, but it suited us to ignore the dictatorial tendencies to have them on our side. The new guys may not be on our side and could in fact stand for things we really do not like.
Is it completely out of the realm of possibility these elections result in Islamic extremists taking over in these countries. The hot beds of extremism are in the poorest areas. A new political leader promising a strong Islamic state to the poor and needy may sound like a fantastic idea to the people, but not to others.

We are told to have faith in the people and a belief in what democracy can give us, a future we get to pick. These are important countries in an area everyone is dependent on.

Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria are important trading points from North Africa to Europe, the Americas and Asia for, among other things, oil and natural gas. There is the possibility of this spreading to the Middle East, protests have already been reported in Yemen about the same issues.

Maybe, just maybe, the people will make the right choices and elect a progressive government in these countries to improve the situation in Islamic Africa and the Middle East. The West needs true allies in these areas, not these dog and pony show governments we call allies.

Anybody want to call the odds on which way this will go? Entire peoples are looking for change in countries unfamiliar with what it involves. Will they vote for strong Islamic state, or global partner?

Bankers Refusal

Welcome to 2011. A new year, a new start, but the same old problems. Financial regulation and bankers bonuses will be high on the agenda this year across the world as governments of all stripes try to put the recession behind them.

Bankers have been the evil face of the recession, with billions in taxpayer’s money being funnelled into failing organisations across the world, but it has proved difficult for any government to make headway in regulating both the actions taken and the bonuses given by financial institutions.

Why is this? Most, if not all, people agree the actions of the bankers involved in sub-prime mortgages and high-risk investment strategies were, at the very least, a catalyst for the problems now being seen world wide. So how come no government has been able, as yet, to heavily crack down on them.

Take the UK as an example. Currently the new coalition government is rolling out its austerity measures with the hope of eliminating the deficit in five years. This has included slashing the budget of almost every government department, a hike in university tuition fees and an increase in VAT to 20%.

Essentially what has happened is the ordinary people have to pay off national debt, put up with public service cuts and pay more for everyday goods because of a problem caused by the banks.

It is true large budget deficits are not good for any economy. They reduce business confidence, discourage foreign investment and can lead to unemployment and high inflation.

Financial services are also vital to the economy. The countries most affected by the credit crunch all have, or maybe had, large financial sectors, generating huge quantities of money, tax revenues and investment.

The question continually arising here is why the banks continually refused to take responsibility for what they caused and accept the part they should play in helping countries out of their current predicaments.

This time last year The Royal Bank of Scotland, which received a huge bailout from the government, defended its bonus strategy saying it had to attract and keep top bankers. Many people, myself included, criticised them for this arguing its current predicament showed they had no banking talent to keep.

On 11 January this year the new head of Barclays Bob Diamond said it was time for the public to stop blaming the banks and bankers and allow them to get on with their job as they see fit.

Their economic importance aside, this is just arrogance of the highest nature. A lack of regulation allowed the banks to cripple themselves, and every global economy, because of unnecessary risk taking, and the bonuses they are still receiving are several times the national average income.

Let us face facts, bankers are not badly off, and while people are all in favour of annual bonuses being paid to those who have earned them through hard work, it is ridiculous to have them written into a contract.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a bonus as a sum of money added to wages for good performance or an unexpected extra benefit. How come etymologists understand more about how benefits should be paid than bankers?

So far this has been a bit abstract and a repetition of what most of the general public feels about bankers currently, so lets have a bit of perspective.

Public transport ticket prices in London have risen 8% on 2010 prices. Although this might not sound like much a monthly tavelcard for all zones in London cost around £170. Per month they now cost £13.60 more, £163 more annually. A 2.5% increase in VAT to 20% is a regressive tax as it cost low income earners more in percentage terms than high income earners. University fees will now be doubled to slash the government budget for higher education, but this means children from lower income families will be put off entering higher education due to the debt levels they will incur.

At the same time bankers still have bonuses written into contracts, many of which would allow them to buy and run a luxury car, write off any price increase and send their child to university without even having to break into their basic salary.

This issue has always had the second thread of regulation. The political right will tell you increased regulation is bad for business, while the left tells you less regulation means organisations will not act responsibly. As with most things spilt along ideological grounds, both are wrong.

No business will act responsibly unless they are forced to. Privet companies, as utility companies have shown us, act only to make a profit. However, if you hem in companies to act a certain way it takes any fluidity out of the market and punishes innovation.

Again we must look back at the causes. Excessive risk taking, with the sole aim of making a larger profit, caused a crisis which crippled almost every economy in the world.

For bank now read power station. If a power station had burnt down or exploded because the company was trying to make power faster to make more profit would the operators still be running the company. Of cause not, they would be serving prison sentences for criminal negligence and the inspection procedures at all power station would have been ramped up.

What if an international delivery company had lost several thousand packages? This would not have led to criminal prosecution, but would certainly have led to a revamp of the process and additional supervision.

Governments have issues with attacking banks. They are generally very powerful organisations which have high stakes in national debt, generate huge tax revenues and encourage investment in the country.

One of the major fears has always been banks leaving the country if increased regulations were implied or bonuses were taxed leaving the country in an even worse state.

However there are ways of dealing with both the regulatory issues and bonus culture without damaging the banks.

With bonuses there should not be a tax, plain and simple. The bankers will receive their bonuses in shares in the bank. This would mean their bonus value is directly linked to the performance of the bank. This has been thrown around before, but has never been implemented or properly discussed and no reasons have been given as to why this would not work.

In terms of regulation many people would argue it is time for the bankers to get off their high horse, admit they were to blame and to stop acting like petulant children.

No other industry in the world would expect to cause a global crisis and not get punished, and the banks have not been punished. Yes, we understand the burdens of regulation, but a lack of regulation allowed this to happen so surely it is the only option.

Problems do arise though. As already mentioned banks can move abroad to countries with lesser regulation causing a sudden plunge in tax revenues and investment, not a good thing for countries limping out of recession.

What needs to happen is a global deal on how to regulate the banks. This was a global crisis and as such requires a global solution, not 50 different ones varying from country to country.

The nuances of any deal are more difficult to explain, but independent auditing of records, stronger penalties for those who take excessive risk and an end to sub-prime lending are obvious places to start.

It is time the banks realise they work not just for themselves, but for the people, understand if it was not for intervention many of them would no longer exist and accept their greed caused the problems everyone is now facing, including unemployment, rising prices and public spending cuts.

Cyrano de Bergerac said “The insufferable arrogance of human beings to think that nature was made solely for their benefit, as if it was conceivable that the sun had been set afire merely to ripen men's apples and head their cabbages.” We appreciate the role the banks play, but nobody likes to pay for other peoples mistakes, and it was the banks mistakes.

To have the arrogance to turn around afterwards and claim you should be left alone with no punishment is an insult to the millions of people who now struggle to find work, cannot pay the mortgage and find it impossible to get a loan from a bank bailed out by their money

What the public feel now is not malice, but utter disappointment and frustration at the lack of action taken and the problems they must now face all because the banks want to get back to making obscene profits.

Nobody else in the world would be able to get away with doing what the bankers have done or as Napoleon put it “Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence”.

By the way, this is not a new issue. Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court Earl Warren once said “I hate banks. They do nothing positive for anybody except take care of themselves. They're first in with their fees and first out when there's trouble.”

Previewing 2011

With 2010 drawing to a close it is very easy to look back and reminisce about what has been an extraordinary year across the world and forget we are still heading into the unknown in many areas of the world in 2011.

Floods in Pakistan, the rescue of the Chilean miners, the Deepwater Horizon explosion, a change of government in the UK and terrorist attacks in Moscow and Sweden have all made front page news.

Elsewhere President Obama has faced a backlash against his healthcare reforms, a major factor in the Democrats poor showing in the mid-term elections. Afghanistan and Iraq both held elections this year, but due to widespread election fraud the results are still unknown.

The result of the presidential election in the Ivory Coast looks set to plunge the country into civil war at a moments notice while there was rioting on the streets of Kingston, Jamaica over the deportation of suspected drug dealer and gun runner Christopher ‘Dudas’ Coke.

This is not to mention the worsening situation between Israel and Palestine, the global economic crisis and the increased tensions between North and South Korea.

So what can we expect in 2011? Of cause many things are unpredictable, but there are many things on the political, economic and business scene which may see large changes in the next year.

The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in the UK is still looking strong, but cracks are starting to show. The student fees protest and the recent covert recordings showing Lib Dem cabinet members true feelings about Tory colleagues has shown it may not be all plain sailing.

In the New Year the public will face a referendum on the alternative voting system, a key Lib Dem campaign proposal. A failure on this could cause many problems amongst backbenchers uneasy about the coalition. It currently looks unlikely such a proposal will pass, but the result depends greatly on how the Lib Dems are allowed to promote the issue, while any gagging by the Tory’s will defiantly cause problems for the coalition.

Spending cuts will also start in 2011 and could certainly lead to a rise in protests in London and across the UK while police tactics, such as ketteling, will certainly be called into question.

Europe is another issue which could cause problems on the political scene in the UK with many Conservatives being notably Euro-sceptic, while all other sides of the house are on the other side of the issue. Anything major to do with European involvement or spending will undoubtedly cause problems for the UK government.

It is not all bad though. We have Will and Kate’s wedding to look forward to and 2011 means it is only a year until the London Olympics. This means commemorative plates and news stories about how unprepared the venues are.

Across the Atlantic they will be heading into the presidential primary season in January 2012 with Obama still under pressure regarding the US economy and his healthcare reforms. It is not all good for the Republicans though. The tea party movement has split the conservative right in two and front runners for the Republican nomination will face competition from a tea party candidate. Will it be Sarah Palin? In the rest of the world we will be keeping our fingers crossed it is not.

Looking forward to the presidential elections in 2012 it is fair to say Obama is in trouble. However, there is an easy way out. If the economy does start to improve in America he, and his economic policies, will be vindicated making it easier for him to get re-elected. If the US economy does not improve he will be out of a job, and if it has not started to improve by 2012 maybe he should be.

Fallout from 2010 will also figure heavily in the news this year, most notably for BP. After the explosion on Deepwater Horizon all drilling was suspended in the Gulf of Mexico. This situation cannot continue indefinitely and there will certainly be hearings into what exactly went wrong resulting in repercussions for BP and the global oil and gas industry.

How serious these problems are in the long run depend entirely on the findings of any investigation, but BP certainly are going to face a tough year.

The banking industry too will look at 2011 as a year with many potential pitfalls. New banking regulations are going to come into force across the world with many people still complaining about the levels of bonuses still available and the lack of any punishment for the banks regarding there part in the global recession.

These incoming regulations will force banks to rethink locations and operations resulting in some countries potentially losing the lucrative financial sector and the jobs associated with it.

One of the most noticeable elements of the financial crisis has been the companies going bankrupt. From Lehman Brothers to travel agents companies closing down have been a problem. There will certainly be more casualties in the coming year, the only question is where and when.

Wikileaks has shot to fame this year amongst the general public after a series of high profile leaks regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and cables reporting the personal views of the US and other diplomatic figures across the world. This has culminated in founder Julian Assange being arrested regarding sex offences in Sweden.

The sex offences will likely get little press but this does leave potential for him to be extradited to America to face charges over the leaked material. Assange himself could face jail time in the US, but not very much. If he is forced to name his source there could be a very high profile charge made resulting in serious jail time.

Elsewhere in the world there are numerous issues to keep an eye on. Problems following the presidential election in the Ivory Coast are now being reported as being close to genocide. The UN has already declared the winner of the election as challenger Alassane Outtara, but incumbent Laurent Gbagbo has refused to stand down.

This is not a new issue in many African states, but the UN has a poor reputation in the region following issues with peacekeepers, or a lack of, in Sudan and Rwanda. They will be keen for this situation not to escalate and for any UN forces to play a positive role.

Former Soviet countries in Asia are also facing many problems. Earlier this year Kyrgyzstan saw rioting and killing on the streets as the people ousted its now former president. This ended up with thousands of refugees fleeing the country and reports of human rights violations across the country. Although the tensions seem to have died down there are still various problems in this area of the world which will undoubtedly flare up again in the next 12 months.

One issue certain to dominate the news in the coming year is the global economic recovery, or lack of it. In the west, most notably the EU bloc and America, the news will be dominated by rising unemployment, spending cuts and stagnant growth figures, but there is another side to this story which is also likely to make headlines.

Brazil, Russia, India and China, or the BRIC economies, have shown spectacular growth while the established economies have shrunk or stagnated. This is certainly not a passing trend. Over the course of 2011, and the rest of this decade, these countries are set to become amongst the most powerful in the world.

Russia, India and Brazil do have one huge advantage, they are not seen as a threat in the same way China is. However, China is by far the most powerful of these countries and America especially is hoping for a lot of Chinese cooperation on a number of issues such as trade, patent observation and North Korea.

North Korea has had an especially odd year with leader Kim Jong Il naming his successor and later in the year choosing to shell a South Korean island. This sabre rattling on the Korean peninsular is not new, in fact quite the opposite, but as always it has the potential to boil over into direct conflict between the two nations forcing America, Japan and China to take sides.

There is a belief this is unlikely to happen as North Korea has become increasingly marginalised by its closest ally China and is desperate for any legitimacy on the international stage, but the South is not above throwing the first punch forcing the North to retaliate.

South America and Africa to are still dealing with tensions amongst themselves and other nations. The UK and Argentina are still arguing over Falklands oil, an issue unlikely to cause any problems in the short term. In Africa problems in Sudan are likely to come to a head this year following elections this year and a proposed annexing of the south for its oil. This could lead to further loss of life and renewed waves of refugees heading for Darfur.

As with any year there are many potential problems with the potential to dominate the headlines, but it is likely to be the unforeseen ending up being the story. Natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods are still a major risk to countries and, as has been seen in Pakistan this year, can cause untold suffering to million along with massive loss of life.

There is, as always, the hope of a better 2011 for all of us with the problems we currently face fading away. The best wishes to all of you for 2011.