United States President Barack Obama has just arrived in Australia. He is here for just 27 hours, which hardly gives him time to ‘knock over a stubby’, and ‘woof down a snag’. Alright, enough of the ridiculous Australian colloquialisms. This is a trip sandwiched in between two events; the APEC conference in Hawaii and important talks with Indonesian President Susilo BangBang Yudhoyono at the East Asia Summit. Though it is a very short visit, its impact sends a strong message around the world, especially to Asia, that Australia and the United States are strong allies and will demonstrate that in two significant events during Obama’s time in Australia.

Firstly, Obama will celebrate 60 years of the ANZUS Treaty. Secondly, he will travel to Darwin to announce that American marines will be rotated through a military base there. So, even though this is a fleeting visit, what the United States is telling the world in 27 hours is that it and Australia are very firm friends indeed and that through that friendship, they will be allowed much more muscle in this part of the world than they have had before. What Australia is saying is merely confirming what it has always been said about the US for years; relations with that country are strong and powerful and they are more than welcome to extend their arm further into this country.

That’s what the most obvious signal is. But what is this visit really saying? Is this a case of America running in and taking over…again? Friendship and ‘cooperation’ are great words and kisses at the airport between Gillard and Obama are all well and good, but friendships are only really valued when they are tested. China is watching very closely. Although Obama says that he is not scared of China, the watchful eye is glancing northward. Putting a marine base at the top end of Australia sends a message that the might and power of the United States is merely a stone’s throw away. China won’t be ignoring the next 27 hours, but they won’t be jumping up and down either. It is almost like the showdown at high noon in the old westerns, but this time there will be a lot of staring but no guns or inevitable death.

It’s not just the US that China will be watching. They will have seen over many years the positive relationship that Australia has had with the US. I am sure like a lot of us, they have wondered whether Australia just panders to the US, rather than sees itself as an equal and respected partner and ally. Former Prime Minister John Howard did nothing to quell those fears. Coupled with a great friendship with one of the most mindless Presidents in US history, Howard disassociated himself with Asia for most of his nearly 12 years in power. China saw the back of Australia more times than it saw its face. Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd re-engaged with China in a big way, but let China know that it could be a tough friend when it needed to be. His intimate knowledge of Chinese culture and language made him someone who could talk to China at a much deeper level, but also maintain the friendship with the US.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard said a few days ago, ” we believe we can have a friend in China and an ally in the United States.” Notice she never referred to China as an ally. China is like Russia; smile and be nice, but be careful about every step they take. By her saying that, she has reaffirmed her predecessor’s thoughts by saying that Australia’s door is open, but the United States is our ally and will remain so.

A commentator said today that the friendship will be tested if and when the issue of Taiwan comes to a head. This is where the purpose of the military base will kick in. History has shown us that we fight whenever the US tell us to, but we also need to know when to say no. We need to be that tough friend with the US too. Surely Gillard and her government are well aware of what it means to allow the US military to be based here…and in Darwin of all places.

Let’s hope that we haven’t dug a hole too big to get out of. One thing the United States is good at doing is creating big problems that lead to military quagmires that end in pathetic stalemates. We need only mention Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. The issue isn’t whether they will recover. They are big. They always do.

It’s the little countries, especially members of treaties such as ANZUS, that stood behind them who are left covered in mud carrying the water.

Enjoy your day

Well, it’s APEC time again and you know what that means. Yes, time to see all those world leaders wearing something that looks ridiculous even on the people native to that country. Throughout this post, whilst taking you back through the years at some of the more ‘interesting’ attire the leaders were forced to wear, I’ll endeavor to discover why APEC is usually remembered simply for ‘shirt day’ and not much else.

These leaders meetings, whether it be the G20, APEC, CHOGM, ASEAN or others like them are simply talk fests, at least by the time the leaders have arrived. Days, if not weeks before, departmental heads and ministers do the leg work and the late night meetings, making sure that all is ready for show during the leaders conference. The leaders simply turn up and agree on what has already been agreed upon. It’s basically a 2 day photo op for the leaders, a chance to have a chat with old friends, avoid old enemies and wax lyrical about why APEC is important. Like other conferences, it finishes with ‘intent’, ‘commitment to further negotiations and discussions’ and a ‘firm belief and joint cooperation’. They generally come away from these meetings appearing to be singing off the same hymn sheet. That’s important, especially for APEC. It is, we must remember, the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation. If cooperation is not evident,then what is the point?

This year’s conference is in Hawaii. Beautiful beaches, gorgeous weather and Mai Tai’s being drunk as the sun sets over Waikiki. Surprisingly, they are all seriously talking of a free trade agreement within the Asia-Pacific region. Maybe the Hawaiian air is doing them all some good. I always find the groups that gather at both APEC  the most disparate and diverse group that you could possibly get together. If this was a party, none of these people would invite each other. What on earth does the Sultan of Brunei have in common with the Canadian Prime Minister? How does Argentina even vaguely relate to Australia? It’s almost like 2 families; the Asian family and the family of the Americas. At least all the significant players in the Asian family are there. The South American family can only be invited if their country sits on the Pacific Ocean! Their neighbours, like Brazil, Paraguay, Costa Rica etc are left out of the loop and whatever deals they agree to may not favour other nations in their continent. Canada and the United States are on the same page, so that’s a good thing. It is easier to get agreement on issues when you ALL have something in common. Having an ocean you all back onto is not really enough in my opinion. If it is a true Asia-Pacific meeting, where is Tonga, Cook Islands, Samoa, just to name a few of the Pacific islands. They at least live smack bang in the middle of the Pacific. Do they not count? Or is this a case yet again of including only the big boys at the poker table? India wanted membership and it doesn’t even rim the Pacific Ocean!

A realistic and practical common bond is important. In talking with friends last night, the issue came up about Europe and how the whole Eurozone mess is made harder by the fact that Europe itself is so disparate. The Germans are nothing like the French. The British are nothing like the Spaniards and the Greeks are not at all like the Irish. Like APEC, where countries are simply joined together by an ocean, Europe is joined together purely on the basis that they are all European! Policy and agreement on issues is harder when you all see things very, very differently. Australia wants in on the ASEAN forums, but ASEAN is playing hardball and so they should. It is an Asian network. Australia should have engaged with Asia many, many years ago, but apart from former Australian PM Paul Keating stating that ‘we are part of Asia’, no other Australian government till Kevin Rudd pushed a more Asian focus to our trade and foreign policy. We lost 12 good years under John Howard.

Ah well, let’s hope that at least something concrete comes out of it all. If nothing else, we are at least all wondering whether the Hawaiian hula skirt and floral Hawaiian shirt will be the ‘shirt’ worn by leaders this year.

Can’t wait to see Obama in that. He’d have to wear it. One mustn’t offend the home town crowd.

Enjoy your day.

Over the years, we have seen many protests against wars. From Vietnam to Iraq, we have protested because we either see no point in war, the war has been waged under the wrong pretenses, or there is no more point to our involvement; the exercise has become futile. The latter reason is why I believe it is time to get out of Afghanistan.

Sometimes wars must be fought. Maybe to protect our country from imminent threat, sometimes to stand with an ally for the larger cause of freedom. But with any war, there must after a while be a light at the end of the tunnel. There must be a time where we truly can see a  ‘mission accomplished’ on the horizon and what we did in involving ourselves in the conflict has been for good. Afghanistan has become a mess and now the very Afghans the Australian forces are trying to train, in order to practically assist them to protect and defend their nation, are turning on us. It is not a suicide bomber. It is not a Taliban fighter. It is the Afghan National Army itself.

Three of our soldiers are now dead because a ‘rogue’ Afghan soldier killed them in cold blood. Yesterday, three more have been wounded by another ‘rogue’ soldier. The Afghans are biting the hand that is trying to feed them. We are on their side and this is the reward we get. There could be a number of reasons for this. One, these ‘rogue’ soldiers are Taliban in disguise, or two, they are simply loose cannons that are so unpredictable that they could snap at any moment. Either way, it is very clear that the true tribal nature of the Afghan people is shining through and no matter what we do and how long we stay there, things will not change and the sand will be constantly shifting. The Afghans do not like President Hamid Karzai and one day, we will see that he too has been killed by one of his own. To try and unify Afghanistan is a futile exercise and we would be wise to let them be and sort it our for themselves.

Unfortunately, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard seems to have this mentality that we should stand behind Afghanistan all the way. Very reminiscent of former Prime Minister Harold Holt when he declared back in the 1960′s, ‘All the way with LBJ’. There is this ridiculous notion that there is going to be something in this alliance for us and when the mission is ‘accomplished’, Australia will be there hand in hand with its girlfriend, the United States, and we will stand proud and say ‘we never let you down, good friend’.

We came to Afghanistan and we have found some tremendous days of sorrow, but we have also found a great friendship,” she said.“We do intend to stay engaged here with you, in a spirit of friendship, for the long term.” (Julia Gillard Nov. 2011)

But how long does it take to complete a mission? It has been 10 years already. 10 years! Even after all this time, they are ‘making gains’, but nothing substantial. The Afghan National Army is still in its fledgling stage. After these last two incidents, one would have to say that the Afghan Army is barely able to be a stable and cohesive force and one would have to wonder how many other ‘rogues’ there are.

Why does Australia, like the United States, believe that it is our responsibility to put these struggling nations on the right track? I believe it has nothing to do with selflessness and a desire to ‘help, assist and guide’. It is because the resources of these countries are rich. Why do you think everyone is jumping at the chance to embrace Burma again? We hear one sniff that they are ‘opening the doors to reform’ and we are already suggesting lifting sanctions. The Arab Spring meant these pesky dictators like Mubarek and Gadaffi are out of the way. While the argy bargy of leadership is happening, the countries who ‘assisted’ them with their ‘liberation’ are the first ones there with a warm handshake and gestures of goodwill…..plus contracts for new deals to be made. To the UK and France who orchestrated the liberation of Libya, to the United States and Australia who stand toe to toe with their great friend Afghanistan, none of us are fooled.

Stop the bullshit, stop trying to turn other countries into pathetic copies of your own and leave these people to sort out their issues like they have been sorting them out for years. This is a part of the world that has a totally different understanding of leadership and governance. It also has a completely different understanding of how its citizens are treated, especially women. To say we are going to ever really change that, is to fool ourselves. The Arab Spring taught us that the citizens of those countries will rise up when they have had enough. They may fail the first, second and even third time, but they will prevail in the end. Our job is to keep our nose out of their affairs.

I leave the last word to Mikhail Gorbachev, former Soviet leader, who has some experience in dealing with Afghanistan. He pulled Russian troops out of there in the late 1980′s after a decade of stalemate. A decade you say? Now doesn’t that sound familiar.

“There is no prospect of a military solution. The nation is too fragmented among clans, dooming even a troop surge to failure, he says. “They should be preparing the ground for withdrawal rather than additional troops.”

Enjoy your day

Politics is a funny old game. It’s also a dirty old game, a corrupt old game, a nasty old game. It has been around for thousands of years in some form and will continue to be at the forefront of our lives for thousands of years to come. Politics will always be part of our national fabric because we will always need people to lead and govern our countries. In order to choose those leaders, elections are held and groups of people known as political parties fight for the right to be at the top of the tree, to be at the front of the queue. In countries that are run by dictators, elections don’t happen and one political party simply pushes everyone else out of the way and rules regardless of public opinion.

Thai politics is a weird and strange animal that never seems to get itself right. The Thai political system is a bizarre mix of ‘democracy’ and total and utter corruption. This has never been more evident in the last few months following the election of that country’s first elected female Prime Minister and the way in which she has handled that country’s flood crisis. Yingluck Shinawatra is the sister of exiled former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. In essence, Thailand currently has a puppet government run by a leader in exile. You only need to take a quick look at any footage of Ms. Shinawatra, to know that she has not the faintest clue what the job of Prime Minister entails. Those that hate the Shinawatra family accuse it of being corrupt. I have always said that the entire Thai parliament is corrupt, in fact all positions of government power are dictated to by corruption. You need only visit Thailand for a brief holiday to see police taking small bribes and Thais getting favourable treatment over the farang or foreigner to know that corruption is part of the fabric of everyday Thai life. The Shinawatra’s are no more corrupt than anyone else. They just flaunt it more.

The 2006 sale of the Shinawatra family’s share of Shin Corporation to Temasek Holdings caused great controversy in Thailand. The sale was in response to long-standing criticisms that the Shinawatra family’s holdings created a conflict of interest for Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Criticisms of the sale focused on the allegations by Thaksin and a compliant government that the transaction was exempt from capital gains tax (as per Revenue Department and Stock Exchange of Thailand regulations – later determined by Thai courts not to be legal), the fact that the Thai company was sold to a Singaporean company, and the fact that the Thai law regarding foreign investments in the telecom sector had been amended just prior to the sale (although the amendment had been proposed since 2001). Thaksin’s sale also impacted holdings, among other parties, of the Crown Property Bureau that has investment in the Siam Commercial Bankthat held ShinCorp stock.

On 23 January 2006, the Thai Telecommunication Act (2006) became effective, raising the limit on foreign holdings in telecom companies to 49%. The Act replaced the Telecom Business Law, which took effect in November 2001, and put the foreign investment cap at 25%. At the time, AIS was the only company that actually complied with this provision. Competitors DTAC and TA Orange were 40% owned by Norway’s Telenor and 49%-owned by France’s Orange. Although the law was not retroactive, DTAC and TA Orange criticized the government for discriminating against foreign investors and urged it to increase the cap.^[1]

On Monday January 23, 2006, the Shinawatra-family sold its remaining 49.6% stake in Shin Corporation, a leading Thai telecommunications company, to two nominees of Temasek Holdings (Cedar Holdings and Aspen Holdings). The Shinawatra and Damapong (Thaksin’s wife’s maiden name) families netted about 73 billion baht (about $1.88 billion). Following Thai tax laws, they did not have to pay capital gains tax.

He blatantly picked up his corruption card and waved it in front of the face of every Thai. They accepted his corrupt nature, as Thais have learned to live with his and everybody else’s corruption in Thailand, but this was a slap in the face and simply brazen. The Thais had had enough. I remember the protests in Bangkok demanding Thaksin step down. I was on the Bangkok Skytrain one early evening and it was packed with protesters. Someone called out “Thaksin!” and the rest of the train in one voice yelled, “Ok Bai!” (get out!) Even though he was the democratically elected Prime Minister over 2 elections, he was too corrupt and needed to go. See what I mean about twisted democracy?

The Thai rural poor love the Shinawatra family because they buy them off. Simple as that. The now opposition Democrat Party never seem to be able to capture the hearts and minds of the people. Abhisit Vejjajiva, the former Prime Minister, was defeated soundly in the last election, even though he was quite a competent leader with strong economic credentials. The might of Thaksin, even from exile, was still enough to cause the poor to take up arms and take the country to the brink of civil war. Thaksin says he is a champion of the poor, even though he has more money than God. That money and that influence was enough to get his sister elected, which basically means he is  Thailand’s Prime Minister, but in exile. Ms. Shinawatra has no clue, no political experience and thinks that having sat down with her brother over a bowl of Tom Yum soup and talking a bit of politics over the years is enough to qualify her for the top job. The recent flood crisis has proven that she is way out of her depth (pardon the pun) and is paddling up shit creek (the state of the Thai flood waters is not pretty) without a paddle. But I finish the way I have started. Politics is a nasty, dirty game. Thai politics is even worse. While these floods are killing hundreds and destroying what could essentially add up to the heart and soul of Thailand, Ms. Shinawatra just retouches her lipstick and says mindless rubbish like this:

“Please be confident in Thailand. We also have very good system in Bangkok. But Bangkok is the last destination to the ocean. That’s why now is the peak time, and worst time for Thailand. So hopefully, we will start to settle and get back to normal soon.”

Good God. If that’s the best she can do, Thailand will take a very long time to recover from this. But don’t worry, neither she nor her cronies will even get their toes wet.

Enjoy your day

There are some interesting observations that one can make about leadership here and the way in which both people have handled it. One cares about her people, the other did not. One has at least tried to understand the struggles of her people, the other did nothing but exploit his people, then butcher them in their millions. One is a head of state that can hold her head up high and say she served her people well. The other probably spent his last moments regretting everything he ever did to his people over the last 42 years (or maybe not).

It also made me think about the whole head of state issue and what it means to put one’s trust in one person. Dictators of many countries over the last 100 years have usually been Presidents of countries, with absolute power and no checks or balances on what they do. Names like Gaddafi, Taylor, Amin, Hussein, Mubarek, Assad and Mugabe are all tarred with the same brush. The absolute power they received when they began leading their respective nations certainly did corrupt them absolutely. People like Mussolini, Castro and Mugabe were seen as heroes and saviours in the beginning. They turned out to be the personification of evil.

There is an argument that the reason why Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the like have enjoyed peaceful democracy is because we are all part of the Commonwealth of Nations lead by Queen Elizabeth II as our Head of State. As a republican I can only say that I think that is an interesting theory, but I think stability, peace and prosperity depends on how a constitution is developed, the people that make up a particular nation and a general sense that the population is generally singing from the same hymn sheet. Leaders set the tone. A bad leader equals a nation with problems.

Has Queen Elizabeth II been a part of the day to day life of all the nations she is the head of? Of course not. So to say having her as our head of state creates stability is a bit of a nonsense. But watching her here in Australia is a testament to just how dedicated, tough and hard working she is. She is 85, remember. Her husband, Prince Phillip is 90. No matter how well she has been looked after all her life, to keep a schedule like she does is remarkable for such an elderly woman. Republican or not, one must admire her.

So, during this ‘Arab Spring’ as it has become known, let us take stock of what is important to us and who we want to lead us. In the end, we want our leaders to be fair, kind, hard working and strongly in support of us. What model that takes is irrelevant really. Each country needs to forge their own path. I would want Australia one day to become a republic. However, if that meant the rise of our own homegrown dictator, then I would prefer the system we now have.

To the people of Libya, I sincerely hope this is the beginning of a bright future.

Enjoy your day

I was talking with my mother a few weeks back and we got talking about ‘the generations.’ She was trying to work out what ‘generation’ she was (her and my father were both the ‘Silent Generation’: 1925-1945) whilst I was pondering all the criticism that Generation Y is getting. Why is ‘Y’ so bad?

I’m Generation X. For some reason, we seem to have inherited the same understanding of respect, manners, work ethic as the generation before us. The problem with Gen Y is that they simply don’t, or at least very few do. We blame Gen Y and hurl insults upon them, roll our eyes heavenward and wonder what is going to happen to the world as we know it. My argument in all this is not to blame Gen Y, but blame Gen X. Weren’t we the ones who raised them, taught them, educated them? If anything, we have screwed things up.

My parents were traditional parents, but not ridiculously so. They came from an era where children should be seen and not heard. They weren’t having any of that. But they did teach us respect and manners; the old ‘treat others as you wish to be treated’ sort of thing. One of my most vivid memories was being told that a male should stand when an elderly person or a woman enters a room. I used to watch chat shows and see the male guests follow that etiquette. Mum and Dad must have been right, I thought. It is a frightfully old fashioned custom, but it said to me that respect and deference are important.

But if I am not seeing such examples of respect and manners now, why has my generation stopped teaching the next generation such things? Do we resent how we were brought up and refuse to teach our children such ‘antiquated’ ideals? Are we just too lazy to teach our children anything? Or are we just so desperate to mark our own parental path that we disregard anything before us and ‘trailblaze’? Whatever it is we are doing, we aren’t doing a very good job of it.

Each older generation criticises the generation that comes after it. That has always been the case. The Mums and Dads of the 1940′s thought their children were hooligans when they started doing those hip swinging dances, listened to that raunchy Elvis Presley and wore leather jackets while riding motorbikes.  But not only do Gen Y  tend to disregard the basics of how to get by in society, there is an arrogance that says that they will sail into the future better than anybody else. The problem is, the very same skills they are ignoring are the same skills they need to get by in society, the workplace and as a parent.

I again make myself clear. This is not Gen Y’s fault. This is Gen X’s. We have failed as parents. Not all of us, but a hell of a lot of us. Generations have somehow refined the previous generation in regard to discipline, and how to relate and work with others. In other words, we have rounded off the extreme edge and taken from it what is important. Unfortunately, my generation has looked at how they were brought up and thrown ALL of it away and tried to create their own rules. It’s a brave experiment, but as we can see, an experiment that has failed miserably.

Will Gen Y realise they don’t have the proper building blocks for the future and revisit some of the basic core attitudes (minus the extremes)? Or will they travel on, botch things up, not care and continue like that until society becomes a sort of disorganised sociological mess? Not all Gen Y’s suffer from a lack of the basics. Hopefully there are enough Gen X parents who have produced enough Gen Y kids to counteract their less than competent cohorts. If not, the future looks a little bleak.

There is an argument that says Gen Y are ‘doing it their way’, harking back to that pioneering spirit that we all had as young people. Charles Darwin said, ‘It is not the strongest species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most adaptable to change’. This argument could swing either way. It could imply that Gen Y will survive, as they are adapting to what is happening all around them, especially in regard to technology. But Gen Y generally do not adapt to any other way apart from their way. That could be a problem. Being flexible in the workplace lends itself to adaptability. Gen Y tend to lack flexibility and expect the previous generations to adapt to them. 

That ‘world revolves around me’ attitude might see them struggling to survive.

Enjoy your day

It has been a bittersweet week for visionaries. Steve Jobs, Apple’s genius and trailblazing innovator, succumbed to an old enemy that no amount of technology can defeat; cancer. But this same week saw three remarkable women awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace and Emeritus Archbishop of Cape Town, Desmond Tutu, turn 80.

I found the dictionary definition of ‘Visionary’ :

vi·sion·ar·y  (vzh-nr)

adj.

1. Characterized by vision or foresight.

2.

a. Having the nature of fantasies or dreams; illusory.

b. Existing in imagination only; imaginary.

3.

a. Characterized by or given to apparitions, prophecies, or revelations.

b. Given to daydreams or reverie; dreamy.

4.

a. Not practicable or realizable; utopian

b. Tending to envision things in perfect but unrealistic form; idealistic.

Isn’t it interesting that being a visionary is to ‘dream’, ‘fantasise’, ‘imagine’, be ‘idealistic’, but reality does not come into it. To be a visionary is to be someone who lives in the ethereal world, but someone who will never make things ‘happen’. All of the above people have definitely ‘made things happen’.

“He had new ways of doing things, not just improve what we had or do a better version of something, but do it in a totally different way that the world would swing towards.” -Steve Wozniak on Steve Jobs.

Steve Jobs saw the world of technology and changed it. As all good IT geeks, he got a kick out of playing with electronics. But his visions became reality. Nokia used to be the mobile phone king. Now, if you don’t have an iphone, then you belong to that small percentage that hasn’t caught up. People literally look at you strangely. It was the same with the ipod and now the ipad. Jobs was able to get into our heads and fill them with his visions. Not only do we embrace his products, but we understand why they are important and why there is simply nothing else that comes close. His visions have become our way of life. As they used to say in old bad Sci-Fi movies, ‘resistance is useless’.

Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, peace activist Leymah Gbowee, and human rights activist Tawakkul Karman also had their own visions; to see women take the lead in countries where women struggle the most. They took risks and took a tough stance against situations which lead their countries nowhere. For Steve Jobs, pushing his ideas was easier, as he was a man. For these women and others like them, they have to fight just to be heard. They have to fight a male dominated, corrupt system and make their visions happen. Their visions aren’t popular to some. Their visions cause pain to themselves and even to others along the way. But they continue the vision, because they know that the vision is right and just. They know that without their vision, thousands, if not millions of people will suffer greater than they ever have.

Finally, the grand old man of South Africa, Desmond Tutu, has turned 80. His vision was of a South Africa free from Apartheid and suffering. Freedom was his buzz word. He was, and still is, animated, enthusiastic and passionate. Like our Noble laureates, he has had to endure hardship and suffering in order to achieve his ideals. Is he happy with his South Africa in 2011? Has his vision become reality? Apartheid is dead, that he is happy with. But he still fights for freedom in neighbouring Zimbabwe, justice for Palestinians and a South Africa that can shine. Visions are dreams. Visions are fantasy. Visions are how we want the world to be, or ourselves to be. Visions are not reality. It takes hard work, suffering, pain and sweat to make them happen. No pain, no gain. The lovely thing about visions is that we can share them. When we share them, they become infectious. Others start to promote our visions alongside us. Before you know it, visions are no longer living in the ethereal world. We are living the vision.

Enjoy your day

This could end up being the most unpopular post I have ever written, but I have stayed quiet, and ‘politically correct’ for far too long. What I am about to write is not racist. What I am about to write is not anti-semitic. What I am about to write is not favouring extremist arab viewpoints. What this post is going to say is that enough is enough in regard to the one sided discussions about who is right and who is wrong in the Middle East peace process.

Middle East peace is hard to achieve; no one can deny that. We are dealing with a part of the world that is made up of very spirited individuals. These people are passionate about their land and their people. That passion can and does lead to confrontation. But I don’t believe we can blame that confrontation on one side. As the age old saying goes, ‘It takes two to tango.’

What I saw during this last United Nations General Assembly was a Palestinian President trying, almost begging, for his homeland to be granted Statehood. Mahmoud Abbas is a peace loving man. This is a man who has been praised for his efforts over the last twenty years. This man has sat down with the Israelis and has done the tough negotiations. He has done the best he can. His United Nations bid for Statehood is, as he puts it, an attempt to try a different way, as all the other ways have failed. I believe all the other ways will continue to fail as long as Israel does nothing to truly accommodate peace.

Let me sit you down and explain my position before I get accused of all sorts of nonsense. The land that the Israeli sits on is Palestinian land. The Jewish people took it when they created their own Jewish homeland in 1948. No, I am not an expert on Jewish history or the politics of the time, but this I know. Israel has always received support from powerful corners of the world, most importantly the United States. There seems to be nothing they can do that will receive criticism. The arab gets criticised greatly, but the Jew, not so much. Why? Because we, as a society, are taken back to World War II and the horrific event called The Holocaust. Six Million Jews were slaughtered under Hitler’s evil ethnic cleansing. We do not wish to hurt them anymore, so we say nothing. The last thing we want to be seen being, is anti-semitic.

But it isn’t anti-semitic to criticise behaviour. I am the first one to criticise extremism, whether you are Christian, Arab or Jew. President Obama has been the first US President to at least take a swing at Israel by saying that a two state solution should be based on pre-1967 borders. He and Secretary of State Clinton also expressed dismay at new Jewish settlements being built in the West Bank; which are a blatant slap in the face to the Palestinians by the Israeli government. But they criticise with whispers, slap Israel across the face with a feather, because the Jewish community wields a lot of power in the houses of politics, entertainment and business. A lot of important support could be lost if the Jewish community is unhappy. And no US President wants to be seen as anti-semitic. That is not going to win someone a second term in the White House. That is why Obama’s speech at the UN was unnecessarily harsh toward the Palestinians. Everyone just sees Muslims and Arabs as terrorists anyway, so who cares if we get them offside. They hold the least power, so we can kick them around a bit more. What are they going to do?

Benjamin Netanyahu does not care for the Palestinian. He knows very well that the US will back him in every way possible, no matter what he or any Israeli government does. Netanyahu is very good at declaring that he wants peace and stability. But if he did, new settlements would not be built that simply inflame the situation. Governments from all over the world almost crawl over each other to be called ‘a friend and ally of Israel.’ Why don’t they do that for Palestine? Because that would mean they support the arab, which secretly means they support Hamas, which would mean they support terrorists. Oh dear, we can’t have that. Israel will continue to win whilst Palestine will continue to lose.

I take my hat off to Mahmoud Abbas who went ahead with handing in his proposal  for Statehood to UN Secretary-General Bang Ki-Moon. Abbas knows the US will veto any such move, but he did it anyway. Abbas received rousing applause and a standing ovation after his speech from all at the Assembly, except the US and Israel.

Obama and Netanyahu did not.

Enjoy your day

The question of ‘Where were you when the planes hit the buildings?’ is a question that now lives alongside the other infamous questions in history. Where were you when Kennedy was shot? Where were you when the Berlin Wall came down? Where were you the night Barack Obama became the first black man to lead the United States? Today marks the 10th anniversary of that horrible, horrible day. Many reflections will be written, mine among them. We will all see it in a different way. I feel for all those innocent people who simply woke up on that clear sunny day thinking it was just another day. They didn’t even make it to 9am. What, up until then only happened in the movies, happened. How can one ever truly recover from it? One doesn’t. This day changed everything.

It changed the way we think. Like I said, this sort of event you only see in action movies, not in real life. Tapes have been relaeased of air traffic controllers having not a clue what was going on, or how to deal with it. The reaction has been almost that these people didn’t help the situation and if they did, things would have been better. Wrong. How many of us would have envisaged not one but two planes being used as weapons and flying into buildings? None of us. Who would have guessed it was going to be the Twin Towers? No one. Who would have guessed that the towers were going to collapse like that? No one. So to say that ANY of us had ANY clue of what was coming is looking through glasses of 20/20 hindsight. The terrorists knew that this would be a type of attack that no one would suspect could be planned, let alone achieved. Remember, there were four planes involved that day. This was not just the Twin Towers. This was the Pentagon and even the White House. The scale of this was enormous. If you think we could have averted this, you have rocks in your head. We were well and truly outsmarted in the most deadly of fashions.

My thoughts this week leading up to this anniversary have been with the people in the towers that  couldn’t get out. The ones hanging out of windows. Just a horrible, heartbreaking image. As one commentator said, no one in their right minds would hang out of a window on the 95th floor of a building. The utter terror and desperation of those people just leaves me speechless. There was NOTHING they could do. They were going to die, pure and simple. A documentary was made a few years back called ‘The Falling Man’. The choice that these people had to make is a choice I hope I never have to. Stay in the building and be burnt alive or jump and be dead in 10 seconds. They say the jump was not fast enough to cause unconsciousness, but fast enough to achieve death on impact. What would they have been feeling, if they were feeling anything at all?  As I said earlier, they woke up merely hours before, ready for another work day. Now they have to make a decision about how they will die. Just terrifying. Watching it filled me a huge sense of helplessness and hopelessness.

The passengers too, of Flight 93, also had to make a horrible choice. They could either let this plane fly into a populated area, or fight back and make themselves the only casualties. They are the people we least remember. But if they did not do what they did that morning, the White House would have been hit, a President could have been assassinated and scores of White House workers would have died. The passengers on Flight 93 saved their lives. If you were working in the White House that morning, look up to the heavens and thank those people today. They are, in many ways, the forgotten heroes of this tragic event. They embodied what it means to fight for something. They embody bravery. They embody selflessness.

It is a horrible event. Twenty years, thirty years from now, it will still be an horrific event and the images will never leave us. I have always said that the images of the planes flying into the towers should not be shown, as it makes those who lost someone on those flights relive it again and again. They are watching their loved ones final seconds. Would you like to watch your loved ones die over and over? I realise it is the iconic image, but I think we need to use it sparingly.

My heart and thoughts go out to anyone reading this who knew someone who was killed on that horrible day, whether it was in the towers, the Pentagon or in the field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Hate caused this to happen.

Maybe what we should bring out of this event is not to hate.

This is the question children ask at least 10 million times before they reach school age. I think if research was done, it would the most popularly asked question in history. Why is ‘why’ such a popular question? Because deep inside of us, we need to know answers. Grey areas aren’t things we feel comfortable with. We like things to be neat, tidy, boxed away, compartmentalised. Without an answer, things hang in the air and stay in that position with no resolution; no closure. A young Thai acquaintence of mine died this week at the age of just 31. Why?

This was a good looking, intelligent, outgoing, friendly, educated young man. This man had many friends from all over the world. He lived healthy. He looked healthy. He looked as most 31 year olds would look; young and vibrant and ready to take on the world. But cancer took hold and it didn’t let go. It was the type of cancer that took no prisoners. There was no reprieve, no remission. I watched his struggles via Facebook and every update was worse than the last. November last year he received the news. He died two days ago. Why?

I have longed stopped believing that ‘God took him’. Rubbish. The thing is, there is no answer and that’s the disturbing bit. Disturbing because one day he was happy and healthy and the next day he wasn’t. I smoked for 30 years of my life. If I get lung or throat cancer, I would be shocked, but the ‘why’ question would easily be answered. But sickness and death don’t always following predictable paths and that is the scary part. We claim to be doing the right things and then we die a hideous painful young death anyway. Makes you think you should have done all the naughty things after all!

What goes with the eternal ‘why’ question is the link to ‘everything happens for a reason’, especially when we talk of death or tragic events (Norway massacre, Hurricane Katrina, 9/11). The bizarre thing is that out of these tragic events, we all do come to some sort of collective consciousness and we see how that event shaped that particular consciousness. Without that event, certain things would not have been considered, issues not have been raised and people not have been thought about. The ‘why’ becomes an endless stream of possibilities.

I have no idea what ‘reason’ will emerge out of my friend’s death. Maybe it’s the simple fact that one must keep smiling and live life to the fullest. The basic belief that we must take each day by the horns and live it! How many of us sit back and let the days simply pass by and do nothing with them? Maybe we all set a goal that we do something each day that feeds the soul, whatever that may be. I have been ill these last few days, but today I thought it would do me good to take a walk to one of the various coffee shops in the area. But today, I walked in the opposite direction and walked through the gorgeous old terraced housed inner city pocket that I live in. I looked at beautiful old Victorian homes, some modernised, some keeping their same character. I looked at dates they were built (the earliest was 1884). The sun was shining and it made me fall in love with this part of the world even more than I do already. I have only lived in this area for two years, but I want to be here for many more.

I tend to be a fatalist. I do subscribe to the old saying ‘when you’re number’s up, it’s up’. My friend has proven that to me yet again. But knowing that has made me want to live as much as I can, because tomorrow I could get exactly the same news he got. One of my favourite movies is Peter Weir’s ‘Dead Poets Society’. In it, the teacher, John Keating, uses not only the term ‘Carpe Deum’ (Seize The Day), but also this marvellous quote from Henry David Thoreau:

“I went to the woods because I wanted
to live deliberately, I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life,
To put to rout all that was not life and not when I had come to die Discover
that I had not lived.”