Thoughts on the 150-th anniversary of the American Civil War

12-th April is one of the most momentous days in human history. This was the day when guns and canons roared for the first time in what is known to posterity as the American civil war. This year is the 150-th anniversary of that epoch shattering event.

It is a common knowledge that the issue of slavery was the most important issue behind the civil war. However a closer look at the events both leading up to as well as following the war suggests that slavery was just the immediate symbol of more deep causes within the American system at the time.

The American northern states had become industrially developed and dependent upon industries at the time of civil war whereas the American southern states were dependent upon agriculture and more precisely on the crop of cotton. Both the industrial north and the feudal south needed cheap labor for their industries. It was only given that both would ultimately confront for the cheapest source of labor i.e. the slaves. The north needed the slaves as cheap labor for its industries henceforth it had a direct interest in the abolition of slavery in south and direct movement of those slaves to north. The Puritan work ethic prevalent in north which favored self-sufficiency and hard work generally did not consider the slave labor-dependent southerners in very good light.

The southern feudal lords needed the slaves badly for laboring in their cotton and sugar firms and hence forth it was commonplace that they would fight tooth and nail against any movement from north to abolish the slavery.

African-Americans are highlighted as the most important cause behind the civil war yet we often fail to understand that the plight of the African-Americans did not cease to exist as we think after the end of the civil war itself. Not all the northern leaders including the president Abraham Lincoln had believed in the racial equality between the blacks and whites. He had the following to say in the governorial debate for the state of Kentucky in 1858:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]---that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

(Source: http://www.learner.org/workshops/primarysources/emancipation/docs/fourthdebate.html)

In fact the African-Americans were not emancipated in the north directly at the beginning of the war or some months thereafter. They also did not get voting rights after the civil war as or any times soon afterwards. In fact it seems to me that African-Americans remained the most inconsequential in the American polity even well after the end of the war.

I believe the biggest underlying cause of the war was the conflict between two competing ideologies. The North which had a superior society thanks to Industrialization and the idea of free movement of labor had to come to a conflict against the feudal south which believed in its god-given superiority of whites over blacks.

We will be naive to think that the conflict between those two above mentioned ideologies in America ended with the surrender of General Robert E. Lee at 1865. Now days in America the main issues are immigration and other similar things like outsourcing which are directly derived from the idea of free movement of labor and capital. The opponents to the issues of immigration and outsourcing tend to be protectionists of their own identities of a white Anglo-Saxon America where a certain section of population controls all the opportunites over others. I will not be surprised if the growing chasm between the supporters and opponents of free movement of labor results in the same as it did in 1861 in future.

The coming war in West Asia

Among all the noises rising out from the current upheavals in Western Asia, one noise is quite clear. Israel, the strongest military power in the region, is not feeling comfortable with the possibility of the political changes in the region. Israel made clear its disapproval of the toppling of the pro-Israel and staunchly pro-Western dictator Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. Israel is also concerned about the possible up and coming unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state by the Palestinian authority. Israel has also made clear its disapproval of the ongoing reconciliation talks between the Fatah-led government in the West Bank and the Hamas-led government in Gaza ; these talks are aimed at sorting out all possible differences between the two competing Palestinian factions and creating an unified Palestinian polity before the possible unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood.

After its victory in the six-day war, Israel’s main concerns have been to prevent the rise of any potential military challenger in West Asia as well as consolidating the military gains it made in that war. Israel was also helped by its “special relationship” with the United States. Throughout the cold war, it projected itself as “the only democracy in a region of autocrats and tyrants”. The peace deals Israel made with two of its neighbors i.e. Egypt and Jordan helped Israel to maintain its dominance over the region. Israel built settlements on the land it captured during the six-day war to create a Jewish majority i.e. “facts on the ground”. The gulf wars in 1991 and 2003 helped Israel in removing Iraq as a possible long-term military challenger. Since 9/11, Israel benefited immensely by presenting itself as the last outpost of Western civilization in the ongoing “War on terror”.

The ongoing popular movements in West Asia have presented unique problems for Israel.

Israeli fears of possible democratic political dispensations in post-revolution Arab nations: There are fears in Israel that the post-Mubarak government in Egypt would not toe the Israeli line on important matters regarding Israeli economic blockade on Gaza or Israeli isolation of the Hamas-led government in Gaza. Israel also fears that the peace agreement signed between Egypt and Israel which allowed Israel to concentrate upon its opponents in the North may not hold. Israel’s fears regarding Egypt are based upon the notion that any democratic government would have to consider popular opinion in its decision making and the popular opinion about Israel in Egypt as well as in the rest of the Arab world is not positive.

An end to the Israeli argument of being the “only democracy in Western Asia”: Israel is also fearful that if Arab nations go on to become successful democracies, its own position as “the only democracy in the middle east” will come to an end. The Americans and other Western countries have often claimed about spreading democratic values in West Asia as their main foreign policy objective. So if the current popular movements in West Asia do go on to produce stable, representatively democratic states in the West Asian region American policy objectives will be met. Thereby Israel’s importance in the eyes of its backers in the Western world would certainly go down. There have been voices in the American intelligentsia like Steven Walt and John Mersheimer who have been calling the United States to reduce its overwhelming support of Israel. Those voices would only get louder once more Arab nations become successful representative democracies.

An end to Israeli argument of not having any Palestinian partner to negotiate: Israeli strategy Vis a Vis the Palestinians since the six-day war have been to consolidate its hold on the Arab territories that it seized on that war. In this regard it has always sought to create and sustain a Palestinian leadership which would sufficiently co-operate with it in that regard. Sufficient co-operation with Israel extends to cracking down on any movement opposed to Israeli policies in the area. Without any doubt this can not said to be popular among the Palestinian populace. This is the main reason why Israel is apprehensive about any thaw in the relationship between the Fatah and Hamas-led governments in the Palestinian territories. Unlike the Fatah-led Palestinian authority in West Bank which has been willing to collaborate with Israel on some security matters, the Hamas-led Gazan government is staunchly opposed to Israeli policies in the territories. Any unified Palestinian leadership would also mean that Israel will not have any one willing to collaborate with Israel on Israeli policies inside the Israeli-occupied territories. On another note the more divided the Palestinians are, the easier it is for the Israelis to make the argument that they do not have any fixed partner for peace negotiations. A unified Palestinian side would put an end to that position also.

Veteran Middle East expert Daniel Pipes has emphasized that the only way Israel can have peace is to ensure that Palestinians feel no hope for repealing their plight under Israeli influence and are forced to beg to Israel for sustenance. All Israeli policies regarding the Palestinians since the six-day war in 1967 have to be seen in this context. But of late Israel feels its position Vis a Vis the Palestinians is not gaining anything. The Palestinians either in Israel proper or in the occupied territories has not yet given up fighting for their rights despite being in wrong end of Israeli policies for last 40 years. The world is not as favorable to Israeli designs as it used to be in the past as we can see a growing worldwide campaign to boycott Israel alike the one against apartheid South Africa. Now in this background Israel feels that it is slowly losing the support and goodwill it needs to remain an admired and respected nation in the comity of nations.

Israel since its inception has believed in imposing its views on what it considers its enemies. It is only a matter of time in the current background that it will be willing to use its only card left to play with: i.e. overwhelming military power. Israel did not achieve all its military goals in the past two military ventures i.e. in Lebanon 2006 and Gaza in 2009. So Israel will be willing to use its military power to emphasize to its allies and foes that it is still the overwhelming military power in the region and is willing to use that power to impose its will on what it considers enemies. Israel believes that this would also send a message to its weary American allies to look again at Israel with more seriousness.

It is difficult to predict which time and against which opponents Israel will get involved into a war but one thing is clear, when Israel will be involved in the war it will use overwhelming force for a quick victory. Israel will fight for a quick victory since it is not possible for Israel to fight a prolonged war considering the hostile international public opinion it will generate against Israel. That Israel may look to military options for imposing its will on those which it considers its enemies is supported by veteran Foreign affairs expert Spengler (David P Goldman) in this column. In this column the veteran expert clearly mentions the case from an Israeli perspective on a military venture. History also suggests that Israel will resort to military option to impose its will on those who it considers as its enemies when it considers itself under pressure as it did in Lebanon in 1982 and 2006 and Gaza in 2009.

From a regional and global viewpoint, this coming war by Israel would be nothing short of a disaster as it would destroy any hopes of peace in the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as weakening the moderate elements in the current democratic movements in the Arab world in favor of more extremist elements. This war will also sully Israel’s reputation a great deal and very few will be prepared to trust it as a responsible and trustable player in International affairs.

The Arab states are too divided between themselves or militarily weak to prevent and deter any Israeli military ventures. The only regional power which can deter any Israeli military design is Turkey. Since the beginning of the current uprisings, Turkey has played the role of mediator and negotiator to bring peace and order in the turbulent West Asian region. It is the only military power which has the power to deter any possible Israeli military ventures. Apart from Turkey, the BRIC countries also have the financial and political clout to deter any such unwarranted move by Israel. In my view Turkey in collaboration with the BRIC countries should convince the United States to dissuade its Israeli allies not to make any hasty move that may directly make the current volatile situations in the West Asian region absolutely out of control.

Let us share our World Cup triumph with our neighbors

The recent World cup cricket victory of our Indian team has presented us with a great opportunity to channelize our feeling of jubilation and ecstasy into strengthening our sometimes hot sometimes cool relationships with our neighbors.
The three of our neighbors who participated in this World Cup i.e. Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh share similar socio-political as well as economic issues that we ourselves face. Our vanquished opponents in the knock out stages i.e. Pakistan and Sri Lanka both face serious political and economic challenges. I believe we should like a true brother share our glories with them at this critical juncture of their nations’ respective histories.

Distinguished Foreign affairs expert Dr. Sreeram Chaulia mentions in this article that the world cup triumph signifies a new renaissance of the hopes of millions of downtrodden masses of India who look to cricket not as a sport but as a medium for upward mobility.

Like us the populations of our neighbors also share the same aspirations and face the same challenges (probably more difficult challenges in places in north-Western Pakistan in particular) that we do. So if we reach out to them at this critical juncture when we feel we are at the top of the World this will definitely strengthen our position in the hearts and minds of these people.

Here are some of the initiatives I believe we should take to achieve the same. The all-powerful Board of control for Cricket in India (BCCI) alongside the government of India should donate US$1 million (these can be derived from the huge revenues that we have been able to generate thanks to our successful organization of the World cup) to the calamity-hit peoples of Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Both these two countries have been going through massive socio-political upheavals in the recent years so donating this amount would show our goodwill towards the real people who are suffering from all these problems.

Next, we could offer to play charity cricket matches in venues like Colombo (with Sri Lanka) and Dubai (with Pakistan), the revenues from the charity matches should be donated for the education of thousands of orphan children in places like the calamity-hit Khyber Pakhtoonkhwah province of Pakistan (previously known as North Western Frontier provinces) or civil war hit regions in Eastern Sri Lanka.

We could also invite the T-20 champion teams from our neighbors to participate in our IPL tournament and henceforth make it as a SPL (Sub-continent Premier League). This would also allow our neighbors to participate in the bonanza called IPL which would undoubtedly help them to achieve their much needed finances.

The strife-torn children in these troubled areas do not have much bright prospects in their futures except the dark alleys of poverty, illiteracy and extremism. With this initiative we can think about giving these needy children some better options like education and career. If these children decide to take up cricket bats and pens instead of guns; I believe it will be our societies whose security will have better prospects in the long term.

Cricket as Dr. Chaulia mentions has helped lower middle class youths like MS Dhoni and Sachin Tendulkar to become the icons of our nation. This game is not only a pass time for our youth but a medium to reach newer heights in life that none of our previous generations could ever have imagined. I believe this is the future we should offer to the populations of our neighbors also. The World Cup triumph has given us the best possible opportunity in decades to project ourselves as the real leaders in the region. This is an opportunity we should not let pass by us.
The real leader is not the one who only exalts in his triumph but is the one who is ready to share the spoils with the rest.

The end of history ???

“The end of history” thundered the American intellectual Francis Fukuyama after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent end of the cold war. What Fukuyama concluded was that the evolutionary process of mankind governing itself had reached its conclusion with the advent of liberal democracy and history will stop its ever continuous process of evolving henceforth.

Fukuyama and many of his intellectual counterparts had the benefit of watching the “victory” of the West and its model of liberal, capitalist democracy in the background and then declaring the eventual superiority of that system of governance as the final phase of human evolution but what they did not consider was the glorious uncertainty of History.

But History can sometimes be much stranger than fiction and certainly stranger than many western intellectual thinkers could have considered. Indeed many of his considerations were derived out of the absolute superiority of Western countries both economically and politically. The fact that the United States maintained an absolute supremacy in terms of military power in the world obviously helped the United States to get others to listen to its version of the story and ignore the rest. This was the background which helped Fukuyama to come up and declare his idea of “end of history” and many serious intellectuals and thinkers believed in his epoch-shattering ideas.

Now two decades hence the World looks a lot different that Fukuyama had probably thought about. Indeed the Western countries still dominate the global scenario as in the 1990-s but their overwhelming supremacy has been somewhat halted by the emergence of rival powers and rival ideas.

The western model of liberal democracy faces some considerable challenges in the coming decades. One of them is in terms economic growth. The west has long dominated the World in terms of economic growth and prosperity but in the last decade of 20-th century and in the present 21-st century we have seen the meteoric rise of potential rivals like China in particular. The Chinese successes in terms of commercial and economic growth put cold waters on the Western claim of overwhelming superiority in the world of businesses and commerce. As China has continued to grow strongly some of the established major Western economies like Spain, Ireland, France, UK and even the USA has not been able to match their pre-1980 growth rates let aside double-digit economic growth rates of China. Indeed all these major Western economies have slowed down considerably over the last decade or so and they have not shown any clear signs of gearing up in the new millennium to match that of the Chinese. The success of the Chinese have come largely without that nation bringing in all the democratic and pollitical reforms as prescribed by the Western pundits and specialists and the success of the Chinese economic model contradicts the Fukuyama line of thinking that western - model of liberal , democratic model is the only model able to bring in economic prosperity.

The second significant challenge that the Western democracies increasingly face is the challenge regarding economic inequality in their own societies. One of the major positive aspects of the Western system has been its ability to provide a considerable amount of income to its unemployed and matured age populations. Indeed this has been one quality of the Western model which has been loudly praised by all the major intellectuals (of both western and non-western backgrounds). But as economic growth has stagnated in the Western societies so has been the prospect of governments doling out large sums of money to their underprivileged and unemployed populations. Indeed after the last recession in 2008 many of the countries in Europe have been considering cutting down benefits to their unemployed and underprivileged in a considerable way. Large popular demonstrations have been observed in countries such as Greece and Portugal against any possible efforts by their governments to cut down social benefits. Protests can also be seen in the US against plans by individual states like Wisconsin and Michigan against proposed cuts to these benefits for the underprivileged and unemployed. The wedge between the governing establishments and their people is getting bigger as time slowly passes by. Indeed the very stability of the Western societies could be a major issue in the coming decades as the gap in wealth between the “have”-s and the “have-not”-s continue to grow in the Western societies. There is a perceivable sense among the population as well as the general intelligentsia in the Western world that their elected representatives do not keep in mind the interests of those who elected them in the first place. The protests and demonstrations are only the signals of the same attitude.

Another major challenge the West will continue to face will be the future of the western concept of the nation state. The Western model of democratic governance was based upon the foundation of single language-speaking homogeneous nation-states. Thanks to the global outreach of the Western multinational corporations many people from the non-Western speaking countries had the opportunity to go to the Western countries, work in those affluent places and then report back home about the success the Western societies were enjoying. This particular method brought both the Western and the non-Western worlds together and allowed both to enrich each other. But the post-2008 recession West has struggled to get rid of its national prejudices and biases. In an increasingly globally connected world where the national boundaries are becoming increasingly irrelevant each day; we can observe the existing national prejudices also becoming more widespread in the West. The recent backlash against Chinese and Indian Workers in the US, the banning of head scarves in France, the derogatory comments on Muslims by the German ministers, the popularity of extreme-nationalists in many parts of continental Europe, the discriminatory bills passed by the parliament of Israel or for that matter the incidents of beatings of Indian students in Australia all point to the same direction. The Western world is not comfortable about the rise of the “Eastern” powers like China and India and in this environment the “alien” in the society i.e. those who are not from the Western-ethnicity gets to be blamed by the majority of the Western societies for their miseries. The more the Westerners demand assimilation of their non-Western minorities to the western mainstream; the less will be the popularity of the Western ideas among the non-Westerner populations.

The West needs to reconcile itself with the current world scenario where it needs to take into consideration the views of others like China. Without reconciling to that as well as not finding constructive answers to the challenges I have mentioned, will not help the West to adopt itself to the new realities of the 21-st century World.

What do they know about cricket, those who only cricket know

“Team aissi hi nehin jitti hain , jitana parta hain” this is a very well-known and oft-repeated slogan currently being used for marketing and promotional ways during the current world cup cricket. One thing that struck my mind after watching to this particular slogan is what can we do to make sure that our glorious nation of more than 1 billion wins? And for that matter why do we need to do anything in this regard apart from watching (and cheering loudly as well as jeering the opposition) our boys play? After all when we won the world cup in 1983 did the Kapil’s devils needed our help in such a way like in one of our very famous television ad-s couple of very famous Bollywood actors saying that they will not eat anything during the matches ? I do not think so.

Now let us think from another perspective. Why do most of us the middle-class Indians need to cheer madly for our cricket team? After all most of our celebrated cricketers will probably end up being crorepatis even they do not do anything in the competition thanks to a recent phenomenon called the “Indian Premier League”. And if they really play well and go on to win the cup they will probably end up being khaarabpatis anyways. So what is in it for us middle class Indians? Mr. Indian cricket fan if you argue that we should watch the game for only the love of game , I will counter you by saying that very few of our die-hard cricket fans watch the games for the love of the game ; they simply want their “Team India” to win. And why do we otherwise irrelevant people should care about these would-be “crorepatis/ khaarabpatis” (depending upon their performance of losing/winning the world cup)? My own understanding is that the present life of an average middle-class Indian is pretty dull and doubly boring. We face a lot of challenges throughout each day of our life for example the skyrocketing of daily food prices, the ratio of income taxes, the attitudes of traffic polices on the road, the rage of our angry and ever demanding managers at work, the fury and attitudes of our girlfriends and wives at home/outside, the constant concern of our parents and relatives. Among all these we just want our “Team India” to win not because we realize how great a batsman “Sachin Pazi” is but for our own selves. If Sachin Pazi scores a century or if Bhajji gets a hat-trick or if Mahi wins the cup then at least for some very few moments we can forget who we in reality are i.e. a completely irrelevant class of people in the nation and we for that very moment feel that it is such irrelevant people like us who are at the top of the world, not those famed cricketers.

On a different note, I for one will not be too disappointed if our team loses say in the quarter finals. After all in my view (and probably some of my readers will agree) that this current team of ours is not a complete all-round team but a team which is dependent upon certain great individuals starting from Sachin and Viru pazi. I for one will be happy if a team say as the proteas go on to win the cup after all they are a preity all-round and formidable side which includes probably the best first bowler going around. And of all they are the team who deserves the helping hands of lady luck most since they are the one to have been at the receiving end of the story for so long. Anyone remember 1992 and 1999 world cup semi finals? The next team I have my favorite list is …. Woops do not shout at me o glorious Indian cricket fan … Pakistan. After all in the last decade that country has seen all sorts of problems and ironically everything started to going badly for that country from their lose in the 1999 cup final. What could be better for the people of that grieving and beleaguered country than an India-Pakistan clash at the quarter finals in say Bangalore and those hated Pakistanis defeating us in the last over with that hated and reviled Rawalpindi express uprooting the middle stump of Sachin Pazi? Now I know of my readers will be nodding their heads in anger and disbelief. I know it will be a great anti-climax (and tragic also since probably some innocent boys and girls would probably end up hanging themselves from their ceiling fans after the match) but then sometimes one also needs anti-climaxes in our lives. That is why a very famous cricket writer from West Indies wrote “What do they know about cricket, those who only cricket know”

What is so big deal about right to Veto in UN

In recent times the primary obsession for any high rank shenanigan in Indian foreign policy establishment is thus: India becoming a permanent member of the United Nations Security council. To the foreign policy establishment of India, a country which had hardly played any prominent role in International affairs since the heydays of our first prime minister, the promise given by Mr. Obama during his last visit to India of helping and mentoring India to become a permanent member of Security Council was just like Manna from Heaven.
Now let us analyze what it means to become a permanent member of the Security Council and decide ourselves whether it is worth a goal as such.
The major reasons that the Indian establishment offers to its citizens for their obsession with the permanent membership of the Security Council are the following:
1. United Nations Security council body is the most important body in terms of international politics in modern world.
2. Security Council membership is prestigious that it offers great power and influence in the world of International affairs.
3. Being a permanent member of the Security Council is a recognization of India’s achievements as a nation.
To counter these arguments let me state these counter arguments.

1. United nations Security Council is not the most important policy making body in the world. It was created by the winners in the Second World War to ensure the post-world war II era world in a way which helps those powers achieve their geo-political interests. The UN Security Council never played its rightful role in ending the major conflicts of the 20-th century like the Korean war, the Vietnam war (both wars there involving first France and then the United States) , the conflicts at Congo , the Bangladesh war , the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan , the Israeli invasion of Lebanon etc. These conflicts started because one or more permanent members of the security council wanted them for their own geo-political interest and those conflicts were ended only when those interests were either fulfilled or the costs involved in running those conflicts were just too large for the permanent member of the security council.(like the soviet war in Afghanistan or the French colonial wars in Indo-China).
2. Security Council membership is very prestigious but that does not mean it will give India the amount of leverage and influence in geo-politics that we believe in. To have influence in International affairs you need to have that amount of clout where others come to you for help and advice. To help underscore the point let us look at the example of Turkey. Turkey used to have very little friends in the West Asian or North African region. It had historically hostile relationships with Greece, Armenia, Syria, Iran etc. It almost went to war with Syria during the early 1990-s. There was a proverb in Turkey in those days saying that “A Turk has only one friend and he is another Turk” But from 2002- onwards Turkey embarked upon a policy called “zero problems with neighbors” and gradually it has started to bear its fruits. Turkey now enjoys very cordial business and political relations with Syria and Iran. Turkish companies dominate in the reconstruction efforts in post-war Iraq. Turkey is building a visa free regime with Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. Talks are on to bring in Iran and Russia also in the same zone. Turkish relations with Armenia and Greece also have improved quite a lot compared to the past. Even during the current political upheaval and revolutionary movements in West Asia and North Africa, influential leaders of the revolution like the leader of ennahda movement in Tunisia Racchid Ghanoucchi or the famous Muslim intellectual Tariq Ramadan highlights Turkey as the model to follow. The example of Turkey emphasizes the point that one need to build up bridges of cooperation so that your neighbors are comfortable that your interests do not hurt theirs and they are eager to collaborate.
3. The permanent members of the Security Council do not derive their legitimacies from their veto power. Whatever legitimacy they have is because of their political, economic, cultural or military achievements either in the past or in the present. United States derives her recognition from the fact that she is the overwhelming superior nation in terms of military and strategic perspectives. China derives its legitimacy from its recent unprecedented economic growth. United Kingdom and France derives their legitimacies from their colonial and cultural legacies. The Russian federation derives her legitimacy from her vast reserves of natural resources and from her huge stockpile of nuclear weapons. The overall picture is all the permanent members of the United Nations security council are recognized as powerful because of their past and present achievements in different fields but not because their permanent membership in the United Nations security council.

In the end , one has to mention that real influence in World Affairs does not come from your permanent membership at some elite club but it comes when other nations come to you believing that you have capabilities to help them solve their problems or we reach out to the world to engage it with our own initiatives. If we look at the past efforts of Indian foreign policy establishment in this regard , a lot remains to be expected on that front. Without this our hopes of gaining real influence in World Affairs will remain as it has been since the death of our first prime minister i.e. a pipedream.

Global trends to watch out in 2011

This New Year has started with a bang which no one in the world expected. The dictator of Tunisia, a longtime friend of the West and the sole superpower in the World, has fallen from power thanks to spontaneous popular protests by the people of that country. The same protests can be seen on the streets in most of the other parts of the region like Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan or Yemen.

I believe the main reasons behind these popular protests are public outrage over the economic misery in these countries as well as the continuing inability and unwillingness on the parts of the governments in these countries to do something about in alleviating the economic misery of their own peoples.

All the countries in question have a large population of educated and unemployed young man who do not see any hope of changes in their miserable lives. These people are educated but without any jobs and the governments in these countries are oppressive and corrupt. The governments in these countries are also unable to control the rise in prices of essential commodities in their countries. This is a dangerous mix which goes on to produce the types of revolutions which overthrow even the most and tyrannical regimes the world has ever seen.

The phenomenon of internet and social networks have also played their parts in organizing and orchestrating people into action against what they perceive to be their common enemy: their tyrannical governments. I believe we need to look very closely into events from the West Asia throughout the year of 2011. As someone said “things are really interesting …. Things are just hotting up”.

On another part of the world, Washington DC saw the summit meeting between the leaders of the USA and China, the incumbent sole superpower and the upcoming power. I believe the main issue that will dominate the discussions between these two potential rivals will be economic in nature. That issue is: how much the Chinese are ready to accommodate to help American multi-nationals set up their shops in China. As we all know that China is the fastest growing economy in the World and the lure of lucrative Chinese market in terms of key economic sectors like green technology, information technology, commercial aviation and automobiles is too great for American corporations to ignore.

China is not only a lucrative market in terms of consumers but it is also very lucrative in terms of labor costs and easy credit availability. In deed many high end American corporations (like the one here) are thinking about moving their production bases to China for these reasons.

American corporations now days derive most of their potential revenues from places outside USA like China and they are increasingly looking to shift more of their business operations to that part of the World. Indeed that makes sense from an economic viewpoint.

But doing business with China can also mean that you need to share your niche technologies and ideas with companies who in future may become your competitors. Indeed that is the condition that Chinese government is increasingly attaching alongside any lucrative offers to business in China. The year of 2011 will see more of this.

Ultimately it will boil down to how much each side in the bargaining: i.e. the Chinese and the American multi-nationals are ready to offer to each other. Now I believe this is the relationship between the American and other western multi-nationals and the Chinese which is going to decide the future in this century.

So these two trends i.e. the popular uprisings in the Western Asian region as well as the relationship between the Chinese and American multi-nationals are going to dominate the rest of 2011. I would like to quote Robert Fisk in terms of final outcomes in both these two trends: “We do not know what comes next. Perhaps only history can answer this question.”