Recession? What recession...

Another article written a while back...

As the worlds stocks and shares tumble to their all time low for many years it seems that the global financial crisis is becoming a big deal, not only for investors but for everyday people like you and me.

With the threat of a global recession looming the small island of Cuba cannot help but laugh as we in the west struggle due to financial institutions. Cuba remains unaffected by the turmoil in the world as the US have a trading embargo with the country. This means that no “western” company can have formal dealings with Cuba as doing so will mean the US will cut off ties with them. Having in effect been isolated by the world Cuba has been forced to invest in the power of its own people so solve and meet its own demands. Ethical investing is investing in companies/countries that operate ethically, provide social benefits and are sensitive to the environment.

So is Cuba an ethical investor? The answer can be yes depending on your definition. Can the rest of the world take a leaf from Cuba’s book? Well the short answer to this question is no, unless they choose to become self sufficient and reduce their dependence on any other countries. While this may not be possible in the short term educating people and companies to start thinking socially and investing locally would be a good start.

Governments could also change banking systems around the world so that banks do not rely on each other for lending money and are totally self sufficient instead, thus helping the banking system globally.

Most importantly, governments could bring in more socially conscientious people to run the failed banks as well as other companies to ensure that the same mistakes are not made again, by the same people. “If the banking system were to change globally there would be less chance of problems such as the ones we are experiencing taking place in the future, as new people are bought in with new fresh ideas that are beneficial to all” according to a John Townsend an economics student.

Shailyn Shah

Iraq...the convenient truth.

Written a while back, but thought I would post it on here for you guys...

With over 90,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since March 2003 the war in Iraq is still a very topical issue in the media, but it seems not all aspects are readily covered in the news..

With protests taking place globally, there continues to be extreme pressure put on governments to withdraw troops from Iraq. The major invading countries have pledged to withdraw from Iraq in the very near future, but many other players are speculative as to the actual reasons for invading.

This uncertainty comes as the British government debates whether a public inquiry in to the Iraq war would be “dangerous” to the British public.

While governments claim that the war was to find weapons of mass destruction, none have yet to be found to this day. However, despite the assurances made by both Bush and Blair, many people argue the war in Iraq was for oil as Iraq has the second largest known oil reserve in the world.

David Wilson is an activist from the Stop the War Coalition, a British based organisation which fights to end the war occupation in Iraq.

“The war occupation was morally unjustified. The war was there to serve the interest of US imperialism, regardless of the lives lost, in which many companies gained from contracts provided by the American government,” he says.

Many US companies are benefiting from the Iraq war under the pretence of helping rebuild the country out to American companies. One of these companies is Halliburton, an American oil company.

According to the Asia times, a former subsidiary of Halliburton known as KBR has made “$31 billion for a variety of services to the US military, notably in the field of logistics, and the money continues to flow in”, for the six plus years they have been in Iraq.

“It would appear that the war was an excuse the US government to make vast sums of money at the expense of American and Iraqi lives,” says Wilson.

Belatedly the US congress has started to investigate this profiteering with the aim of bringing some of these companies to justice. Talks are still ongoing, as it is a very sensitive issue.

Whether this is successful is debatable as, the Bush administration and Dick Cheney, the former vice-president of the United States of America, have personally blocked, or influenced much of the released information.

Coincidently, Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000.

Issues raised by bringing these companies to justice include possible fraud, malpractice and political unrest from the American people, who will begin lack confidence in the democratic system.

Shailyn Shah

No university places...but at what cost?

Over the past week UK news headlines have been full of stories of how some 150,000 A-level students will be denied places at university this year, accounting for one in four of university applicants not getting a place.

As a very recent A-level student, I too was unable to make my grades for my university placement to study geography. As with similar people in my position I was put in to the University College Admissions Systems (UCAS) clearing system where you can search for a university placement and apply based on the grades you received. Typically, the better known universities do not go through the clearing process, with a few exceptions of course.

What many may be unaware of is that there are two separate clearing systems. One for “home/EU applicants” and the other for “International applicants”. With UK places so short it would be expected that universities would favour UK students, but instead are listing many places for international applicants which are not available for home and EU applicants.

Take for example the University of Bristol. On the home/EU applicant clearing page it reads “No courses found. Please try again”. However, on the international applicants page there are some 154 courses available (as of 2100 on 26^th August), in disciplines such as geography, philosophy, mathematics and chemistry.

Whilst it is true that international applicants bring in more money to the UK university system, it should also be that universities actively seek to allow home/EU students to prevent a repeat of this situation.

In the next round of university applications beginning in September, the UK government has set a quota on the number of places available. Combined with the 30,000 applicants who were unsuccessful in the year 2008 – 2009 and the 150,000 applicants unsuccessful in 2009 – 2010 the issue is likely to get worse and worse over the coming years unless the new British government takes steps to safeguard the education of both home and EU citizens.

Shailyn Shah

Tony Blair....war criminal?

For those of you who don't know, today I got tickets to see Tony Blair give evidence to the Iraq Inquiry. I was in the afternoon sitting from 2pm - 5pm. The venue was the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Center in London, just opposite Westminster Abby. When I arrived there were loads of people, and loads of police! The people were protesting with various signs, and there was a stage where people were giving small talks and encouraging general chanting. So I got in the line and I saw none other than BBC's Nick Robinson, on the phone. I smiled at him, and would like to hope that he smiled back! Also there was the BBC's Emily Maitlis. (When you watch the news at all hours as I do you know who these people are). So I stood in line for a good 45 minutes and finally got inside. Only to be greeted by airport style x-ray machines and one of those metal detector things. There was yet again a really visible police presence.

Once inside I sat down and talked to a few people beside me then the afternoon session started. I was in the auditorium with around 200 people or so, and similar to a cinema we watched a screen which showed a live un-censored and non-delayed feed of the proceedings the floor above us. I made a few notes on various topics of question which I have written chronologically. Please note is evidence from Tony Blair and not me.

The legality of the war.
Prior to the war there was a lot of question with the legality of the war. The former Attorney General (AG), Lord Goldsmith was very vocal in his opinions to Tony Blair (TB) and changed his mind frequently. The AG saw the Iraq War from a legal viewpoint, and took on the view at first that the war could not be considered as legal. Therefore, the UK decided to get a UN resolution passed known as resolution 1441. The wording of 1441 was rather "iffy" and as a result there were many things which both the American and British governments could twist to suit their needs. Not happy with 1441 the AG asked for a further resolution as it was the safest legal course, but in principle was happy that 1441 allowed for a war should it be necessary. The way 1441 was seen, was that it was Saddam's last chance to surrender to the UN, with the failure to comply with UN weapons inspectors a breach of the resolution, which could allow war. Long story short...the AG was left out of much of the meetings with regards to Iraq until then end, where he felt some of his advice was not welcomed by TB. Despite this, TB was desperate for the AG's approval as it would mean that he would cover his legal bases, and thus sent the AG to the USA where he discussed the legality of the war with his American counterparts. Upon return, the AG changed his mind saying that there is a case should he have to go to court, but he is not that confident. Nevertheless, TB decided to go to war.

Planning and preparation.
The inquiry then went on to discuss the planning and preparation steps taken by Blair and the British Government with regards to the war. When they came in power, Blair pushed through a rule (NOT a law) that, should a war happen, he will give at least 6 months notice so troops can prepare. In the case of the Iraq war they were given 2 months. He was questioned upon this, and answered that he didn't want to give the presumption of war, given his indecisive view on Iraq. When asked why he wanted to go to war, other than the WMD threats etc Blair also mentioned it was in the interest of the UK to go to war as a matter of national security. When the decision to go to war was made in January 2003, TB was confident that the UK's troops were ready and was given assurances by the armies logistical experts that everything will be okay. Despite this, equipment arrived late in Iraq when needed. When dealing with "phase 4" - the aftermath of the war, Blair took the advice from Shammi Chakrabati of Liberty, and decided to focus much of his efforts upon the humanitarian side of the war, as he wanted to avoid any humanitarian issues which arose. Despite this, the torture of Abu Ghraib prisoners came as a surprise to him, and he was quick to say the prison is mainly controlled by the USA. Other issues which the UK Government were worried about included; oil fields being set on fire and the use of chemical and biological weapons. Blair felt phase 4 was important as he believed you could not leave the people of Iraq, given that the UK went in to the country in the first place.

Rebuilding the country
When the rebuilding stage came together, the UN was very clear that they did not want a lead role in discussions and actions as they should remain impartial.

When rebuilding the country the British Government was faced with two issues:
1 - Iraq had a "broken" civil service.
2 - There was no planning for the role which Al-Qaeda and Iran played, which hindered development.

Blair went on to say that whenever you go in to a failed state, you should always assume the worse, due to a repressive nature, and also because the power has only been controlled by a few people. In Iraq the minority 20% of the Sunni population controlled society. One job of the UK/USA was to bring together the Sunni, Shi'a and Kurd people, something which they did with the new government formed. However, with pressure from Iraq and Al-Qaeda, this proved to be very difficult, as the Iranian people were intent on destabilising the mission in Iraq. As a result of the problems which the Iranian government posed previous to the war, Blair asked for a report on the Iranians. The report came back stating that the Iranians posed no threat to the war as Iran also wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, given the Iran-Iraq war. However, when the war started the Iranians proved to be a big threat. Blair simply stated later "security is what went wrong", when you try to provide people wreck it.

WMD.
When asked about the war, Blair suggested that he genuinely believed that there was WMD in Iraq. He said on a daily basis until 2004 they would get reports of WMD being in a certain area. However, he said, even if there were not any WMD, he would have still gone to war as Saddam posed a large threat if left there. If Saddam was left to do what he wanted, Blair predicted that there would be competition between Iran, in support of terrorist groups and nuclear weapons.

Responsibility
When asked about the issue of responsibility made the following points.
1 - We are responsible.
2-We should prepared for the long haul.
3 - There are issues with Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

Pre war, there were 25 cabinet meetings, and 28 ad-hoc meetings to discuss Iraq.

Blair concluded that he had no regrets on going to war, at which point he was heckled by a member of the audience.

My thoughts.
Overall, whilst I may not agree with a lot of what Blair did in Iraq and has said, I felt he came across as very confident and knowing what he had to say. There were elements of his personality which really showed though when he was talking, with some really passionate arguments/comments made towards Iraq, which were totally fascinating to watch and listen to. I was slightly unaware of some of the context of the questions, particularly on 1441, but found his comments on the issue, from what I could piece together interesting. I was disappointed with the questions which Chilcot and the panel posed, however, he made it clear that it was not a trial. There were lots of other things which the panel could have gone in to, and I feel they only touched upon important things. It will be interesting to see how Gordon Brown copes.

It was nice to see that at the end Blair was heckled, and upon leaving the QEII centre, the protesters were still out in force!

Overall, a very interesting afternoon with a few surprises, although I am slightly disappointed at some of the questions posed.

Shailyn Shah
29th January 2010.