George Soros, the wizard speculator, has described the London G20 as “a make or break” moment for the world. And George Soros is not a man whose advice/prediction can be taken lightly. Not long after his advice/prediction, several hundred thousands of demonstrators started to demonstrate along the streets of London ahead of the G20 summit that begins on Thursday, 2^nd April, 2009. The demonstrators who represent various interest groups are demanding, principally, that the leaders of the world should take action to: save or create jobs, alleviate poverty in all parts of the world and take steps to halt climate change. Before these two developments, trumpets had also sounded in America where the President of the world’s largest economy had called on his fellow leaders of the world to take decisive and comprehensive actions to tackle the global economic crisis. This call had received a robust and contradictory response from the Czechoslovakian President who happens to be the current rotating head of the European Union. Elsewhere, the British Prime Minister who hosts the G20 summit had been touring parts of the world canvassing for support for the world to act together at the coming London summit to tackle collectively what he called the “global problems” facing the entire world brought about by human failure that has manifested itself through failed banking and financial systems, failed financial regulations, failed macro and micro economic tools, failed businesses, rising joblessness and unemployment, collapsed public confidence, increasing public frustration and anger and the related, or unrelated, alarming climate change that is taking place all over the world.

When the leaders of the G20 meet on Thursday, the tasks before them shall be to reach a consensus on a broad framework for repairing the above problems collectively, using individual national tools that are appropriate to each country based on individual national circumstances and constraints. The biggest and most difficult problem that will face the leaders on Thursday, though, will not be any one of the actual problem-issues above that the group will be meeting to resolve, but how they will reach the consensus on how to resolve the problems. Reaching consensus, therefore, will be their biggest problem. The group is meeting as representatives of twenty governments that are accountable to twenty different countries, each of which has its own constitutional checks and balances that control governmental powers. Apart from the problem that will be dictated by the individual circumstances of twenty leaders, there also appears to have emerged four interest groupings within the larger group. There is the Europe minus Britain group that is led by Germany and France; there is America’s group that is co-championed by America and Britain; there is the Russian group that comprises the two non-capitalist members, Russia and China; and there is the fourth group that comprises of India, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia and South Africa. While America and Britain will be trying to press for a decisive action including the injection of heavy physical stimulus, Germany and France will be pressing for a more restrained approach involving a step-by-step application of physical stimulus and more stringent financial and business regulations put in place. Russia and China, on the other hand, will be pressing for the control of the capitalist factors that led to the crisis and a creation of a new safer global foreign reserves currency, other than the American dollar; while the emerging economies of the third world, India, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia and South Africa, will be more interested in getting increased financial support from the IMF to stimulate their own national economies. Despite all these, there will be one thing that all the twenty countries will agree on, and this one thing is the need for change, as stressed recently by the South Korean Finance Minister.

And truly change must come from the summit, if the world has to solve these global problems. Capitalism must change, to reflect the changing circumstances of modern societies that require the application of humanistic considerations to influence the way things are done. The banks and the banking system must change, to reflect the global nature of banking and financing. Multinational businesses and their modi operandi must change, to reflect the global nature of modern businesses. Financial regulations and regulators must change to reflect the fact that modern banking and financing, as well as modern production, consumption and distribution, have all become global in nature and, therefore, need to be regulated globally rather than nationally. Big and powerful business groupings and cartels such as OPEC must be controlled, to lessen the effect of their monopolistic tendencies on global economies. The way the stock markets work and speculations on stocks and major currencies must change, to prevent the harmful effects of the volatilities associated with them, usually engineered by inside dealers and opportunistic and selfish speculators. All cracks that create rooms for the ‘Madoffs’ and the ‘Stanfords’ to operate their crooked businesses must be filled-in and offshore islands must cease to be tax heavens, so as to prevent the creation and accumulation of wealth by foul means. The increasing numbers of failing businesses and unemployment must be halted and reversed to help put smiles on the faces of millions of people. On top of all these, there must be a change in the way we do things, so as to lessen the damage human activities are inflicting on the environment and thereby stop the on-going global climate change.

The tasks that face the leaders of the G20 summit on Thursday are colossal and efforts needed to effect the changes are huge and will require real commitment and statesmanship before success can be achieved. What has made the work more difficult than they should is the fact that some twenty statesmen and their teams of accompanying ministers and experts have national pressures on them, as politicians answerable to their electorates. They also represent twenty economies of varying levels and complexities. But the leaders also know that the world expects them to deliver, their individual circumstances notwithstanding. They must, therefore, put their differences aside and get on board together and find solutions for the problems that are tipping the world over. This is no time for pointing fingers at “those who created the problems”. This is time for finding solutions, not pointing blame fingers at others.

After that, the world must then find ways to prevent the recurrence of the current global mess. That is when the need to reform the United Nations must be considered seriously to enable the reformed world body to have a ’standing organ’ within it that will supervise the entire global economy over and above national governments and economic institutions, with the IMF and the World Bank working under that organ.  Such an organ could be called ‘THE ECONOMIC COUNCIL’ and would directly report to the General Secretary of the world body. The Economic Council, staffed with the best economic brains in the world, would handle permanently and consistently the economic roles that the G20 has allocated unto itself; and would be performing these roles with no national pressures on its head. The world cannot continue to dwell in an illusion. The G20 is not effective for preventing future recurrence of the current mess, when it cannot speak and act with one voice. A herd without a shepherd is doomed to go astray. AFTER THE LONDON G20 SUMMIT, LET THE WORLD ACT AND REFORM THE UNO; AND LET THEM DO THAT SOONER THAN LATER!

Well, as for me and as usual, I talk my mind and invite you too to talk your mind. When things go wrong, as it has happened now, you and I bear the brunt. This means that we have to speak out and offer ideas that will help to mould policies where we are and globally. Why don’t you use this platform to speak your mind by commenting on the London G20 Summit? The use of libellous and directly offensive language is, however, not allowed at this website.                 

Since the credit crunch became evident around the last quarter of year 2008, people have been looking for the men and women whose inefficiencies plunged the entire global economy into the current mess. The blame arrow has been firmly pointed at the chief executive officers of banks and other financial houses. Financial regulators and governments with their finance ministers have also not escaped blame. The three ‘blameables’….the CEOs of banks and financial houses, financial regulators and governments with their finance ministers….have each had their fair share of the anger of the people….. anger that has justification.

Then there have been those who, even while they sit in the seat of judgment, continue to provoke more public anger by dragging their burning fingers from the frying pan into the fire. I am referring to the provocation caused through the subsequent actions of banks and bank chief executives whose initial inefficiencies created the credit crunch. In countries like Great Britain and United States of America, the bailing out of banks with the tax-payers’ money by governments has been met with cheeky and provocative responses by the recipients of the bail-outs. In Britain, one of the bailed banks rewarded a failed chief executive with millions of end-of-service gratuity payments which the beneficiary accepted without the slightest sense of guilt. Another bailed bank is also reported to have planned to pay out bonuses to its staff for the bad jobs they did that led to the financial failures or that contributed directly or indirectly to the credit crunch. In America too, the government and tax-payers are furious that one of the bailed financial institutions has paid huge bonuses to its workers out of the bail-out money paid to them. And the workers of this bailed financial institution have readily taken the bonuses, unmindful of the fact that several of their counterparts have lost their jobs and have no basic incomes, let alone bonuses. Greed is a beast without senses!

Then there is the third scenario in that brings to view the full magnitude of the criminality of the mind of the people who brought out the current economic mayhem.  If two individual human beings can cleverly carry out two separate and unconnected fraudulent schemes that can ‘fool’ millions of investors scattered all over the world and rob them of a total of several tens of billions of dollars, then we get reminded that we now live in a world where no one can claim to feel safe. These two men were planning and operating their fraudulent schemes in the full glare of financial regulatory bodies staffed with the best financial brains in the world. Any world that can allow itself to be infested by an extra pair of the ‘Madoffian’ and ‘Stanfordian’ financial virus is a world that is destined for doom.

Beneath all these damning behavioural patterns in the financial world is the common undertone of greed. We live in a world where the lust for wealth has permeated the entire humankind. Today no part of human endeavour has remained free from this cancer of human greed. The West that once boasted of being the beacon of freedom and human dignity has today become the dungeon of financial enslavement and a den of misanthropists who turn their anger on innocent people. The East that once branded the West as capitalistic and wealth-driven has today become overpopulated with Mafia-men who work under cover and trade life for wealth. And if you asked me the difference between capitalism and communism, all I can say is that one is a five-syllable word while the other is a word with four syllables. Apart from that differentiation, both systems are today driven by wealth accumulation. Call it ‘profit-driven’, if you are talking about capitalism; and dress it in any euphemistic cover you like, if you are talking about communism, but the truth is that both systems are now bedfellows that sleep and dream about wealth and wake up and chase the same wealth. Russian, the direct descendant of Soviet Union, the onetime champion of communism, uses oil and military equipment to maximise its wealth, power and influence. In the same way, the West use consumer goods and financial services to maximise their wealth, power and influence. The new communist giant, China, hiding behind the ‘cloak’ of “non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries” is also making huge wealth out of situations where the rest of the world is applying some forms of sanction or castration against nations that abuse human rights within their borders.  Problem spots in Africa and in other parts of the world have provided exclusive ‘gold mines’ for ‘China to dig for its ‘gold’ under the banner of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. To China, moral considerations do not matter, just as the internal affairs of other nations are not its concern. What drives the China of today in its foreign relationships is wealth creation and maximisation….‘the lust for wealth factor’.

Next comes the huge wealth creation mentality among certain professionals and talents that seems to be leading to a visible widening of income differentials and social stratification. The creation of a new breed of youth millionaires out sportsmen and the coming into existence of the new term of “footballers’ wives” are examples of the new wealth-creation spirit going on in the world. These sports people and other money-making talents like singers, actors and actresses, models, comedians, presenters and all other categories of talented individuals who together have been fused into the new social class of wealthy and famous people commonly referred to as the ‘celebrities’ and who are widely celebrated for their claim to wealth and fame have become major sources of envy, rather than being role models, in a world where class structures are nearly static and, therefore, where one cannot  change ones class simply by having a role model. 

There is nothing wrong with creating and accumulating wealth by lawful means. There is also nothing wrong with the existence of a class of very wealthy people or a group of very wealthy nations, provided wealth creation and accumulation take place lawfully and humanely. The problem is that the proviso given above to justify wealth creation and accumulation of individuals and nations cannot be fulfilled. People in positions of trust have changed the rules of human endeavour and pursuits to favour their individual and national interests. This has made it easier for some individuals and nations to gain advantage at the expense of other individuals and nations. And this has created a situation where some individuals are getting wealthier and wealthier while other individuals are getting poorer and poorer. Similarly some nations are developing faster and faster and getting richer and richer while other countries are stuck in the cycle of poverty and find it impossible to free themselves out of it and develop. In consequence, we have created a world in which more than half of its nations are under performing while less than half are over performing leading to imbalances that have fanned the on-going storms in the world and created human miseries such as the new class of economic migrants, mass unemployment, rising financial scams, the new cyber crimes, the rising incidence of suicides, the rising incidence of knife and gun attacks, etc.

The world must wake up and deal with this human cancer of greed that is dehumanising nations and people and turning one nation and one human being against one another.    

          The world finds itself in an unchartered territory, as many economists would say.  Unchartered territory, not because the world has not crossed that territory before, but because this time the route to it had altered. And also, perhaps because this time, the world has landed at a steeper ground.  The question that many people ask is why did the experts not see it before it happened? And these were experts who drew very huge rewards to spot problems before they occurred. Had something blinded them and made it impossible for them to see? Were they ‘bed-fellows’ and, in the process, got too heavily ‘tagged-in’ to notice any unusual warning signs?  Or were they too busy enjoying the comforts of their ‘padded positions’ to remember to notice bad things that happened around them?   These are questions we could keep on asking without end and with no apparent answers. 

          The result of some people’s negligence, we dare say, is what has created the kind of problem whose likeness the world appears never to have seen before….a problem that has given all the major leaders of the world sleepless nights. If it was the kind of problem that bothered only world leaders, many people would never have minded, given how much you and I think they care? It is a problem, however, that has created headache and insomnia in every household everywhere in the world, resulting from business collapses, corporate insolvencies, joblessness, state bailing, tax hiking, macro-economic derailment, national and international panic and stock-market hysteria. These consequences are minor compared with the headache that the problem has given to economic brains of the world…. economic brains who have to put things back on course for the world economy to start to find its feet again; economic brains who are trying one tool after another but are achieving neither instant results, nor any clues as to when future results will manifest. Meanwhile things keep getting worse and worse and the worries of the world are growing bigger and bigger.

          This is where the credit crunch that first gained global attention in the third quarter of 2008 has taken the world and everybody to. This write-up is, however, focusing on one major problem that has been created by the crunch, and whose unique characteristics put it in a special class of economic conundrum that one Ghanaian musician would describe as the ‘santrofi-bird paradox’ which can be explained as a problematic situation that has two unavoidable solution-options, either of which creates a problem of its own, if chosen, but which also appears to have a worse antecedent, if not chosen.

          This one major problem is the severe sales collapse that the credit crunch has created for the motor industry. All motor manufacturing companies from General Motors, Ford and Chrysler in America to Toyota, Honda and Nissan in Japan, among the top world brands, to Hyundai in Korea and Tata in India, among the new entrants, are experiencing the kind of slum that none could overcome without government or share-holder bail-outs. This motor industry which before the credit crunch had been suffering from the problems of ageing has become badly hit by the crunch, forcing it to crawl on its knees in search of help. But how do you help an ageing industry whose geriatric circumstances have been made extremely worse by a severe credit crunch?  

          Unlike human beings, industries faced with ageing can re-invent and re-energise themselves to prevent death. Saving the global motor industry to withstand the effects of the credit crunch must involve helping it also to re-invent and re-energise itself into a new youthful business sector that fulfils the dreams and aspirations of the twenty-first century that finds itself threatened by global warming arising from green-house factors, prominent among which are carbon emissions discharged by the products of the industry that needs the kind of help envisaged. Any assistance given to the motor industry that fails to re-invent and re-energise the entire industry will fall victim to the ‘santrofi-bird paradox’ syndrome described above and will make such assistance counter-productive, wasteful and more problematic. This scenario creates a situation that appears to make the option of ‘doing nothing’ a better governmental approach than the option of doing something to help. Doing nothing solves no immediate problems and appears to create no new ones. Helping solves immediate problems but can lead to long term bigger problems, if the right help is missed.

          Sound-Silly-Talk believes that no responsible government anywhere in the world can stand aloof and do nothing to save an industry that provides livelihood to thousands, if not millions, of its citizens.     But then, how can help be given without falling into the ‘santrofi-bird paradox’? What is the right help that can be given? To attempt to answer this question, one has to figure out what specific problems confront the industry. The immediate main problem is the existence of large stockpiles of vehicles of all makes and models that cannot be sold. Coupled with this main problem is the antecedent problem of the drying up of demand which, in its turn, is the direct result of the credit crunch and its associated economic downturn. Drying up of demand for vehicles is, therefore, the real problem that needs addressing.  The American government, the British government, the Japanese government, the German government, the French government, etc, have all either offered or are making efforts to offer some form of help to the vehicle-producing companies that find themselves in dire need of immediate assistance. All these governments have made or are making some efforts to help. That is commendable. But have they tackled the solution of the problem from its root which is extreme contraction of demand? The answer appears to be no.

**IT IS CLEAR THAT THE HELP THAT CAN GET THE MOTOR INDUSTRY BACK ON ITS FEET AGAIN MUST GO TO VEHICLE BUYERS. IT IS THEY THAT CAN JUMP-START AND REJUVENATE THE INDUSTRY.

          But how can the government give help to buyers to buy vehicles? Should it be through the banks and finance agents that finance vehicle loans? One is apt to ask. Through the banks! What have the banks done with all the capital injections that governments all over the world have been pumping into them? Sitting on them and sobbing over the bonuses they can’t get because of the credit crunch they started? And why send out more sheep when the herd that was sent out to graze is not back yet? This is the Rubicon that must never be crossed if the motor industry is to be helped through the boosting of demand. Having given this precautionary advice, emphasis must now shift to how to create the volume of demand that will be strong enough to jump-start the revival of the motor industry from its near-death.  Once more one must correlate the solution of the problem with the need to tackle the problem of cutting down pollution from carbon emissions emanating from the use of vehicles. Doing that would be tantamount to killing two birds with one stone and avoiding the danger of falling victim to the ‘santrofi-bird paradox’ syndrome. 

**TO DO THIS EFFECTIVELY, SOUND-SILLY-TALK SUGGESTS THE TRADING IN OF THE LARGEST NUMBER OF HEAVILY POLLUTING OLD VEHICLES FOR THE STOCKPILES OF THE LESSER POLLUTING NEW VEHICLES AND RECYCLING THE OLD VEHICLES TRADED IN FOR GREENER USES. RUNNING PARALLEL WITH THIS TRADING IN PROCESS, SHOULD BE A CORRESPONDING SHIFTING OF THE INDUSTRY FROM THE PRODUCTION OF HEAVILY POLLUTING VEHICLES TO LESS POLLUTING VERSIONS THAT USE GREENER FUELS AND SMALLER ENGINES.

          This prescription requires governments of countries concerned…. America, Japan, Germany, UK, etc….to buy from vehicle users who are working and earning enough incomes vehicles that have exceeded a certain number of years of use, say five years and above, and for these governments to top up the proceeds with additional vehicle loans on moderate terms that will be payable over a reasonable period of years and thereby to enable such users to procure new vehicles that obviously pollute less, given that new vehicles are greener than old vehicles as far as carbon emissions are concerned. The old vehicles traded in would then be scrapped and their parts recycled into other usable things, including greener motorable products like agricultural machines. This scrapping and recycling would create new businesses and new employment for people and boost national and global economies. 

**SOUND-SILLY-TALK BELIEVES THAT IF THE GOVERNMENTS OF COUNTRIES CONCERNED DO THIS, THEY WOULD NOT ONLY SAVE THE MOTOR INDUSTRY FROM COLLAPSE AND SAVE MILLIONS OF WORKERS FROM LAY-OFFS, BUT THEY WOULD, IN ADDITION TO THOSE, CREATE NEW JOBS FOR ADDITIONAL MILLIONS OF UNEMPOLYED PEOPLE STRUGGLING TO FIND JOBS THAT ARE THINNING OUT EVERY NEW DAY. SECONDLY, THEY WOULD ALSO BE REKINDLING THE GLOBAL ECONOMY AND HELPING IT TO REVAMP AGAIN. THIRDLY, THEY WOULD BE PROMOTING A GREENER AGENDA BY HELPING TO CUT DOWN ON VEHICULAR CARBON EMISSIONS THROUGH THE REMOVAL FROM USE OF VERY OLD VEHICLES.     

          Well, as usual, I talk my mind and call on others to feel free to talk their minds too. If you talk your mind and I talk my mind, we both help to shape public opinion and guide our leaders in formulating consensual policies. We cannot hope to create a responsible community, if we fail to make our views on important public issues known. Why don’t you take the opportunity to express your opinion through this medium? The use of libellous and directly offensive slang is not allowed, however

          The recent credit crunch that began in America and spread to the rest of the world and finally culminated in a global recession must open the eyes of the world to an important missing ingredient in global economics. While countries have for a long time recognised the need for the world to see itself as one economic field within which economic goods and services could be produced by them and traded without national border hindrances, the world has failed to recognise the need to have a body whose role would be to plan what needed to be produced by which country or company and in what quantities. It can look as if having such a body is not necessary when there are national governments. But the question we never ask is who supervises countries and governments in our global world today?

          What is happening at the moment is that each country is producing and putting on the global market what it is capable of producing, and decides to produce. With the ease of transfer of technology from country to country, what is further happening is that many countries in the world today have had the capability to produce many things  that previously only few advanced nations were capable of producing. The combined effect of these two factors is the creation of a world that is flooded with the same goods and services produced by several countries jostling for the same international markets.

          Another thing that appears to be creating problems for the world is technology. Technology has been responsible for the rapid development of the world. This by itself is not bad. What technology seems to be doing which is unhealthy and needs to be cushioned is that it competes with, and creates problems for labour, if it is used with extreme competitive spirit. In the past, many jobs could only be done by human beings. Today almost all jobs that previously were manually executed are being handled mechanically or electronically. The result is that labour is ever becoming irrelevant and redundant. Thus, every time there is an improved technology which has to happen in a world within which all parts are jostling in competition, labour finds itself constantly being squeezed out by improving technology. We all know what happened to a section of bank workers when cash machines started to be used extensively by banks and bank customers.

          Again, there is another way technology creates problems for labour, governments and countries. Every time national or global economies shrink, it is labour, and not technology, that suffers from lay outs. Shrinking economy tends to favour the application of cost-cutting technology which usually means using more machines and less labour. Thus, as long as investors have to cut their costs in circumstances dictated by contracting markets, technology will continue to push labour out of demand and governments and countries will continue to look for ways of solving problems that have been thrashed upon mankind by mankind’s own quest for improvement and also following from failure of countries of the world to coordinate their economic actions. 

          Another way through which, technology creates problems for the world is over-production inherent in mechanisation.  Modern technology which has become very mechanised and computerised usually has to be very large-scaled to be cost-efficient. In most cases small output levels are considered either economically impossible or unwise. The result is that most modern plants are by nature large-scaled and turn out large outputs that need large markets, such as global markets. As a result of this, events that happen in other countries tend to affect those large-scale industries that have to operate globally, instead of locally. This creates a situation whereby companies and countries find themselves falling victims to events created in far places where they trade, but where they do not have control over economic and financial courses of events.

          There is also the issue of shady deals and ventures that find easy access into global markets because of the absence of any global regulatory machinery that interacts with and supervises national regulatory bodies that control economic, financial and business activities within nations. Nobody needs to be reminded of the seriousness of this lapse in global economics. The two American ‘financial tycoons’ who, since the recent credit crunch, have been found to have operated fraudulent financial ventures that have caused several investors who are spread all over the world losses totalling some 58 billions of dollars are sufficient reminders of a global world without a global economic authority to oversee it. Spotting the fraudulent minds of smart dodgy people is not easy, even under the best of ‘regulatory microscopes’ of advanced nations. But the problem become compounded further when the field of operation of scrutinising crosses national boundaries and visibility becomes impaired by a multiplicity of international factors that tend to combine to create shrouds that make detection particularly difficult.  

          The events of recent times have demonstrated beyond doubt that the world needs a global economic authority with powers of its own arising from the collective surrender of parts of individual national powers to the global economic authority to oversee and coordinate global economic planning, implementation and control on behalf of the whole world to ensure that economic overlaps, duplications, wastes, as well as individualism and protectionism are replaced by economic cooperation, coordination, consensus- building, collaboration and concessions, all of which will lead to the creation of a world that can plan its total economy ahead, and in anticipation of projected problems, and achieve a more controlled growth with fewer risks,  fewer wastes, and fewer clashes that tend to create economic crises like the one facing the world today. 

          SUCH A GLOBAL ECONOMIC AUTHORITY CAN ONLY BE WITHIN A REFORMED UNITED NATIONS ORGANISATION WITH AN ECONOMIC COUNCIL THAT SHALL HAVE THE POWER AND THE RESOURCES TO PLAY THIS VITAL GLOBAL ECONOMIC OVERSEER’S ROLE. WHEN THE G20 MEETS IN LONDON IN APRIL THIS YEAR, IT IS HOPED THAT THE LEADERS OF THIS CLUB OF DEVELOPED ECONOMIES WILL CONSIDER THIS RECOMMENDATION THAT HAS BEEN MADE SEVERAL TIMES THROUGH THIS FORUM AND WHICH WAS ECHOED BY THE GERMAN CHANCELLOR  AT THE LAST WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM IN SWITZERLAND.

 A herd without a shepherd runs amok!

           Well, as for me, I talk my mind.  I do believe that you will also talk your mind. When you talk your mind and I talk my mind, we create a small opinion sample that can build and snowball into a formidable public opinion with a voice that can drum hard enough for the ears of our world leaders. Sound-Silly-Talk provides you with a forum for expressing your mind. The use of libellous and directly offensive language is, however, not allowed. 

There are fewer words, if any at all, that have gained such rapid international recognition and  currency as globalisation has gained within the past few decades. Though the word ‘globe’ and its derivatives have existed for decades and possibly centuries, it is in recent years that the use of the term globalisation has become a commonplace. Today politicians, economists, bankers, industrialists, business strategists, climatologists, criminologists and all others use the term in their pursuits as the field of focus, recognising and measuring things in terms of the whole world, rather than in terms of the narrower boundaries like regions or countries. The term recognises the fact that the world is one unit of inter-connected parts within which what happens any where tends to impact other sections. Occurrences like 9-11 of 2001 and the recent credit-crunch of 2008 were events whose ripply ramifications quickly brought into focus the reality of our inter-connected world; a reality  that has given credence and relevance to the idea of globalisation.  It is in respect of the application of globalisation to economic pursuits, however, that Sound-Silly-Talk finds the concept rather amblyopic and dubitable.

When applied to economic pursuits, globalisation,  as we understand it, expands the field of play of economic pursuits from national borders to the world in its entirety, within which participants become nations with their economic factors. The field of play in this respect is clear. What becomes grey in globalisation as it applies to economic pursuits is the extent of fairness of the set of rules that govern the application of the concept. Put otherwise, one may ask: does globalisation create an even playing field for all its participants?  To attempt to answer this question, Sound-Silly-Talk is here using as an analogy the general principle that governs the rules of international trade which underlies the concept of globalisation as it applies to economic pursuits and comparing it with the basic principle that governs the general rules of boxing.

In boxing, heavy weights are matched against their fellow heavy weights and light weights are also matched against similar light weights. Heavy weights are never matched against light weights. In globalisation and its associated international trade, however, heavy weights and light weights alike are all matched against one another on the same playing field. Thus, America, Japan, Germany, China and all the other economic heavy weights of the technologically and economically advanced nations, (who have the nerves to arrogate onto themselves  the big men’s name  of  “The G20″),  are matched against the economic light weights of the developing countries of the third world.  Even though the analogy drawn between international trade and boxing is not perfect, it helps in some way to bring into focus the grotesquely unjust circumstances of globalisation as it relates to economic pursuits.

*THE EXISTENCE OF THIS KIND OF ‘MISMATCH’ MAKES THE CONCEPT OF GLOBALISATION AS APPLIED TO ECONOMIC PURSUITS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR, CONCEPTUALLY LUDICROUS, ECONOMICALLY IMPAIRED, MORALLY CORRUPT AND POLITICALLY SHAMEFUL.

Another grey area that raises concern is how the rules of globalisation and international trade are set. WHO decides WHAT and FOR WHOM?  For example, can and should institutions and groups like the IMF, the Word Bank, The G20 or the EU have the right to make international economic rules that affect countries that are not members of those institutions or groups?  Based on the surface of the question, one is tempted to answer ‘no’,  but, in reality, institutions like the IMF or the World Bank and groups like The G20 or the EU can, and do, make international economic rules that can apply to countries that are not members of those institutions or groups. Both the IMF and the world bank, though international in their operations, are owned and controlled by the rich countries and not by the world or the UNO.  If these twin institutions and groups like the G20 and the EU can do this, then how justified is the concept of globalisation as it relates to economic pursuits?  As a result of this situation, the rich countries of the world, who also happen to own and control the IMF and the World Bank, can export their goods and services freely to all parts of the world but the poor countries of the third world tend to find themselves restricted by the rules set by those privileged institutions and groups of the rich nations.  For example, while travellers or traders from the rich countries  can always carry along, or export, to almost all countries all goods produced and used by rich countries including their basic food items and even basics like toilet rolls, travellers or traders from poor countries of the third world cannot, (without risking confiscation at the point of arrival), carry along, or export, basic goods produced and used by them in their countries but which are not used by the rich countries, such as the staple food used by poor countries.

*WHY SHOULD THERE EXIST TWO SEPARATE RULES IN GLOBALISATION THAT AFFECT TWO MEMBERS OF THE SAME ECONOMIC FAMILY DIFFERENTLY?

A final grey area of globalisation and international trade that raises breathtaking questions and undermines our faith is how human resources feature in the application of those concepts.  Economic goods and services, other than human services, can move freely throughout the world. The most vital component of any economic endeavour, the human resource factor, otherwise called labour,  and especially the part of it that people refer to as “unskilled labour” that tends to move from poorer to richer countries,  is however NOT freely mobile under globalisation and its associated international trade.  One clear principle on which globalisation and international trade are based, as championed by the West under their capitalist and liberal ideology, is the principle of free trade or the removal of protectionism.  Despite that fact, what do we see when it comes to migrant labour, or what Western countries have recently come to refer to as “economic migrants”?  Here we see that the West that champion the ideas of globalisation, free trade and the removal of protectionism are the same countries that have taken the centre-stage in outlawing the free movement of the so-called “economic migrants” from poorer countries to richer nations.  There is no better way to paraphrase this ambivalence in the application of globalisation to economic pursuits than to quote the British Prime Minister, Mr Gordon Brown, who is one of the greatest champions of free trade, but who, nonetheless, soon after he assumed office, publicly declared: “BRITISH JOBS FOR BRITISH PEOPLE”. This phrase and the philosophy it embodies were eloquently echoed and amplified recently, (rightly or wrongly), by the striking workers of the Lincolnshire Oil Refinery in Britain.  Even though the British Prime Minister has, since the workers’ demonstration, come out to explain what he meant, in an effort to repair the damage it has done to his integrity,  the phrase with the message it ordinarily portrays, can be borrowed and used to remind the world that the concept of globalisation as it concerns economics is not only hypocritical, but is also ill-conceived and ill-applied.

*IF ECONOMIC MIGRANTS CANNOT BE PART OF THE FREE TRADE IDEA WHICH IS EMBODIED IN GLOBALISATION, AS IT APPLIES TO ECONOMIC PURSUITS, THEN BOTH THE CONCEPT AND THOSE WHO PROPAGATE IT SUFFER FROM A ’PICK AND CHOOSE SYNDROME’ THAT ALLOWS SOME TO PICK WHAT RULES TO CHOOSE AND WHEN TO APPLY THOSE RULES TO WHICH GROUP OF PARTICIPANTS.

IN SUMMARY, IN THE WELL-GLOSSED SHOWROOM OF GLOBALISATION AS IT APPLIES TO ECONOMICS, THERE IS AN AWFUL SCENARIO THAT IS WAITING TO BE SORTED OUT BEFORE THE CONCEPT WILL PASS THE TEST OF FAIRNESS AND JUSTIFICATION THAT IS UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTABLE.  AS THINGS STAND NOW, THE BEST WAY TO DESCRIBE GLOBALISATION AS IT IS APPLIED TO ECONOMICS IS: “EBI TE YIE; EBI NSO NNTE YIE KORAA !”,  TO BORROW THE WORDS OF A GHANAIAN MUSICIAN, -  WORDS THAT, LITERALLY TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH, MEAN: “SOME ARE VERY ADVANTAGEOUSLY PLACED WHILE OTHERS ARE NOT WELL PLACED AT ALL !”.  IN SPITE OF THIS FACT, WHEN IT COMES TO COUNTING THE COSTS FROM THE FALLOUTS OF GLOBALISATION,  IT IS THOSE WHO ARE NOT WELL PLACED,  (POOR COUNTRIES),  WHO FEEL THE ’PAIN’ MORE.  THE LOSS OF A POOR MAN’S DOLLAR IS MORE PAINFUL TO HIM THAN THE LOSS OF ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS TO A RICH MAN.  TILL THE UNITED NATIONS ORGANISATION IS REFORMED AND EMPOWERED TO DEAL WITH GLOBAL ECONOMIC ISSUES, THE PROBLEMS RAISED BY GLOBALISATION AS IT AFFECTS ECONOMIC PURSUITS WILL CONTINUE TO PERSIST AND BE PAINFUL, HURTING POORER NATIONS MORE THAN THE RICHER COUNTRIES.  SOUND-SILLY-TALK, IN PAST ARTICLES, HAS  RAISED THE NEED FOR OUR WORLD LEADERS TO SET UP A PERMANENT ECONOMIC COUNCIL OR COMMISSION UNDER ONE OF THE ARMS OF THE UNO TO DEAL WITH GLOBAL ECONOMIC ISSUES AND PROBLEMS OVER AND ABOVE INDIVIDUAL NATIONS AND REGIONAL OR OTHER ECONOMIC GROUPINGS.

*IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT, DURING THE RECENT ECONOMIC FORUM IN SWITZERLAND, THE GERMAN CHANCELLOR ADDED HER POWERFUL VOICE TO THIS CALL BY SOUND-SILLY-TALK.  THE WORLD MUST OPEN ITS EYES WIDE AND SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING AND, THEN, PAY HEED TO THIS CALL SOONER THAN LATER.

Well, as for me I talk my mind. Hopefully, pressure will come from more powerful voices like that of the German Chancellor to bear on our world leaders; and let it be hoped that they will pay heed one day in the near future. Meanwhile, why don’t you join in expressing your view through this medium, - that being one way through which you can make your voice heard.  Sound-Silly-Talk prohibits  the use of directly offensive and/or libellous language at its site, though.

History was made in America on 20^th January 2009 with the inauguration of Mr Barack H. Obama, the son of a Kenyan student immigrant in America, as the 44^th President of the United States of America and the first Black-American to occupy that position.

Where else could such history be made, except in America; and who else could make such history, except a person who has “the audacity of hope” implanted in his blood. So both America and President Obama have made history. To Africans, however, it is the historic part played by the first Black-American that is iconic and which resonates with our own situation. President Obama’s second book, “THE AUDACITY OF HOPE”, epitomises his dreams and the spirit and lofty ideals through which those dreams were nurtured and concretised into the vision that took him to the White House.

What connects the African situation with Mr Obama’s situation is not his African blood but his ‘African spirit’ which his second book eloquently captures through its title and content namely: ‘THE STRENGTH FROM HOPE’. What keeps Africans going, despite our extreme melancholic situation, is the African spirit that enjoins us always to ‘go on with hope’. We don’t rhetorically say it; but our perseverance and resilience mutely say just that: “Go on with Hope!”

But then, why has ‘our audacity of hope’ failed to change Africa in the way that Mr Obama’s ‘audacity of hope’ has brought ‘change’ to America? Are Africans born to endure hardship and pain without the will for change? Certainly, no. And every African will tell you this. Africans want change. We are all yearning for it wherever we are; whether we are in Zimbabwe or whether in Ghana, we yearn for change. Change is badly needed everywhere on the continent…..change against bad and greedy leaders; change against corruption and ‘get-rich-quick’ attitude; and change against all other things that have connived to make Africa the ‘beggar continent’.

Change does not come from the top; it comes from the bottom. This is one fact we need to grasp. Change will always be resisted by the ‘status quo’ that benefit from ‘the old ways’ of doing things. This is another fact about change which we need also to remember. Change is sometimes long expected and when it comes finally, it fails to excite. Change may be sudden and unexpected and when this kind of change occurs, it is exalted. Then may come a change that follows a planned routine and which, therefore, becomes timed and synthesised. SO, WHEN AND HOW WILL CHANGE COME TO AFRICA?

Change certainly will come to Africa and it will start somewhere, not by revolution, but by concerted mass efforts towards it. If in the twenty-first century, an African leader can refer to his country as his own and rule it as he pleases, just as a colonial governor once boasted and did in Central Africa, then change will certainly come. If at a time of extreme global economic downturn, an African government can approve of a package of benefits that includes SIX CARS for each of its EX-PRESIDENTS, then change will certainly come. If Africa has no less than three big oil producing countries within its geographical domain and yet the continent staggers with extreme poverty, then change will certainly come. Truly, change will come to Africa. What Africa is waiting for is an ‘African Obama’ with an ‘Obamaian dream’ that seeks to mobilise people to believe in change and to get them to work with him to bring the change that all believe in.

The ‘Obamaian strategy’ depended on, and used, the broad masses and that accounted for its effectiveness. The strategy also embraced the spirit of community service and this is illustrated by President Obama’s record of community services in Illinois before his Senatorial work. It is also strongly testified by his involvement in community work at a school on the eve of his inauguration that coincided with Dr Martin Luther King’s public holiday. The combination of ‘the spirit of community service’ and ‘identification with the grass-root population’ makes the ‘Obamaian strategy’ of turning a dream into reality a sine qua non for political success in Africa, in particular, where the prevailing general poverty makes the two ingredients uniquely essential.

The iconic importance of President Obama to Africa is that he is going to provide Africans with the special ‘Obamaian pillow’ on which Africans with desire for change will need to sleep to dream the ‘Obamaian dream for change ’ on a continent where change has become as illusive as a mirage in the middle of the Saharan desert.

As usual, I talk my mind and do believe that this particular mind game will catch on and infuse passion and response in a way that will benefit Africa. I call on Africans everywhere to get involved in the search for change in Africa so that our children and our children’s children will tomorrow not go through what we are going through today. Do, please, use this medium to express your opinion; but, please, do  avoid using any libellous and directly offensive language.

There is only one way you can describe it. Only one way captures the full imagery and sums up the story in its entirety: ‘AMERICA HAS COME OF AGE’. Well done, America!  I believe that the rest of the world will learn from you.

Those who lived to see it call it “something they never dreamt could happen in their life time”. Those who are dead and could not witness it must be wondering in their graves and asking: “how could it happen?” How could it happen indeed? Unbelievable! But it has happened. At the time of the euphoria and disbelief, one great American witness described the whole story and drama in four phrases: “the courting, the engagement, the wedding and the marriage”. That was how Rev. Jesse Jackson, the veteran American civil rights leader and politician, described President Barrack Obama’s journey to the White House.

Certainly President Obama courted the love and trust of Americans. He engaged their attention to his dream of a new America. He got Americans to accept him as their man to bring about the dream of the new America. And finally, he is faced with the task of realising this dream of ‘A NEW AMERICA’ …. ‘the dream of creating an America that will be seen and accepted as having changed from the old ways of doing things to new ways of doing things’ . The task of change will have two phases….. the home phase and the foreign phase. The home phase will be judged by Americans. But the foreign phase will be judged by the world at large with its fruits enjoyed by Americans both at home and abroad. It is when this task is executed and executed well that Americans and the rest of the world will say INDEED AMERICA HAS CHANGED AND CHANGED FOR THE BETTER.

Sound-Silly-Talk is more concerned with how President Obama will change America in the eyes of the rest of the world. How will American foreign policy change and change for the better under his new administration? This question is what the world is asking, and to which it is demanding practical answers from the 44^th President of America. To answer this question President Obama will have to be mindful of the ‘old ways ’ through which yesterday’s America conducted itself in the world. Those ‘old ways’ included the following which created more enemies for America than friends.

AMERICA , LIKE RUSSIA, LOVED TO PROJECT ITSELF IN THE WORLD AS A ‘MILITARY SUPER-POWER’ . If the new Obama administration wants to be seen to have changed American foreign policy, then his new AMERICA SHOULD ONLY PROJECT ITSELF AS FIRST AMONG EQUALS IN ITS FOREIGN POLICY PURSUITS AND ‘FORCE’ RUSSIA TO CHANGE THROUGH PRACTICAL DEMONSTRATION OF RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR. The world recognises America as its leader because of America’s economic and financial strength, but not as a result of its ‘military strength’. This means America should stop throwing its military weight about and, instead, use its leadership position to engage other foreign powers in the West and East on matters that concern the security and wellbeing of the world as a whole, such as terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Of course America, like all other nations, has a right to build and strengthen its military defence machinery, but this right does not allow it to show its military strength by taking unilateral actions on behalf of a world of which it is only one member among several others of equal international jurisdiction.

AMERICA , AS LEADER OF THE WORLD BY VIRTUE OF ITS ECONOMIC AND FINANACIAL STRENGTH, FAILED TO PLAY ITS PROPER AND FAIR LEADERSHIP ROLE IN THE WORLD . This failure is evident in America’s unqualified support for Israel in the latter’s conflict with its Palestinian neighbours. WHILE AMERICA LOVED TO BE SEEN TO BE PLAYING THE ROLE OF A PEACE-BROKER IN THE MIDDLE EAST, IT FAILED TO POSITION ITSELF AS A NEUTRAL COUNTRY. It is this mistake made by various American governments that pushed majority of Arabs and Arab nations to ‘hate’ America and Americans and further gave birth to the new form of terrorists who were prepared to destroy America and Americans by any means including suicide- bombing. Sound-Silly-Talk does not back the ‘culture of hate’ in any form. It also supports the right of Israel to exist as a nation, in the same way as it supports the right of Palestinians to have their own home state. What Sound-Silly-Talk does not support is America’s open backing of Israel in a conflict in which the world’s leading nation is playing the role of a mediator . THE NEW OBAMA ADMINISTRATION MUST RE-POSITION ITSELF TO PLAY THE PROPER ROLE OF A MEDIATOR. TO DO THIS THE NEW ADMINISTRATION MUST STOP BACKING ISRAEL IN THE CONFLICT AND START TO CALL A SPADE A SPADE IN ITS DEALINGS WITH THE TWO SIDES IN THE CONFLICT.

AMERICA , AS CHAMPION OF DEMOCRACY, FAILED TO CHAMPION THE COURSE OF DEMOCRAY . There are two ways America failed to champion the course of democracy. Firstly, America used the Security Council veto it had to obstruct many resolutions that the rest of the Council members wanted to pass. As a country that prides itself as the champion of democracy, America should have been the first country to criticise the use of the veto power. But America, like all the other five permanent members of the Security Council, rather used the veto to get whatever it always wanted without considering the majority wishes. Secondly, America tried at all times to force the rest of the world to do what it wanted or valued only, disregarding what others wanted or valued. Thus, America always worked against nations that held different ideological beliefs and ideas. This is undemocratic. The principles of democracy recognise the right of people to choose and hold beliefs and ideas they prefer as long as those are within national and international laws. America has a right to promote its ideas and beliefs, but it has no right to expect all others to follow its ideas and beliefs. IF AMERICA WANTS TO BE SEEN AS THE CHAMPION OF DEMOCRACY, THEN IT MUST GIVE UP THE VETO IT HOLDS AT THE SECURITY COUNCIL AND CONVINCE THE OTHER FOUR MEMBERS TO GIVE UP THEIRS TOO, TO ALLOW THE DECISIONS OF THE COUNCIL TO BE MADE BY MAJORITY WISHES, WHICH IS WHAT DEMOCRACY IS ABOUT. SECONDLY, AMERICA SHOULD CHAMPION THE COURSE OF DEMOCRACY BY DEMONSTRATION, PERSUASION AND CONVICTION WHICH HAVE THE EFFECT OF DRAWING PEOPLE TO ONES COURSE, AND NOT BY ‘FORCE’ AS THE ‘CHAMPION OF DEMOCRACY’ OFTEN DID, CONTRARY TO DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES.

Meanwhile though, I take this opportunity to wish the new American administration Good Luck. The whole world is behind the new administration and waits for its sound and able global leadership in a world faced with an economic downturn never before witnessed since the great depression.

Echoes from demonstrations and cries seen and heard in many Western cities all over the world are heard chanting one slogan: STOP THE WAR ; a slogan demanding an immediate cessation of the war in Gaza .

We have seen and heard such demonstrations and cries several times in the past whenever unpopular or senseless wars break out anywhere in the world. The question as to whether these public reactions work or not is another matter that requires individual judgement. One thing is clear though, and this is the fact that these reactions tend to be sporadic, piecemeal and inconsistent in nature and, therefore, are like tornadoes and monsoon winds that blow and pass in their ferocity but soon become forgotten. We demonstrate and cry for a day or a week against a war that we disapprove of. Then we retire. Meanwhile the war goes on from day to day and year to year, occasionally subsiding and occasionally resurrecting, but never ending. Hundreds and thousands of people die and greater numbers than those get wounded and maimed.

Do demonstrations and cries against wars hit the roots? But who said that hitting the roots is the reason for demonstrations and cries against wars? No, they are not. DEMONSTRATIONS AND CRIES AGAINST WARS SIMPLY DEMAND THAT COMBAT ACTIONS BE BROUGHT TO AN END AND BE REPLACED BY PEACEFUL WAYS OF RESOLVING CONFLICTS THROUGH DIPLOMACY AND DIALOGUE.

There is no conflict without cause, just as there is no smoke without fire. We all agree; there is no doubt about that. Where doubt arises is the wisdom in human preference for guns and bombs to resolve conflicts instead of diplomacy and dialogue. Why should human beings, with our superior brains, rely on physical strength such as military supremacy to settle disputes among ourselves in just the same way that animals use their horns, teeth, claws or stings to settle scores among themselves? Are human beings not better than animals? Have human beings now placed more faith in the products of their brains, namely guns and bombs, than in the brains themselves that created those weapons? The primitive man of pre-historic times, we may presume with a fair degree of certainty, would employ his intellect to settle a dispute with his neighbour before resorting to a fight if dialogue failed.

The journey from primitiveness to civilisation has had numerous sideways including the creation of leaders whose mad love for ‘power’ blinds them and pushes them always along the dangerous path of destruction through the use of combat actions to resolve disputes with their fellow human beings. Fortunately, as many bad leaders that there are in the world, there are equal, or more, numbers of good peoples around them. It is to these good peoples of the world that Sound-Silly-Talk is directing, through this article, its humble appeal.

THE HUMBLE APPEAL IS: ALL PEOPLES OF THE WORLD MUST NOW SEEK PEACEFUL WAYS TO RESOLVE HUMAN CONFLICTS AND AVOID WARS . THIS APPEAL GOES TO THE GOOD PEOPLES OF AMERICA , RUSSIA , BRITAIN , ISRAEL , IRAN , SYRIA , LIBYA AND NORTH KOREA , IN PARTICULAR, AMONG NATIONS; AND TO MILITANT GROUPS ESPECIALLY LIKE HAMAS, HEZBOLLAH, FATAH, TALIBAN AND AL QAEDA.

If the leaders of the countries and militant groups above, in particular, would change and move away from combatant and terrorist actions and decide to sit down with those they oppose or those with whom they have disputes, there would be peace in the world.

THE IDEA OF DEFINING WORLD ‘SUPER-POWER’ IN TERMS OF MILITARY STRENGTH SHOULD ALSO GIVE WAY TO A NEW DEFINITION THAT SEES AND RECOGNISES ‘SUPER-POWER’ IN RELATION TO A COUNTRY’S SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND STRENGTH. WE MUST, THEREFORE, BEGIN TO SEE TODAY’S JAPAN AS MORE OF A ‘SUPER-POWER’ THAN RUSSIA , DESPITE THE LATTER’S IMMENSE MILITARY STRENGTH. IT IS WHEN THE WORLD BEGINS TO RE-ASSESS ITS PREFERENCES AND ASSIGN MORE WEIGHT TO THE PRODUCTION AND POSSESSION OF CIVILIAN GOODS AND SERVICES, AS OPPOSED TO MILITARY GOODS AND SERVICES, THAT LEADERS AND NATIONS THAT ENGAGE IN MILITARISM WILL THINK TWICE AND ACT IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION .

Well, as usual, I talk my mind and do expect you, also, to talk your mind. We all must express our views on vital global issues, such as the killing and maiming going on in Gaza and Israel by the two sides namely Hamas and the Israeli government, two sides whose expressed arguments and reasons for continuing in combat action are hardly comprehensible to independent observers all over the world. We all might not be able to demonstrate and cry on the streets against the war, but we can write and express our opinions and, thereby, join others who are calling for the ending of this war among ‘flesh and blood’ from one ancestry. Please do talk your mind through this medium by commenting. You are advised, though, to avoid using libellous slang of any kind.

This is one conflict that poses many questions that beat the understanding of people like me who attended third-class schools and are, therefore, incapable of understanding so many things that other people understand. Some of these questions are:

1.      Why is it that almost all Arab countries are backing Hamas and the Palestinians in the current war, just as they have done in all other phases of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

2.      Why is it that America, (the government, of course), is always backing Israel, including now?

3.      Have we, as human beings, lost our senses of impartial judgement?

4.      Why does Hamas fire missiles to Israel when it knows that the missiles cannot do as much damage to Israel as the kind of actions that Israel can take against it in retaliation and, thus, creating the situation where one Hamas ‘slap’ leads to hundred Israeli ‘slaps’?

5.      Why does Israel feel always that it must respond to the provocations of Hamas and other extremist groups in the Middle East that are against it when  Israel knows that such responses from it would always hand ‘propaganda victory’ to such extremist groups because of the disproportionate but ‘inevitable’ strength of its reactions?

6.      Why can’t all Arab countries recognise the right of Israel to exist as a nation and as a neighbour among them?

7.      Why can’t Israel leave all lands it captured from the Arabs in the six days war of 1967 and work towards achieving ‘security-guaranteed’ peaceful coexistence with its Arab neighbours?

8.      Why can’t Israelis and Palestinians end THE FIGHTING THAT NO SIDE CAN WIN MILITARILY and SIT DOWN AND ‘TALK PEACE’, when Israel knows that its neighbours do not engage in conventional warfare that is winnable by conventional military efforts and when, also, Palestinians know that they cannot win a war against the military might of Israel by using crude missiles, light artillery, stones and suicide-bombing?

          These are questions that look easy to answer on the surface; but they are indeed puzzles that have for a long time defied answers by any conventional logic. Year after year, since 1967 and even long before then from 1948, Israel and its Arab neighbours have lived as ‘enemies’ and have killed each other’s citizens as if neither side believes in the sanctity of human life.

My Humble Appeal:

          *America under President Obama, please, adopt a more neutral position and help resolve this long problem once and for all. Though it is a fact, it is hard to say that 9-11 has its origin in the belief among Arab countries that it is America’s ‘unqualified backing’ of Israel that has made the Israeli-Palestinian problem unsolvable. AMERICA MUST REPOSITION ITSELF PROPERLY SO AS TO BE SEEN TO BE AN IMPARTIAL MEDIATOR. 

          *The UNO, the EU and all other major non-Arab countries such as Russia and China must also help in any diplomatic way available to them  to bring this conundrum to an end. THE WORLD HAS REMAINED PASSIVE FOR A LONG TIME AND ALLOWED THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT TO LINGER ON FOR YEARS. The world only acts when the conflict re-erupts and escalates. As soon as hostilities come down the world relaxes. This ad-hoc and piecemeal approach should cease and give way to a consistent global approach towards finding a permanent solution to this sixty-year old modern Middle East conflict. 

          *Arab countries, moderates and extremists alike, must also change their position and move towards the full recognition of Israel’s right to exist as a nation and from there sit down with it to resolve other problems including any Arab lands that Israel took during the six-days war. THE NEW STATE OF ISRAEL HAS ALREADY BEEN CREATED (through no fault of Israel) AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ISRAEL TO ‘VANISH’ FROM THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH. ARABS MUST, THEREFORE, LEARN TO LIVE WITH THIS FACT AND FIND THE BEST WAY TO LIVE SIDE BY SIDE WITH THEIR HISTORICAL ‘FLESH AND BLOOD’ NEIGHBOUR, ISRAEL, WITH WHOM THEY ARE BELIEVED TO HAVE THE COMMON ANCESTRY OF ‘PATRIARCH’ ABRAHAM.

          *Israel too must understand that before 1967, there was a part of the Middle East that the rest of the world outside the Middle East recognised as Israeli territory. Israel must be prepared now to move its territorial boundary to that of 1967 and from there for it to sit down with its Arab neighbours to resolve peacefully any other issues. ISRAEL CANNOT HOLD ON TO ANY PART OF PALESTINIAN LAND IT CAPTURED IN THE 1967 WAR AND EXPECT THAT THE PALESTINIANS AND ARABS WILL KEEP QUIET AND DO NOTHING. One thing that has become clear from the past decade or more is that when people’s frustration rises beyond the level of endurance, they go to all lengths to show this and the way they show it may include doing what ‘ordinary people’, like you and I, may regard as ‘madness’… such as suicide-bombing which no ‘intelligence network’ can easily anticipate.

          IN CONCLUSION, SOUND-SILLY-TALK FEELS THAT THE POSITIONS ADOPTED ALL THE TIME BY THE TWO PARTIES IN CONFLICT, BY AMERICA AND BY THE REST OF THE WORLD, MAY APPEAR ‘SOUND’ TO THEM AND ALL OF US, BUT THERE COMES MOMENTS IN TIME WHEN ‘SOUND’ BELIEFS BEGIN TO SOUND LESS ‘SOUND’ THAN BEFORE AND THOSE ARE MOMENTS WHEN SUCH BELIEFS ARE SEEN TO HAVE BEEN PUSHED TOO FAR FOR TOO LONG WITHOUT DISCERNIBLE POSITIVE RESULTS. WHEN SUCH MOMENTS ARRIVE, THEN THE TIME FOR CHANGE BECOMES DUE.

          Well, as usual, I talk my mind and invite readers of this article to join me and talk their minds. We have all, in one way or the other, become potential victims of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Most acts of terrorism that have become rampant in the world today have their origin in the frustration arising from this conflict. We no longer must sit aloof and allow the conflict to linger on and on, thinking that it is far away from our doors. Talk your mind, even if you think you are outside the circle of influence. When all of us talk, those who can bring change may hear the noise and echoes we generate. Use this platform to express your feelings. Avoid using any libellous slang, though.         

The year 2009 has begun with tough challenges for the world. The global economic downturn that characterised 2008 is still biting as hard as before. Compounding this economic debacle, is the on-going Israeli-Palestinian/Hamas conflict that is claiming several victims every new day since it re-erupted less than a week ago. We all know how and when it started, but nobody knows how and when it will end. It is a conflict that has its modern genesis dating from 1948 but a historical origin going beyond centuries, according to beliefs held by some religious people. Also, it is a conflict that has divided the world into two and has accounted for the extreme hatred of America and Americans by approximately one half of the world. It is a conflict whose solution has eluded all American leaders since the new State of Israel was created in 1948. But it is one that can only be solved with America’s involvement. Without doubt, the Israeli-Palestinian problem will become President Obama’s biggest headache and the one that will determine the success or failure of his foreign policy.

          It is interesting to note that the President-elect said in his electioneering campaign that he would tackle the Israeli-Palestinian problem from day one of his administration. He could not have been more prophetic in foretelling what urgent job would lie ahead of his new administration from the very day of his assumption of office. The new President has without doubt equipped himself with the best foreign and defence teams that can possibly be assembled. He has also taken the right decision, even before he had assumed office, by saying his administration will deal with all relevant parties in the Middle East including those that others classify as “rogues” and “extremists”.

          NO ONE CAN SOLVE A PROBLEM BY LEAVING OUT FROM THE SOLUTION PROCESS THE ‘MAIN SOURCE’ OF THE PROBLEM. THE FAILURE OF AMERICA AND ISRAEL TO DEAL WITH THE SO-CALLED ‘TERRORISTS’ IS THE MAIN CAUSE FOR THEIR FAILURE TO HAVE A SOLUTION TO THIS PROTRACTED MIDDLE-EAST PROBLEM UP TO THIS DAY.

          AN IMPORTANT ADVICE THAT SOUND-SILLY-TALK WANTS TO GIVE TO THE NEW PRESIDENT IS THAT AMERICA SHOULD STOP USING ITS ‘VETO POWER’ TO OBSTRUCT SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS CONCERNING THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT.

          There are so many other ways through which America can show its love and support for its ‘friend’. It is the way America has in the past used its ‘Veto Power’ to obstruct UN resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian problem that has made it so unpopular in the Arab world and elsewhere. IF AMERICA WANTS TO PLAY THE ROLE OF A RESPECTABLE ‘PEACE-BROKER’ BETWEEN ISRAEL AND ITS NEIGHBOURS, ESPECIALLY THE PALESTINIANS AND HELP SOLVE THIS CONFLICT, THEN IT MUST STOP BACKING ISRAEL AND POSITION ITSELF TO PLAY THE PROPER ROLE OF A NEUTRAL MEDIATOR.

          This is the best advice that Sound-Silly-Talk can give the new American administration led by President Obama. It is hoped that the new President will heed this advice and create the right atmosphere that can bring to an end this sixty-year old conflict. THIS IS AN ADVICE FOR A CHANGE THAT THE NEW PRESIDENT CAN BELIEVE IN !

          Well, as you will expect, I end this piece by saying  as I say usually:  I talk my mind.  You too can talk your mind through this medium by commenting and expressing your opinion on the on-going Israeli-Hamas fire exchanges or about any other issue that concerns any of my articles at this website. You are advised, though, to refrain from using any libellous slang.