Substancial patience: locked up money

Substancial patience: locked up money: "Throughout the last months one could read about all of the money that belongs to several leaders in north africa and the middle-east and tha..."

locked up money

Throughout the last months one could read about all of the money that belongs to several leaders in north africa and the middle-east and that has been locked up by many banks all over the world. We are not talking about a couple of million dollars but billions of dollars that has been locked up on accounts in both EU, Swiss  and American banks and which amounts now are rising thanks to interest upcoming from those sums. As the money is locked on ordinary personal accounts (and some company accounts) the banks, of course, have the liberty to use the money in their behalf. They can use it to make financial transactions and to give out loans to other customers i.e. private persons, companies and countries.

For a very long time I was wondering how the World bank has the possibility to lend mutli  billion dollar loans to countries as such Greece, Ireland and Portugal. A very new theory growing in my head is that this money, that has been locked up for an unlimited time, is free to move within the banking sphere. I mean, at the end, it is always just figures in the banks' financial statements that limits their possibilities. Who will then be able to follow up where the money comes from? Who will be able to check if some of the money does not origin from locked up money from dictators, military regims and corresponding sources? Who will be able to rule out loans that will make European countries survive just because it is coming from countries that Europe right now tries to liberate?

This could be seen as another reason pushing west world countries to engage into military action. I suppose, and please correct me if I am wrong, that this wealth, coming from both Ghaddafi and Mubarrak and even several other African leaders, is a big help in European financial planning.

At the same time, world banks should be happy, to be able to work with this amount of money without fearing to be forced to pay off or to transfer it to any other financial institution. I understand that my hopes, to use the money to spread to the poor people in those countries, is not possible as it is defined as personal assets, but is it right that those banks are allowed to use it for their own benefit?

Substancial patience: Antisemistism - or not

Substancial patience: Antisemistism - or not: "It took me a while to understand and to swollow the words Obama Barack, president of the USA, uttered in his speech yesterday. Just one day ..."

Antisemistism - or not

It took me a while to understand and to swollow the words Obama Barack, president of the USA, uttered in his speech yesterday. Just one day before the meeting with Israelian prime-minister Netanyahu. He declares that he will support Egypt financially, that he supports 1967 borders for Israel and that he demands the negotiations in Syria.

Many tough words for leaders all over the middle-east. Surprisingly tough, and so are the reactions. Someone once said: who is not with me, is against me, and this could be the summary of multiple reactions all over the world. i scanned several bloggs and newspapers and came to the insight that there occur two different stands: positive, the once supporting Obama and angry once...

The thing that actually is disturbing me, touching my very need for democracy and liberty of speech, are the reaction saying that Obama in his speech shows that he is a muslim and a anti-semitist. PLEASE, is really everyone who makes a statement about Israel's territorial behaviour an anti-semitist? Anti-semitism is by definition hatred against jews. Is the demand for 1967 year's borders showing any hatred against jews? Or is it just a way to find acceptance for some peace between Palestine and Israel.

The once  who have read some political and historical publications know that the territorial demands of Jews actually is called sionism. and in my believe sionism is today far away from its origin as possible. When sionistic movement started in the late 1900th century it was a demand for a jewish state where jews would be protected from repression and tyranny. It was said that the world would be free if jews became free ("Der Judenstaat" by Herzl). As I can see it, Isarel put itself into a corner by demanding new settlements and by fighting Palestine and the rest of the arab world. This way Israel will never become free and the sionistic movement will not succeed.

But: we still have the question: was Obama's speech anti-semitistic. Well, he actually did not say anything against jews or the jewish religion, so this statement is not applicable. Anti-sionistic then? No, I do not think so. By definition sionists are looking for freedom. Freedom should even include peace with its neighbour-countries and this will only be possible if all of the countries involved can step back and make some sacrifice.

Summarised one just can say: the people stating that Obama is against jews are just afraid to loose political power and US military forces. This is not a question of ideologi but a question of will and needs to make peace after so many years.

Substancial patience: Movement towards democracy...or...

Substancial patience: Movement towards democracy...or...: "Still demonstrations in Syria are ongoing. The heat is growing, both in air and in politics and people are suffering. The wave of protestant..."

Movement towards democracy...or...

Still demonstrations in Syria are ongoing. The heat is growing, both in air and in politics and people are suffering. The wave of protestants that started in northern africa a couple of months ago seem to be never ending ín arabic-speeking countries. The big difference is the reaction of the rest of the world. In countries such as Egypt, military forces against the protestants was minor, people did not get hurt during the demonstrations. But please observe that now, that the country is lead by military forces, opposition is taken care of and is being imprisoned. The government watches videos from the spring demonstrations and takes care of the "problem". ... and the world is silent.

Then there is Libya. Libyan president Ghaddafi soon experienced the harch reaction of the world. Now, UN is discussing how the libyan civil war  i effecting the world outside. First: I do not think that this is a civil war anymore as several countries now are engaged into this war and a civil war by definition can only be performed between people in their own country. So, we are talking about an ordinary war now as UN airforce has bombed targets in Libya and even killed one of Ghaddafi's sons and wounded him. The UN operation that from the beginning was supposed to help opponent rebels, now started its own life and has been introduced into a full-scale war. This is why I even understand Swedish Socialparty leader who says that the Swedish participation should end after the planned period. If Swedish airforce continues its UN operations, it will be difficult to avoid militant war actions. Then that is the question: does Sweden really want to be engaged into a multi-national war?

The latest of all conquests are the happenings in Syria. The militant actions of Syrian president Bashar Al Assad can easily be compared with Ghaddafis actions. Still, UN is waiting. Many writers, bloggers, newspapers are talking about UNs wish to support "the devil you know" instead of not knowing which devil that will follow...  Thing is, what happens if Syrians regim cannot subpress demonstrations by oldfashioned scare-tactics and militant interactions? I cannot see that a democratic leadership will follow as long as the President does not imply democratic movement at first. ..before he quits.

The problem is that the president does not hold all the strains of leadership in his hands. There are several clans and families that have strong political power and who are scared to loose this power if the president resigns. Moreover, the only organized group that had a right to exist, is the islamic brotherhood, as Syrian regim did not approve other political parties. So, who is going to have the possibility to run for president in Syria if not the islamic brotherhood? This, in my eyes, forms the worst case scenario as I do not believe in a mixture of religion and politic power. This will not bring the country forward and it will absolutely not stand for the emancipation of women.

So, what is the solution, you might ask. I believe in education, see to it that the Syrian people and its government allows multi-party politics and later on free elections. This will give different groups perspective and the possibility to organize to be capable to partizipate in elections held by i.e. UN.

Substancial patience: All about right timing

Substancial patience: All about right timing: "The world is asking itself a question right now: is he dead or isn't he? You know who I mean! Bin Ladin has kept the world and espescially t..."

All about right timing

The world is asking itself a question right now: is he dead or isn't he? You know who I mean! Bin Ladin has kept the world and espescially the USA imprisoned in a terrified state of mind. The fear for terrorist attacks has been hanging over governments all over the world and the picture of Bin Ladin visualized this fear. Now this fear has been conquered, the devil himself has been brought to an end. United States Navy Seals appeared as both judge, jury and executioner. The world could finally exhale....

Of course, I too believe that every murderer, and Bin Ladin is no exception, should be made accountable for his/ her actions. Of course, there is no doubt that governments all over the world should persecute terrorists and their followers. But: wasn't the timing just right?

I believe that anyone could have guessed that the killing of this very special terrorist leader will lead to brightly red varning lamps regarding new terrorists actions. I initially waited a day to see if my simple guess would be realized, that these news would push aside everything else. And now look what's happening: the newspapers explode of descriptions of terrorist attacks that Bin Ladin has been accused for, we see pictures of 9/11 and the horrible fall of the Twin towers in every news channel no matter if it is American, German, Swedish..... We can read news about possible terrorist attacks, all out of vengeance of course.

And people are scared again.

And scared people do not think about problems in their countries and even less abroad, they do not think about poverty, they do not think about wars in Libya and protests and demonstrations in Syria, Bahrain and Jordan, they do not think about radiation in Japan. Because: at first people want it to be save at home, people want to live their life in peace and without any threats. But now fear has come back again: and so people forget about everything else. They forget about all the problem politicians have, the declining popularity figures of a president who is in desperate need of a success. So what I wonder is: for how long did USA know about Bin Ladins whereabouts? And is it just a random coincidence that he was found right now, when western politicians stand upfront with so much trouble in so many countries and with few possible solutions. Economics, unemployment, war, protests, health insurance, pension plans, taxes, .... the list seems to be indefinite. But the dead of Bin Ladin stopped it all.