• MICROSOFT, YAHOO, and THE REST OF US

As much as the laisser faire concept is attractive in the world of business, and most things human, there are situations that require some analysis from a perspective other than the all consuming kick your ass ego, … or dollar. From India to Cupertino, media and financial players are weighing in on this mammoth deal. Mammoth, because how else do you describe an acquisition this enormous and with such repercussions. Those repercussions are the concern, … for the rest of us.

The monetary value of the transaction is only relevant to Yahoo and Microsoft shareholders who will find themselves deciphering the confusing pros and cons of the upcoming proxy fight. Recriminations have started and will continue until Microsoft gets its way. Some Yahoo shareholders and all its employees are already conflicted with their Silicon Valley we-hate-all-things-Redmond percepts, but employees who rightly fear for their jobs, will not really be included in the circumspect algorithm that consummates the deal. The dollar will rule, and Microsoft can purchase just about anything it wants. IMHO, Jerry Yang and his colleagues appear to be receiving bad advice or are simply listening to the wrong voices in their negotiations with the giant. Current publicly vented recriminations indicate a serious lack of strategic thinking and direction when both are needed against Gates and Balmer, two of the best in business. Remember what they did to IBM?

Yahoo is getting what can only be described as threats from Wall Street experts claiming that if it doesn’t deliver 12 percent or better in its first quarter results, it’s management will have no credibility. This is an inappropriate perspective on credibility. Jerry Yang and David Filo built a great company. Their hired help and board members in recent years have let them down.

Discussions with Time Warner for a merger with AOL will lead nowhere and AOL offerings have shown little if any creativity, or insight into human nature since it’s inception. Numerous countries will also weigh in on the conglomeration including China, whose recently legislated foreign ownership laws will bring scrutiny. They’re already looking at Microsoft sideways which will increase with Yahoo’s 40% stake in the Chinese Alibaba.com e-commerce portal. China will probably have some difficulty given the insurmountable obstacles to the fencing of internet sites and access. Other antitrust clamor is a red herring used as leverage, and Microsoft is well versed in that game.

Limiting the public’s options to Google and Microsoft, beyond any antitrust restrictions, is a stifling prospect. It has been posited that being fed by the Microsoft cash machine will provide Yahoo with endless opportunities for real growth. Such speculation ignores the fact that Yahoo is already a significant company with cash and stock to finance, within reason, anything that it might creatively set out to accomplish. Its bigger challenge over the recent past has been a confusion of what strategies to follow for advancement and innovation.

As Google makes a bee-line for the mobile environment, Yahoo gets entangled in a game that Wall Street has no wherewithal to adroitly consult on. From inside the battle, it has become obvious that this epic battle isn’t about conflict between corporate cultures but is now a destructive collision of egos. The Microsoft offer, currently valued at $42 billion, is more than fair value, and Yang’s focus shouldn’t be on price of the deal, or on hubristic confrontations with Balmer. His attention should be on the nature of the ensuing structure dictating the homogeneity between the two companies in a conglomeration.

We can assume that this discord will undoubtedly conclude as Microsoft wills it, however, the amalgamation does not bode well for the rest of us in World Wide Web Land. As users, observers and enthusiatic stakeholders in the historical collision, we expect development, advancement, and creativity from all players, particularly the large ones. Concentration of control and influence will only reduce the breadth of innovation. Pretending that Yahoo will be encouraged to pursue its dreams and ingenuity independent of Redmond interference is ignoring history and common sense. Microsoft senior management will pull all strings under its control, as it is its right to do. … Wish it weren’t so.

.... Read more!

• POPPY FIELDS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

The beautiful and delicate poppy that now paints the landscapes of Afghanistan with vibrant colors, has long been the symbol for sacrifice. The aesthetic is as soothing to the sense of sight, as it is exasperating to the conscience. Families of soldiers bring home their loved ones in body bags from the despair that has become Afghanistan, and the sacrifice continues, little understood and scarcely appreciated. There is confusion in thought and in perception. Most of all there is turmoil in principles and ethical discomposure of policy. While security concerns have escalated to what should be described as chaos, the West and NATO maintain a public posture of denial, the Taliban controls half the country, and warlords and criminals have a good handle on all of it regardless who they support. Where’s the solution?

We have difficulty fully comprehending the war in Afghanistan since much of the reporting is confusing. The explanations have become too complex to unravel from San Francisco or Toronto, and even Washington and Ottawa have difficulty sorting out the mess. Most challenging is the provision of cohesive responses, military, financial, or otherwise. Indecision is stagnating the military presence and advancing the disintegration of the whole country, while much of it returns to the fanatical grip of the Taliban. The Taliban are now well funded from their share of the country’s principal source of income, as Afghanistan supplies over 90 percent of the world’s opium and over 80% of its heroin. Some estimated $4 billion a year in illegal drugs represent a majority of the $7.5 total GDP. Now that drug lords and terrorists can operate with virtual impunity, what was once a battle against terrorists, has become a war against the poppy, and there is no consensus on strategy.

Afghanistan hovers around the very bottom of the international human development index on measures that include life expectancy, nutrition and literacy. Its population is loyal to tribal elders, religious leaders, or commanders with durable military influence. It is no surprise that President Karzai is dependent on warlords for maintenance of stability, and all levels of the society are financially benefiting from poppy cultivation including the police and Afghan military. NATO forces are principally accused of being interfering non-Muslim foreigners. Farmers, the bottom of the opium production chain, are impoverished and not receiving much benefit from the proceeds. A farmer’s security is expensive and alternative livelihood programs are under-funded. Alternative crops are a vague concept when wheat or corn might only bring $250, while poppies can provide $2,700 for the same acreage, and are less vulnerable to the extremes of cold and heat, or drought.

Most of the money is made further along the delivery network including the huwala (transfer) system. The huwala is the unstructured, unregulated, but well organized and effective bedrock that provides all parties the wherewithal to move cash. Its organization connects to the outside world through cities in neighboring countries for the processing of transactions. Hope being placed on the creation of banking systems that would aspire to control the money laundering, ignores the failures of such regulated organizations in developed countries. For example, in Canada’s British Columbia, marijuana has reportedly become a bigger business than lumber, and yet neither banks nor government revenue agencies are capable of negatively influencing the billion dollar lifestyles of organizations in control of drugs. Financial guidelines and transparency expected from future or re-emerging Afghan banking institutions can be expected to provide about as much potency.

In the chaotic atmosphere of a country relying almost totally on narcotics, warlords are partners on intelligence and are occasionally allies in battles against Al-Qaeda and Taliban insurgents. There is currently no firm policy on the eradication of poppy fields – only of the sporatic damaging of fields. Fear that eradication will drive more of the population toward the Taliban is a very restrictive motivator. There is also apprehension of upsetting the financial foundation of an already unstable country.

Amongst endless scenarios for potential strategies, one has surfaced that may have promise if applied within the context of a broader and substantially decisive strategy. A recent proposal by an organization called Senlis Council claims that eradication has not worked and that the answer lies in licensing Afghan opium cultivation for the production of morphine or codeine. This would provide the country with a legal market for its principal crop. The argument seeks acceptance by pointing to the third world’s shortage of morphine that urgently needs to be filled.

Such proposal could be effective if enough money was found to pay for the potential new source of legal morphine and if all poppy growing operations not signed on to the program by a certain date were eradicated. That is an almost impossible task given the distribution of plantations and lack of security. Not only does the Taliban’s primary source of income have to be eliminated, but all illicit growing operations should be eradicated. The eradication must be complete and without exception, preventing the product of these poppy fields from further destroying lives of millions from New York to Tehran, and eliminating the social and financial grief the drug scatters without prejudice. It is not possible to allow both licit and illicit cultivation, and expect positive results. Afghanistan is a country in urgent need of complete rebuilding. All NATO and Middle Eastern countries should be contributing to the construction of infrastructure for the creation of a viable and a secure sovereign state. Such effort begins with investment in education, and production of goods (start with textiles), and opening doors to some initial markets.

.... Read more!

• WHY FEAR WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ?

Whatever motivated the invasion of Iraq, the consequences now encountered were evidently neither expected in any incarnation, nor planned for. As the status quo is untenable there is urgent need for action. A decision is required. The longer it takes the worse the situation will get for the people of Iraq. Their lives dramatically changed when comprehensive and stifling sanctions were implemented in 1990. Education came to a grinding halt, and it will take years to rebuild the educational infrastructure, which will bring back hope and confidence. In another couple of years a whole generation will have known nothing but war and human misery, and will have had absolutely no serious educational program on which to build careers and reconstruct a country. It is time to give Iraqis their nation back before too few are left to remember that most Shiite, Sunni or Kurd Iraqis described themselves as Iraqis above all else and religious or sectarian group members second.

The Iraqi people, with their different sectarian ancestries had little choice but to succumb to the armed oppression of Hussein, and yet, they managed to co-exist and even to inter-marry. It should above all be remembered that for much of the past century Iraq has been a secular country. The majority of Iraqis are telling the world through their actions and words they cannot accept foreign troops on their soil. Fear should not be a reason to remain.

The phrase “they’ll follow us home” if troops depart, articulates a stimulation of deep seeded fears. Rhetoric appropriately sprinkled with “potentially catastrophic consequences” is also effective. The power of these expressions is that they strike at the core of human anxiety – personal safety and that of home and family. Fear is an effective method of swaying public opinion, but it is also intellectually lazy. It’s design requires little creativity or acumen, and its effective application demands little sweat other than repetition.

Most Muslims in Iraq, are considered mainstream Muslims. Iraqi’s have little in common with al-Qaeda and it’s objectives. If anything, they would probably find very effective ways of overruning the al-Qaeda presence in their country, once allowed to fend for themselves. The al-Qaeda insurgence would be overcome by the Kurds and the Shiites, who represent the vast majority of the Iraqi population and who would probably find support from most Sunnis as well.

The scenarios anticipated in the event of troop withdrawal are as numerous as their authors and as varied as their motives. Saudis would rather have the U.S. remain and bear the brunt of the problem. In the event of a troop redeployment, Saudi Arabia would support the Sunnis, and Iranian support of Shiites would continue. The caveat is that any elevation of sophistication in the nature of the weapons supplied and an elevation in the violence would be tempered by self preservation on the part of those neighbors. Neither would want to foment escalation to levels that might impose incursions on their own territories. Iraq’s neighbors should have greater apprehension for U.S. troops leaving than Americans should.

With this potent leverage, America can galvanize commitment from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and others. These countries can be influenced to establish a peacekeeping military force led by the UN and composed strictly of Arab Muslim soldiers. America can insist on the engagement of organizations currently participating or co-operating around Muslim endeavors including the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). There is an extended list of countries who could complement the assistance, from Indonesia to Pakistan. Iran, a non-Arab country, would not play a role, and would be forced to terminate any support it currently provides to insurgents.

America should make a firm statement providing short notice of its withdrawal, and offer nominal transitional help, such as leaving all non military equipment behind for the Muslim troops to use through their peace keeping and oversight presence. The exit could be executed within a few short months. Some of the countries currently sitting back callously enjoying the sight of America agonizing, can be rapidly pressed into more serious and diligent absorption in the appeasement of regional tension. Such endeavor could invigorate an extension of their cooperative involvement to other fractious corners of the Middle East.

With non-Muslim military presence and all related excuses removed, Iraqis may return to a sense of nationalism, transcending sectarian political control. Iraqis can once again direct their talents to the reconstruction of their country and its restoration to former glory as a crucible of human ingenuity.

.... Read more!

• CHINA AND ITS CONFLICTED MARKETS

Most Western countries are on the brink of making a political, social or other stand on China. There appears to be some wavering for or against presence at the coming Olympics in Beijing. France has publicly stated that it is debating whether or not to go, while other countries are quietly awaiting public sentiment’s sway. The essence of the confusion and collision on positioning is being displayed this week in New Zealand. New Zealand is signing a free trade agreement with China, yet Peter Dunne, one of its Members of Parliament, is refusing to go to Beijing for the upcoming signing ceremony in protest on behalf of Tibetan people. The incomprehensible part, … Dunne supports the agreement. If, through the lens of his principles, he believed that China was in violation of anyone’s rights, why make a deal? That confusion is pervasive across the West. Why is there so much disorientation?

China has seen an unprecedented surge in its industrialization in the compacted cycle of a single generation. Somehow it has found a way to become the source. You want furniture manufactured more cheaply so that you can increase margins? China will build a factory to make it. Need to satisfy your desire for fish to supplement your diet? China will raise them in one of thousands of ponds, as it satisfies 70% of world demand for farmed fish. Your taste buds and gastronomic explorations demand diverse varieties of foods and spices on a regular basis? China will grow them. On occasion, its capacity gets expanded by outsourcing to other Asian countries who welcome the work. While it chokes on the cloud of its own growth, China feeds the European and North American demand for all things material. “But wait. What about it’s suppression of freedom of public demonstration?” “Never mind, we’re not spending $5,000 on a computer, get it made in China and get the price down to under $1,000.” “But China’s rivers are so polluted they are killing farmers who die of cancer from toxin exposure.” “So? They’ll clean it up, now is that 63” flat-screen TV in yet?” Conflicted? We’re all conflicted, including China.

China will succumb to its own public’s pressure for a reduction on the environmental impact of its development. It has no choice. The Chinese population will, in whatever ways it can, appeal for cleaner air and water. Self preservation will lead authorities in Beijing to implement measures and technologies that will bring the answers. The West also has no choice. The current economic downturn in America is conspicuoulsy timely. The lull is forcing some reduction in consumption, and giving the world a moment to recover from the breakneck pace of the recent past. It would be unrealistic to expect standards of living in the West to decrease, however, it is not unrealistic to implement restraint on consumption. Our own air has been patient, but would appreciate the clarity, and China’s rivers would welcome any relief.

So how are we to feel when we watch demonstrations being suppressed in Tibet? Should we be embarrassed into a boycott of the Olympics? Like it or not, Tibet is solidly under China’s control and has been since 1950. This is not about to change.

Is the avalanche of reporting on the demonstrations in Tibet aimed at devising some freedom for Tibetans, or perhaps outright independence? Or is it simply a resenting repercussion against China for its financial success through the past twenty years? Do the Olympics provide a visible platform to take a dig at China’s human rights record? China’s current confidence is hardly flinching in reaction. Some of its spokesmen have gone so far as to threaten Western leaders with unspecified retaliations. They don’t need to be specific, just making them reads well back home. From here however, the threats are reminders that the West has become disquietingly dependent on this new power that it barely understands, … somewhat akin to the uneasy reliance on light sweet crude from the Middle East. Such realizations awaken the mind.

China isn’t to be feared, although the Chinese people should be respected for what they have achieved. Some half billion people in China now enjoy new levels of affluence that our consumption has helped provide, and it is incumbent on the West that dialogue continue in as open and friendly relations as can be stimulated. The people of China have embraced market reforms in their drive to eradicate poverty. Taking confrontational positions only tests pride and stimulates the spread of nationalism and egocentric reactions. That never ends well. The positive trend that has flourished, particularly in the past decade, signals continued interaction, education, and debate enhanced through powerful new tools as the internet. Opened minds and spirits cannot be stifled. The process is irreversible.

China is preparing spectacular ceremonies for the Olympics that will in all likelihood overshadow all the foregoing by some measure. The people of China will demonstrate, as well as showcase the best of the human spirit. These opening and welcoming doors are a long distance and vastly different in disposition from the China of fifty years ago, and the portal will in time lead to an even more open society. Boycotting these Olympics is not a positive statement, nor is it genuine. Attend, watch, and enjoy.

.... Read more!

• GADDAFIAN DISSONANCE IN DAMASCUS

Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi’s clamor at the current Arab League (A.L.) conference in Damascus is notable for a couple of discomforting moments. The oracle of Tripoli has been the A.L.’s comic relief for some years, providing rants and raves that usually stir little consideration. More recently his oil wealth has enabled distribution of sizable investments across the African continent and purchased him an occasional audience. His upbraiding of fellow Arab attendants, this weekend, for their disunity may have rung true, but received bored looks and rolling eyes nonetheless. His additional exhortatory that they all stood to suffer the same fate as Sadam Hussein at the hands of America, returned laughter. Why?

His claims were evidently humorous, but for what reasons? Did his audience not believe America would? Or did they think America couldn’t? Or perhaps they laughed at him thinking, “no way, look at what you got away with.” Gaddafi’s rants become even more humorous, and more disquieting when placed in the context of an earlier meeting he had this past week. Congressman John Beohner visited Gaddafi to advance deals developing Libyan oil and gas infrastructure, and the visitors reportedly “saluted the efforts of the Guide for the Libyan revolution in consolidating peace and stability in the world.” Reading such sincerely delivered flattery is neck-snapping, though understandably there is need for polite manners with your host, or on the other hand, you could just not go. Gaddafi, however, probably believed them, then went home and stayed awake all night worrying about the attention and what else it might bring in the dark of night from the air over Tripoli. His solicitation of unity from the A.L. may come from a sense of self-defense and preservation. He wants his nightmares to go away.

The West’s recently (2006) new friend, having sworn off nuclear energy, WMDs and the financing of Lockerbie airplane bombings has been promoting the unification of much of Africa under one government. He has also been driving a separate unity bus attempting to get leaders of the oil and petro-dollar rich Arab world in general to climb aboard. It’s a refrain they have all heard for decades from this authoritarian ruler, who’s power and leverage rest under his sands, like much of the all-powerful monarchies controlling Arab states, or dynastic ruling families who used revolution to take power. America and Israel have long been whipping posts for distraction. Deflecting blame is an indulgent and self serving element of human nature that becomes so much more pronounced when one aspires to preserve inherited or abducted power and wealth.

America is often accused by Middle Eastern countries of opposing Arab unity, however, this blame ignores the fact that it is, and has been, in the interest of all these monarchies, califates and authoritarian regimes to maintain a certain distance from one another. Their political roots are neither deep nor wide and they stare with suspicion at one another across all their borders. The dis-unified status quo has been de rigueur for all of them and the maintenance of power over the wealth beneath their feet is tenuous. Wars and dissent between Arab states have long been justification for martial laws and the overriding of civil liberties. Unity of consent on crude oil prices is about the limit of co-operation. Where men would be kings, there is no seat in the room for unity. The poorer Arab countries have little say in the unity discussion and all they can expect is an occasional handout from wealthy neighbors. There will be peace in the Middle East when Arab leaders of the rich states will it so. Until then kings and princes will oblige photo to all comers, even Putin, striving to establish international credentials as peace makers for candidacy to higher office.

Consummate harmony between dominions is only truly achieved when there is broad based consensus prevalent throughout a population, whether it be between two countries or a dozen. Gaddafi’s version of unity is unity between potentates. To Gaddafi’s dismay there is no such prospect on any radar, and currently most Arab countries have sent Syria to the closet to do penance for its incursion in Lebanon and its rapprochement with Iran. Many of the wealthy leaders politely declined presence at the current Arab League meeting in Damascus, feigning meetings of greater import and urgency. “In any case, what’s to discuss? Oil prices are trending nicely and there’s a new museum opening in honor of my greatness and beneficence.”

All of civilization can affirm gratitude for Arab contribution to society’s advancement in the panoply of human endeavors from agriculture and architecture to the arts and mathematics. Yet much of that contribution dates back to the Middle Ages. While Gaddafi congratulates himself as a benevolent dictator, he and his peers don’t indulge much light into their realms. Today there are unrealized dreams across the Arab cultural landscape that will slowly surface as education, supplanted by the internet, reverses the suppression of thought and ideas. Creativity will then flourish along with productivity, self confidence and self fulfillment. The internet’s role in the process will be to stimulate interaction and debate across borders and substantiate premises presented by slow to evolve educational systems. Strength and promise of a country, or of a culture, is rooted in the development of the individual. Positive contribution to the broader global community is then an extension of that development. It becomes a contribution rooted in confidence, not restrained by fear. In the meantime, we will continue to watch Gaddafi verbally acknowledge his intimate understanding that there is aegis and security in numbers.

.... Read more!