Time of crisis: Royal vs Political leadership

I cannot help but weigh in on the controversy of the comments made by US President Barack Obama at a prayer breakfast last week. Addressing the group of his country’s most powerful church leaders, the President began his speech by talking about America’s historical role in the setting the precedent for separation of Church and State and also made much of America’s early Christian values. He then proceeded to make reference to the current situation going on the Middle East speaking about the barbaric acts committed by various groups in the name of Islam, most of his references concerned the terrorist organization known as ISIS. What was really controversial however was when he all of a sudden changed his tune from speaking about Muslims and decided to attack Christianity instead, basically telling the leaders of Christendom that the Islamic state is not to be condemned as the Christian faith itself has a bad history by carrying on the Crusades  in the Dark Ages and also approving of slavery and the slave trade all over the Americas centuries later.

                  

As one can expect the Church and particularly conservative Christians were rightly incensed by the President’s comparison of Christians and these terrorists. It’s not to say that whatever he said was totally false as history itself bears witness to the truth of both the crusades and slavery. But rather one cannot help but question, what motivated him to make such an utterance, surely this was not some offhand comment but rather was clearly crafted and its intention was deliberate. I put it to you that Mr. Obama purposely decided to hit out at the church right on their own turf. Obama knew perfectly well what he was doing, he wanted to be controversial, he wanted to stick it to the right wing where it hurts. He however did more than that however. As one GOP senator so ably put it, President Obama by his very comments had poured insult on every single Christian in the US by his comments, whether his intention was to go that far cannot be ascertained but that’s precisely what he ended up doing.  

       

The president’s comments were seen as a double edged sword for many, insulting Christians and in support of Islamic values. This then leads many to question, “whose side is he really on, ours or theirs?” It is most certainly not the first time that President Obama has made comments sympathetic towards to the Islamic cause. In fact he has done it so many times that he is dubbed as the first “Muslim President of the United States” as he has been more accepting of Islamic values than all his 42 predecessors combined. In a nation however that still has a Christian majority, this has never boded well and given that Christianity has historically been seen as part of American core values , Obama’s speech has led to him being dubbed as Anti-American.

This view of the President and his outlook cannot be good for him at all, as it makes him look very out of touch with his country’s values. Had the comments made been echoed by the leader of a Middle Eastern nation, then it would have been less controversial given that this region of the world is dominated by Muslims. But for the leader of any western nation to make such a comment speaks volumes and raises serious questions for many.

         

Other western political  leaders, while not as blatant as Obama have also done very little in condemning the waving tide of radical Islam that is now sweeping Western nations by storm and instead seems to adhere to neo-Marxist doctrine of multiculturalism that seeks to preach acceptance while tradition western values and societies are being run into the ground. Thankfully one man has taken up the charge of defending Christianity and Western civilization, none other than His Royal Highness Charles, Prince of Wales. The heir to the throne has taken the initiative, speaking against the rising tide of Islam in the west, decrying multicultural propaganda by insisting the Muslims adapt or leave the UK and most importantly of all defending the rights of Christians in the Middle East who though now a minority have always been allowed to peacefully coexist with their Muslim neighbours until the rise of the terrorists. The Prince through his ingenuity has pushed leaped and bounds, in an era where many of even Europe’s royals seems intent on keeping quiet, he has decided that he would be the voice of the voiceless Christian minority in that part of the world. No doubt his comments would have ruffled some feathers among the political elite especially in the UK, who seems intent on shutting up like everybody else and remaining blind to the tragedy unfolding before their eyes. Prince Charles however is pushing the envelope, boldly stating what no other western leader be they royal or political seems to have the guts to say and for that he has my absolute support.

               

Another royal who also deserves to be commended for tackling this issue head on is His Majesty the King of Jordan.  Though the leader of a Muslim nation, Jordan’s Muslims have often been more of a sensible bunch than say the lot that runs ISIS and other terror groups. This must be mainly as a result of their stance on Sharia law and the radical violence that comes with it. King Abdullah in recent times has stepped up the plate as the leading opponent of ISIS in the region and is doing whatever it takes to stamp out this threat and make both the region and the world a safer place.

            

At the end of the day, one thing is sure. As King Abdullah rightly pointed out, this state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue. Comments like those made by Obama are of no help. National leaders are meant to boost morale, not tear them down, which sadly is precisely what the president seems to be intent on doing. Thankfully with men like King Abdullah and Prince Charles out there, there are still voices of reason, voices of hope.  Royal men who are not willing stand idly by and watch the world burn under the threat of Islamists but are whatever they can to pick  up the slack left sorely lacking by many political leaders in the west. After all as the old saying goes, “The only way that evil can triumph is when good men stand by and do nothing”. 

No CCJ without referendum

I guess regular readers of the Jamaican Tory have been wondering, where I have been for over half a year now and more importantly what could have been so urgent to call their favourite blogger back into action after all this time. For those who have been following the news, it is no secret that the Jamaican Parliament is preparing to vote on the long stinging issue of the final court of appeal. Chapter VII of Jamaica’s constitution states that final judicial authority is rest with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London which also serves as a final court for several other Commonwealth countries. This arrangement has not seated well with several segments of the political elite who wish to remove this part of our constitution and replace the court with something more local.

          

 Ironically the alternative is not truly local at all but instead the dissenters prefer to turn to the Trinidad based Caribbean Court of Justice which was set up via the 2005 Revised Treaty of Chagaramus (RTC). The court already has primary jurisdiction over matters relating to the RTC and other matters relating to other internal CARICOM affairs. It also serves as the final court for CARICOM states such as Belize, Barbados and Guyana whilst other countries are considering joining the courts appellate jurisdiction.

         

I know what I’m going to say next will shock many of my readers but personally speaking I have no real problem with establishing the CCJ as the final court of appeal in Jamaica providing the proper channels are followed. I have listened to arguments both for and against the removal of the JCPC and so have come to this stance. Having the CCJ as a final court would give us better access to the final court of jurisdiction as it would cost individuals far less to travel to Port of Spain for appeals as opposed to travelling to London. 2. Should all CARICOM states accept the CCJ it would bind us even closer as a regional unit which was always the aim of CARICOM and especially the CSME. 3.  As a member of CARICOM member, Jamaica is already obliged to contribute to the upkeep of the CSME, so why not make use of it given that we still have to pay for it in any case. 4. It is no secret the JCPC would much prefer to lessen the appeals coming to them from Commonwealth (especially Caribbean) states, they have said as much in the past, so in other words it’s really a case of no love lost should we leave.

 

Regardless of all said above, it is totally unacceptable for any government that decides that it’s going to run roughshod over the people and do as it likes without following the proper procedure, this is precisely what the People’s National Party is trying to do by insisting that a two-thirds majority vote in Parliament  is enough pass such a law. How convenient for them to come up with this idea, knowing perfectly well that they already hold such a majority in both House and Senate. As Andrew Holness and the Jamaican Labour Party have constantly pointed out (and rightly so) is that the people should be ones to decide for themselves what they want in a referendum. The constitution has always firmly upheld that it is right of the Queen’s subjects of appeal to their Sovereign and to have judgements rendered on the Queen’s behalf by the Lords of Her Majesty’s Council. How dare any government presume to take away that right without consulting the people who will be affected by this? I have heard arguments for and against the JCPC or CCJ and also for and against the referendum. Whilst I take some of the arguments for removing the Privy Council into consideration, nobody has ever been able to convince me as to why the people shouldn’t have a say in the matter, and to imagine that this is the same PNP that campaigned on the notion of “People Power”, only goes to show what a bunch of hypocrites they are.

            

And while on the topic of hypocrisy, I cannot help but wonder if this is what my regular readers would think of me, given that I’m well known to be a monarchist and have proudly reiterated that fact time and again. Contrary to popular opinion, removal of the JCPC is not and has never been akin to republicanism. In fact moving the CCJ might well serve to strengthen the monarchy’s position rather than weaken it. Republicans have always loved to hearken on the matter of judicial sovereignty as an excuse to get rid of the monarchy, having a judicial authority vested in the CCJ whilst retaining the monarchical form of government will then show that such a system can work and so prove republicans for the liars that they truly are as has been the case in Belize and Barbados where the CCJ serves of the final court of appeal yet republican sentiment is significantly weak on the flip side of the coin there is Dominica and Trinidad (yes you read that right, the very same Trinidad which is the headquarters of the CCJ) both of which have been republics since the 1970s and yet still continue to appeal to the Privy Council.

In closing I have but several questions to ask of those who support the PNP’s position “ Why keep stalling on the referendum?”, If they were so confident that what they are doing was truly in  the people’s best interest, then why not just get the referendum over and done with? “What are they so afraid of?” “Is it that they have so little faith in Jamaicans to choose their own destinies?” Parliament is supposed to our representatives not our overlords and therefore they have absolutely no right to make any such changes to our constitution without seeking the approval of the will of the people. 

Global Power Shift

Even though it was just over  three months ago that I predicted that China would soon overtake the United States as the largest and most powerful economy in the world (see http://jamaicatory.blogspot.com/2014/07/brics-challenging-status-quo.html) to  be frank I was  still shocked to see an IMF report last week declaring that the People’s Republic of China was now the world’s number economic power ending  142 years of US economic dominance

According the latest statistics the Chinese economy is worth $17.61 trillion compared with $17.4 trillion for the U.S. taking a lead in industries such as manufacturing, finances, services, trade etc, which of course means that the margin is not a very large one right now, but given that the US has allowed anyone to overtake them says much about the state of the American economy.

          

Let’s face it, the writing has been on the wall for years and anyone who thinks differently is only fooling themselves, the fall of America and the subsequent rise of China is due to actions on the part of each nation and their governments. The simple fact of the matter is while the Chinese economy continued to strengthen, the US has been in decline this is due to several factors including the decline in US manufacturing with the outsourcing so many jobs that were once in the US, the raising of the debt ceiling (who can forget the shutdown of Congress late last year), the massive debt that they now owe to China in particular and the rise in unemployment just to name a few. China on the other hand has been strengthening it’s economy by large scale manufacturing funded by cheap labour, having tight controls on its currency which keeps it artificially lower than market value, extensive exports which leads to massive trade surpluses with every country that it has trading relations it and also taking the initiative to forge new links into previously untapped markets making China a success story overnight.

It goes without saying that this latest revelation by the IMF may of course have serious implications for the structure of global politics, if the US is no longer the global economic superpower as it once was how will this affect it’s global standing? As former president Ronald Reagan once state weakness at home leads to weakness abroad. The implications that this could have for America’s position in the world could be detrimental, if it is they cannot even command control of the global economy anymore, how can America’s allies truly trust that it can live up to its other obligations?.

Of course I could be very much pre-mature in my judgment here (although I highly doubt it), when the United States first became the world’s top economy in 1872, The British Empire still held sway over much of the world where it was said that the Sun never sets in the Empire and  Britannia still ruled the waves, it took nearly 75 years after this for the world to start truly seeing the decline in British political and military power regardless of the fact the US economy was still outperforming that the UK itself, perhaps  the same situation might play out again or perhaps this time the decline will take place even faster. After all let’s face it while the Chinese economy is growing at an exponential rate, it is also said that this growth is unsustainable given how it rose in the first place, let’s also consider that Chinese have truly been interested in pursuing global hegemony but focused primarily on it’s own economic interest (a key ingredient of it’s economic success) which of means that regardless of now having the world’s strongest economy, the Chinese may have no intention of taking on a global leadership world unlike US which has a  foreign policy of American exceptionalism seeing itself as leader of the free world and the like.

Regardless of the efforts of liberals to defend the presidency of Barack Obama it is quite clear from the figures here and all is not so white in the White House, in fact it was reported that the White House was completely caught off guard by the news, it was as if they didn't  know what hit them, yet liberals still continue to harp on their story that President Obama’s economic policy is better than Reagan, really? How they can come to such a ghastly conclusion only heaven knows, but one thing is clear however, if I did know before what a set of blind idiots liberal advocates and Obama apologist are then last week certainly cleared up any misconceptions I had in that regard.

With USA and the rest of the world focusing on either happenings in Middle East with regards to ISIS or on the Ebola crisis on Africa, economic concerns certainly seems to take a backseat concern however the implications of this are not to be taken lightly as many pundits are now beginning to class the 21^st century as the Chinese (just as how the 19^th century had belonged to the British and the 20^th to the Americans), it remains to be see how the US will now respond to this extremely real threat to it's "global superiority" or is it a case that the days of US hegemony are numbered and it's time to make way for the rise of a new superpower. 

Scottish Independence: A Naive Dream:

I cannot help but weigh in on the debate going on in the United Kingdom following the impending referendum on whether Scotland should become an independent nation which would of course put an end to the entity we now know as the United Kingdom and change the political face of Britain and Europe for years to come (assuming of course that the yes vote is passed), however after taking a look at some of the issues put forward by these Scottish nationalist, I’m convinced that the campaign is more of a scare tactic than anything else filled mostly with Anti-English sentiment and does not represents at all the facts. I’m by no means blaming the Scottish National Party (SNP) for all the misconceptions out there but one thing is clear is that the Scots will be by no means better off should the vote go in SNP’s favour. 

                 

                                                                                                                                                             Many Anglophobes not only in Scotland but all over the world will no doubt be keen to support the ambitions of the SNP to be an independent country for no other reason than the fact that they still view English control of Scotland as a symbol of national subordination, but those who do take this view do not truly understand the nature of the relationship between the two Kingdoms, in truth England does not dominate Scotland any more than Scotland rules England, the union between the two entities is not a forced one but one of mutual corporation. Contrary to popular myths told to stir up anti-British sentiments England has never annexed Scotland instead the union between them is one that was approved by the parliaments of both countries to end hostilities and make the Realm a much stronger union than they would have had they remained separate. The 1707 act of union is every bit Scotland’s doing as it is England’s, in fact  Scotland was so keen to have the union of the two Kingdoms just to ensure that the English Parliament  didn't change the rules concerning the royal line of succession which was in dispute of the time.

        

                                                                                                                      

And while on the topic of the monarchy, it is no secret that Anti-royalists would love nothing better than to  see  the split-up of England and Scotland because for them the monarchy is a key symbol of English control over Scottish life and so it would be better for Scotland should it be gotten rid, even now in Scotland, members of the SNP continue to debate on what role the Queen would have in the new constitution, some members favour retaining the Queen and installing a Sottish Governor-General to represent the Queen (similar to what we have here in Jamaica),  others however speak openly about having a Scottish Republic as the Queen of England should have no place in the Scotland they wish to build, this argument while it looks appealing to those of a liberal mind-set is flawed to more reasons than one, first of all  There has not been a “Queen of England” since 1707 the concept of both the English and Scottish monarchies has been retired to the history books for over 300 years, Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom and not Queen of England which she has been erroneously styled over the years and secondly The current British royal family is every bit as Scottish as a matter of fact some might say they’re even more Scottish than English as the current line started when James VI of Scotland was crowned King of England in 1603 after the House of Tudor died with Elizabeth I, any notion that the union came about as a result of English royalty holding control of Scotland is totally false in truth it is a Scottish royal family that reigns in England and thus over the entire United Kingdom, a fact I’m sure many SNP supporters would rather forget as it would not help their cause to break up the union.  

                                                                Whether the Scot nationalists will admit it or not, the union has served them as well as it has served the English both in terms of security  as well as financially, the British Isles went through its greatest period of prosperity as a united entity not a divided one, it’s quite hypocritical for  them  to go criticizing England for being a colonial power when it was every bit as complicit in this old colonial policy,  nobody has ever hard an English Empire before but the British Empire was world famous during  its heyday, for them to now disavow any ties to make and make it look as though it’s all England’s fault is truly disingenuous.  Even now in this post-colonial age, Scotland would still be far better off within the union than outside it for this so for several reasons:                                                                                         

 a. Record low interest rates and the fastest growing economy in the G7  and the EU means  the United Kingdom would have a stronger economic power than either England or Scotland can ever hope to be on its own,                                                                                                                           

b. The UK has a stable currency in the pound and also a stable tax regulatory system,                                

c. They have access to larger job and product markets  by remaining in the union,                                                                        
 d. Many public services in the UK are subsidised by the Westminster led government, to end the union would mean Sottish people would have to pay more to access the same services                                          
e. Regardless of no longer being a world empire, the UK still has major influence on the world stage having a major voice in entities like the G8, G20, NATO and not to mention a permanent seat on the UN security council                                                                                                                                                       
f. Having a united Britain would mean that the capacity of the British Isles to defend themselves  would much greater than it would be should the kingdoms decide to go their separate ways.

There is no way I could end this article without talking about the effect that the Scottish independence will have on the EU, The story told by the SNP is that Scotland will finally have its own independent voice in the European Union in truth Scotland will have no voice in the EU as several  countries have already threatened to veto Scotland’s entry into the EU should it secede so as not to encourage secessionist movements in their own countries, what the SNP tries to portray as the ultimate goal of Scotland will turn out to be their worst nightmare instead as no entry to the EU will mean that Scots will not enjoy the privileges of EU citizenship such as market access and freedom of movement all of which are privileges they now enjoy as part of the UK, it’s little wonder that the business community in Scotland is pushing for a “no vote”  as they have already seen the writing on the wall.       

                                                                                                                                                               

  The Question that the SNP and their collaborators must ask themselves, apart from bragging rights, what will be the real benefit to the Scottish people? Are they really willing to risk all on the altar of political expediency in a world which such an uncertain future?, is not the UK a much stronger and more stable option for everyone not only in Scotland, but also in England, Wales and Northern Ireland?. Independence as an ideal sounds good on paper as it tells the story of struggle and freedom, the story liberation from domination and the chance to decide one’s own destiny, all good sounding ideals but anyone who’s been following the SNP campaign will see that their dream is rather idealistic with little practical thought process going involved as they have yet to come up any concrete benefit that this will have on the Scottish people as opposed to remaining in the union. So on September 18, 2014 the people of the Kingdom of Scotland have a decision to make when a referendum is called, one can only hope that they judge carefully and weigh the facts instead of being swayed by sentiment and by doing so will end up making the right call. 

Republican Hypocrisy

The ignorance and arrogance of republicans never ceases to amaze me as they never miss an opportunity to spread their propaganda and espouse their philosophy. Late last week it was announced that former Antiguan Governor-General unilaterally awarded knighthoods to several undeserving persons on her very last day in office, this act was of course a contravention of Antigua’s’ Awards Act and furthermore as the designated stand-in of Antigua’s constitutional monarch, Dame Louise had no authority to act on her own except in cases where she was constitutionally mandated to use the Crown’s reserve powers in a state of emergency. This however was far from the case and as such her use of her vice-regal powers in this manner on the very day that her term was slated to end was totally inappropriate, regardless of her feelings towards the government of the day.
                                               

There are speculations that all of this sprung from the inability of the former Governor-General to get along with the new Prime Minister and his government, hence the reason why he advised the Queen to recall her and appoint another in her place a decision that seemed quite unpopular with many of the people at least until the former GG’s response which turned public opinion against her with some even going as far as to claim that it’s not the first time that she’s acted in a nepotistic manner while in office. Whatever the truth of the story may be it is quite clear that is merely an issue of personalities and different opinions between the Dame Louise Lake-Tack and Prime Minister Gaston Brown.

                               

This view has been skewed by republicans who claim that the dispute is not merely one  between the persons involved but more importantly this is a conflict between the offices of the Prime Minister and Governor-General thus it would be better for one of these offices to be abolished, (they of course suggested doing away with the GG). Nothing of course could be further from the truth, regardless of this one single error in judgement, Dame Louise has served well in office for many years and with different political administrations at the helm, Mr. Brown on the other hand has so far been getting along very well with the newly installed GG, any issue between them was solely a matter of difference in opinion between the two. As for the knighthoods awarded, the Prime Minister has already advised the new Governor-General as to how these awards should be treated and for now they are being scrutinized by the committee set up by the Awards Act to deal with such matters, those who deserved to be knighted will be properly recognised by the Queen’s representative while the rest will be treated as never having been granted at all, thus showing that contrary to the lie told by republicans, the system does in fact work the way it was meant to.

                               
Monarchist oftentimes use the old  saying “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it” to defend their stance, anti-royals however often claim that it is in fact broke and so needs to be thrown away. This latest call (which is in fact comes from a vocal minority) reminds me of demonstrations against the monarchy in Spain over the King’s hunting incident and also other times when the actions of individual monarchs have been used by republicans to propagate their own movement, such as blaming German Emperor Wilhem II for the World War One or King Constantine II of Greece for letting a military junta take over the country conveniently enough these same republicans often times forget that Germany underwent its worst period of dictatorship during its republican days with Hitler as Chancellor and don’t even get me started on how the leaders of the Hellenic Republic ruined the economy, while republicans openly acknowledge that something did go wrong, they blame the individual leaders rather than the office they hold.

                                 
The hypocrisy of republicans is so amazing that it infuriates me, I’m by no means claiming that monarchs are infallible by virtue of their status I acknowledge that all Heads of State are human regardless of what position they hold and so are prone to error, what I am saying is this, whenever a president does something contrary to his office there are usually calls for him to be impeached and for another to be elected in his place, but in case of a monarch it is not enough for him to be dethroned and for his successor to ascend but rather the custom these days is that if the monarch goes, then the monarchical system is gotten rid of as well, whereas if a president falls the republican system that gave him his authority remains untouched one iota. I shudder to think what would have happened to the Commonwealth Monarchy had Edward VIII been living in the 2010s instead of the 1930s, but it’s highly unlikely that George VI would have been allowed to ascend as republicans would insist that the monarchy has been brought into disrepute while at the same time ignoring the amount of president’s that have brought themselves and their office into disrepute yet their office was allowed to continue with another taking their place.




Republican hypocrisy is also evident in their views on the use of reserve powers by a head of state in a parliamentary system, to illustrate my point take for instance the black power riots in Trinidad in the 1970s where the republicans use the incident to push for a change in the constitution on the thinly veiled excuse that the executive needed broader powers to deal with such issues, in fact there was nothing in the constitution that prevented them from granting such powers to the then Governor-General but they instead claimed that the use of such authority by the Queen’s representative was inappropriate and so it was better to use a figure that represented the people rather than the Queen and so the Governor-General’s post was abolished and replaced with a president who by the way was none other than the former GG himself. That argument about the need of the People’s representative rather than a royal (or viceregal) figure to represent the nation was little more than a smokescreen, the President in Trinidad (and many other parliamentary republics) has NEVER been the people’s representative this so is for two reasons, first of all, many of these republics (Trinidad included) was established without the people’s consent via a popular referendum and secondly most ceremonial presidents are chosen by some electoral college (most likely parliament) and not by popular vote, how then can these republics truly claim collective sovereignty as expressed by the term “We the people”, when these very same people who are supposedly sovereign don’t even get a chance to decide on who should lead the republic or even whether they want to have a republic at all?.

                      
 The truth is that the republican agenda is little more than a smokescreen for politicians and their associate to ascend the nation’s highest office under the false claim of being a symbol of democracy, unity and non-partisan nature of the state when in truth this role is best when being performed by a monarch as the German philosopher Max Weber once very wisely put it, “ a constitutional monarch fulfils a role that a president never can, it limits politicians thirst for power because the highest office of the state is already occupied once and for all”.

Threatening Rise of Radical Islam

Sometime last week I got a rather rude shock after seeing a story in which former US President Jimmy Carter called on the United States and its allies in the European Union to legally recognize Hamas as a legitimate political actor instead of being merely a terrorist organisation as was traditionally thought.

This development of course is rather disturbing for one single reason, Hamas isn't called Terrorist simply because it is Palestinian or Islamic, if that were the case Fatah would certainly be designated in a similar manner, the truth is that Hamas’ reputation as a terrorist organisation is well deserved as over the years this very movement has been in the very forefront of insurgency activities in that region of the world. Giving recognition to such an entity would not solve the crisis as Carter claims but instead would only serve to make matters worse.

                       

What the ex-President fails to get is that giving Hamas recognition would serve to strengthen not only them but other Islamist groups that make similar claims which would be extremely dangerous in the era where the rise of radical Islam is becoming such a powerful force in the Middle East and even beyond. One needs only to take a look at Egypt under Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood to see how quickly a country can go downhill when a government which such radical views take over, it wasn't very long before the people of Egypt finally had enough and so deposed him via a coup d’état.

                                     

And as if that’s not proof enough just take a good look at what’s going on in Syria where rebels present themselves as freedom fighters are now locked in a struggle to overthrow the government and seize power for themselves . Regardless of efforts by the liberal media to put their own spin on things and vilify Assad it is quite clear that the Syrian rebels are not as noble as they appear to be. These same groups  are known to be in league with terrorists organisations across the Middle East along with advocacy of an Islamic republic along the lines of Iran and persecution of religious minorities make them unfit to be the governing anybody at all, yet they are continuously aided by the liberal powers of the West.

                             

Of course nothing serves as greater proof to illustrate my point than the rise of the new radical self-styled Caliphate known as ISIS, this group takes evil to a whole new level so much so that even Al Qaeda and the Taliban want nothing to do with the likes of them. This group of unstable lunatics even go as far as to claim that they have the “right” to govern all Muslims in the world and seek to extend their control over the entire Islamic community worldwide. This kind of thinking has precarious not only for the Middle East but also for Western countries that now possess an alarmingly high number of Muslim immigrants.

                        

The rise of Islamic actors as a political and cultural force in Europe is an especially worrying trend as little by little traditional European culture is being undermined the face of this alien invasion of their sovereignty so much so to the point where they’re being given special treatment and are even now demanding more. A few months ago a story broke that the British courts now recognised Sharia law as valid in cases in regarding Muslims and even this week announced that a Muslim man who has more than one wife can even claim benefits of these wives, this of course raises several questions such as the legality of polygamy and the welfare system in the UK where immigrants are entitled to more benefits than legal taxpaying British subjects. Elsewhere in Europe is facing similar challenges whereas Muslims feels as though they’re not obliged to obey the law of the land even going as far as to advocate for the setting up of separate Islamic states in Europe similar to what happened in Norway earlier this week. These same factors combined with the rise of ISIS and the strong possibility that such a movement could spread in their vindictive attempt to spread their world domination propaganda is exactly what makes Mr. Carter’s comments so ill advised. Whether the liberals want to face it or not Hamas was a terrorist group upon foundation and it is still one today or is the so called famous saying that “The United States does not negotiate with Terrorist” no longer applicable.

                       

Of course all I have just written here is merely a tip of the iceberg in this rather long saga of radical Islam and the apparent Apathy (maybe even Sympathy) that liberals in the west seem to have for the likes of them while ignoring the cries for help of Christians who are undergoing serious persecution as a result of their faith. Until Western governments wake up and realize how serious this threat is then I’m afraid we will continue to have this threat hanging over our heads for years to come.

BRICS challenging status quo

The International Economic Order is seriously shaking up and getting ready for a complete overhaul, the signs of this became apparent this week when the world’s leading emerging markets Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa had what some deem as the audacity to openly challenge the existing status quo by announcing that they were going to form their own versions of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which they will call the New Development Bank.

                      

What is the purpose of the NDB? Some might ask, well it’s quite simple the New Development Bank is an institution set up to help these nations and other emerging markets pursue their own economic interests in areas such as regional trade, investment and infrastructure development, domestic job creation and poverty reduction. What makes this institution unique is that it has absolutely no ties to any of the major western powers but is built specifically with the concerns of developing countries in mind (or at least that’s what they claim), the BRICS countries have not been  shy to point out that structural adjustment programmes have not always worked given it’s “one size fits all” approach which is impossible to do because every country is inherently different, it’s problems are different and thus the solutions to fixing this problem should be just as varied, hence the need for the NDB.

        

Anyone who has been following the trend of the world economy lately should not at all be surprised that this has come to pass,  truth be told then writing was already on the wall, the emergence of these news players on the economic stage has been long coming, China is predicted to take over from the US as the world’s most powerful economy, while Russia and India don’t seem very far behind, issues that are of importance to the International Political Economy have moved from discussions at G7/G8  to summits for the G20 which includes all the BRICS countries, the US, Japan and Western Europe who’s economic supremacy once went unchecked and unchallenged are now finding themselves stiffly competing with these new players particularly China who will soon no doubt become (if not already) the new manufacturing capital of the world.

The formation of NDB is far more than just an economic statement, more importantly it is a political statement after years of simply undermining the existing political-economic order as established by the Bretton Woods system, they’ve now decided to openly defy the status quo for all the world to see, knowing full well that there’s not a single thing the West can do to push back against this challenge to its supremacy, this is a war of words, a war of ideas,  a battle for control of the world’s economy which the US and company are sorely loosing.  

                         

Of course all this could simply be my speculating, maybe the US and its allies don’t really see it as a threat  to the continuation of its own institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, maybe they have no ill feelings toward the establishment of this new BRICS owned entity that they cannot control like they have been doing with similar institutions for the last 70 odd years, but one thing is certain though, there was a time when no nation (or alliance of nations) would ever dare to try something like this but times have certainly changed and soon developing countries will be signing up to join, given their disillusion with institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank which they don’t see as acting in their own best interest.

                      

The implications are numerous as far the setting up of the New Development Bank is concerned as is the implications of how it will be received which right now are bordering on cautiously optimistic, very little is certain but one thing that is certain however is that the influence of the traditional powers significantly waning and thus making way for a new world order.